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.


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.

F3nd0 wrote

A libre program depending on non-libre software is still better than if both were non-libre. And although Firefox (and derivatives) is clearly the first much better option that comes to mind, it might still work with Chrome-compatible browsers, like Iridium (which should be libre, but considering the messy base, I can't vouch for it).


F3nd0 wrote

On flawed treatment of gender: Esperanto is missing several gender-neutral names for various people. That includes family members, clergy, and nobility. Aside of those, no other words are linked to a specific gender. Many proposed solutions have been refused as unacceptable, mostly because of the “Fundamento”.

“Fundamento de Esperanto” is a book where the language's creator defined its basic grammar and vocabulary. He declared it “untouchable”, so that no one may make changes to it, despite any flaws the book may entail. That was done because everyone has their own ideas about the ideal language, and may prefer different a solution to each problem, severely fragmenting the language. Indeed diverse reforms have been proposed for Esperanto, but they were generally refused, and the community has sticked to the Fundamento. This may be a big reason as to why Esperanto has not fallen apart yet, nor has it changed much in essence.

Therefore, I believe defending the Fundamento – with all of its flaws – is entirely reasonable and even necessary. That's not to say there's nothing to be done about the flaws. Fundamento allows for change and evolution of the language, and any solution within those boundaries would generally be acceptable. However, many proposals cross those boundaries, warranting their refusal.

That written, I wish you a pleasant journey with Esperanto! And whenever you see a proposed reform for it, make sure you don't rush to support it before giving things a proper thought. (It's a very common beginner's error!)


F3nd0 wrote

As for gender in Esperanto, I'd recommend using -iĉo for masculine and -ino for feminine nouns. With -iĉo & -ino, every otherwise defaulting-masuline noun is gender-neutral unless otherwise specified.

I strongly advise against this. There's no essential problem with using “-iĉo” to mark male gender, but changing the basic meaning of words defined in the Fundamento needs to be avoided. Instead of doing that, we could have either a new affix which neutralizes the gender, or add new, gender-neutral roots to the existing masculine ones. (Forming new roots by attaching a suffix to the existing ones could work, too.)

Using “ĝi”, on the other hand, is entirely correct and I recommend it as well.