Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

F3nd0 wrote

  • GNUnet, which aims to replace the internet protocol stack to bulid a better, distributed network. Also SecuShare, which aims to build a social platform on top of this network. The people behind these projects seem like they have a very good vision of what needs to be done, and they put important values such as freedom and privacy at the core of it. Out of everyone trying to fix the broken internet, it seems to me they can do the best.
  • GNU Guix, which is a package manager for GNU distributions, independent of any of them. It can allow for easy package distribution and installation, has many neat functions, is written in Lisp, and has a distribution of its own (called “GuixSD”) built around it.
  • GNU Ring, which is a distributed communication platform, featuring audio/video calls, and (rather wonky) text messaging. It's somewhat buggy, but is a neat project, and should stabilize over the time.
  • PeerTube, which aims to be a distributed video streaming platform, similar to YouTube in its apparent purpose. It's still young and lacks crucial functions, but appears to be on a good path.
  • Pijul, which is a distributed version control system, similar to Git or Darcs in their purpose. It should be more solid and simple than Git, which I find complex and unfriendly, from my occassional usage.
6

jadedctrl wrote

IPFS, aftermarketos. I think the distributed net is the future, even if it's generations away, and is definitely something to work towards. Also, it's rad as hell. Same goes to aftermarketos. I mean, LiGNUx on a smart-phone? Hell yes!

5

surreal wrote

Redox-os, trying to learn Rust to be able to contribute one day. Also GNUNet excites me but this too is far from being actually usable.

4

Fossidarity wrote

I can highly recommend learning Rust, I came from a strong C background with a bit of C++ and Rust has been such a bliss to me. The library manager (Cargo), the safety and the compiler messages make it such a big improvement over the languages I used before.

4

F3nd0 wrote

Redox seems neat technology-wise, but I think a pushover licence (such as “MIT/Expat”, which it uses) is a terrible choice for such a big project. At least it's what's keeping me from feeling anyhow excited about it, and away from it in general.

4

Fossidarity wrote

I'm pretty excited about Redox but this is the thing holding me back going crazy about it. Somehow the license issue is less stringent because it's a microkernel so the drivers on top of it can still be copyleft, but yeah, permissive licenses for software are a bad idea, especially with kernels. A good example of this is Minix and Intel's use of it in the ME system.

3

surreal wrote

1

F3nd0 wrote (edited )

Thank you. It seems to me they don't care much whether the users end up free or not. Ticki implies they would also appreciate people building non-libre software on top of Redox. That's a terrible approach to have in a project like Redox. It is a responsibility of every software developer to care about the users' freedom.

They have raised some valid practical issues. I believe those may be resolved by weak copyleft, which has already been proposed in the thread. Unless they correct this error, I feel I can't wish them success, because too much would be at stake.

3

surreal wrote

It's sad that we even need licenses to make something FOSS. Big companies don't give a shit about licenses anyway, they have been abusing the GPL for decades because the foundations (if any) behind any FOSS project cannot bear the costs of a court battle. FOSS exists because free and open knowledge is the only way forward in any science and not because it has licenses.

1

malifica wrote

QubesOS. Eventually security-by-isolation is going to be practiced by everyone.

and like.............. OMEMO? It’s pretty cool I guess?