Hot take: If you claim to be against all the big tech abuses and value software and computing freedom, but a handful of PC games is enough to stop you from leaving an abusive proprietary OS, you weren’t very serious about it to begin with.

The guy in the video actually talked about how FL Studio isn't on Linux, and that's how he makes his living. He then goes on to say he has spent thousands of dollars on plugins and samples that only work on Windows. He then talks about how Asperite doesn't work very well on Wayland compared to Windows. The first segment was about how not all mods work on Linux. The last segment was about how Foobar2000 doesn't work on Linux and even through Wine some of the features are broken, and there's no true replacement for it but "if you're not as fussy as me, any of these native Linux software are great".

He also runs Debian 12 on his laptop part-time and seems quite knowledgeable about how Linux works, and is willing to invest the time.

He makes a point about he "wants to make things better, not sacrifice things".

It's the fault of copyright. Restricting what shows you can stream to your users instead of, for example, being required to pay a royalty, inevitably leads to this situation. Netflix being the sole company allowed to stream every show and film would result in a monopoly that would be bad for everyone as they progressively sought to increase profits year over year. One company having all that power would not be a good thing for anyone, including content holders.

The solution is simple: every streaming service should be allowed to stream every show/film in every country. Then, piracy can only compete on price. That requires significant copyright reform, however, and is very unlikely to happen.

I don't disagree, but this video is absolutely worth the watch. I've read a fair bit on X history but there's a lot in here I didn't know specifics of or didn't know about at all.

Kernel-level anti-cheat drivers for games, mainly.

Fossify Messages has a release on Github too.

You’ll try it and it’s going to end up in the drawer of unfinished projects.

Guilty as charged.

It took an hour or two to compile and takes up about 5GB of space. The only program I'm really interested in is Xcode, which doesn't work at the moment.

In fairness, it's so there's a log of why the machine was shut down. It's for the sysadmins in charge rather than Microsoft. In practice, most people just choose "Other" as the reason so it's fairly useless. I have no idea if there's a way to turn it off, though.

They should make a search engine. If Kagi can do it, why can’t Mozilla?

The biggest provider of Kagi's results is Google. They are unique in that they have their own Tinygem and Teclis indexes to augment results, though. Mozilla could certainly operate a plain Google proxy like Mullvad does with Leta, but I don't think they'd be making more money out of it than just agreeing to Google's exclusive terms.

Building a search engine with an independent index is hard. Mojeek has done the best job of it, but you can tell there's a disparity in result quality even if they're improving.

Forty years ago, Richard Stallman announced the plan to develop the GNU operating system

This is completely true. The GNU Project's plan was to build an operating system in 1983, and they intended to call it GNU. The fact that they didn't build every tool for the operating system doesn't change their goal or the work they put into it. We have GNU Guix now, an operating system "entirely composed of free software", so mission accomplished?

I've only used CrossOver on Linux and actually find it harder to use than Lutris. There's some crazy stuff like needing to declare environment variables inside a configuration file instead of having a GUI for it. But if you look at CodeWeavers' blog and release notes, you'll see them constantly making changes to improve gaming on macOS. That's where they seem to be devoting most of their energy these days. CrossOver on Linux worked for Microsoft Office when I needed to use it, but that was the only reason I bought it.

I still think it was a worthwhile purchase, if only to support further Wine development. CodeWeavers has a great article about the differences between CrossOver and other Wine distributions: https://www.codeweavers.com/blog/alasky/2019/3/21/wine-crossover-and-proton-whats-the-relation

PlayOnLinux is no longer under active development (even Phoenics seems to have been stale for a while now), and Steam's Proton, Lutris, or Bottles are what you should use on Linux nowadays.

This is good advice. For example, here's a tricky one: https://github.com/IanLunn/Hover/blob/master/license.txt

Hover.css is made available under a free personal/open source or paid commercial licenses depending on your requirements.

Would you need to pay Ian Lunn Design to incorporate the library into your portfolio website? It's used for a commercial purpose technically, but you're not selling the website to a client. This is a source-available license, rather than a free software license. A free software license permits you to use the software for anything, with the only obligations usually being around keeping copyright notices intact and licensing your code in a certain way.

Generally, free software licenses are simpler and you'll usually be fine so long as you keep your code available under the same terms. Of course, things get a bit tricky when combining incompatible free software licenses...

Compatibility is important if you want to combine software with two different licenses into one major work.

Generally speaking, most software on Github tends to be licensed under a few free software licenses, which are interoperable with each other:

• MIT License
• GPL, LGPL, and AGPL Licenses, which have one major difference in obligations between them
• ISC License
• Apache 2.0 License
• Mozilla 2.0 Public License

However, when you combine MIT and GPL together, you may be obligated to distribute any changes you make to the MIT-licensed portion, depending on how strongly it's associated with the GPL portion. This is because the GPL is copyleft—that is, it requires you to provide anyone you transmit the binary form of the software to the associated sources if they ask for them. The MIT license does not require this obligation.

None of this really matters for a website, though, because you're not transmitting the software; you are instead providing a service. Do keep an eye out for the AGPL, because this one applies even with server-side software interacting with clients.

I think writefreesoftware does a good job of explaining licensing for developers in simpler terms than the GNU Project: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/licenses/

Sorry for the length...it's kind of a complex topic.