🚀 Seen my posts and want more? Dive deep into the issues with Big Tech at Escape Big Tech!
💡 Need FOSS-focused software solutions? Reach out on Matrix at @dannym:balooga.xyz!
That’s not the issue. You can attempt as many passwords as you want in actually secure password managers as well. KeepassXC for instance IS secure, you can still brute force the password, but because of the hashing algorithm they use it’s extremely hard. With PKZIP if you know some of the words in the file, you can easily guess the password in just a few hours because the encryption algorithm it uses isn’t secure
It is
EDIT: I’m wrong, I don’t know what I was thinking, I misremembered hearing something apparently. Thank you for the corrections
Thank you! More people should do this. It may seem like $5 is nothing, but it’s actually great help. Even $1 helps out FOSS projects, as if even just 1% of the users of such projects donated $1 each month that’d be able to make a good income,
Someone really should maintain a list like that, hosted on multiple non big tech git hosts.
This recent Anti-FOSS propaganda needs to stop
Seconded, and added Haier to my mental list of companies to never buy from.
The UK has a data protection agency? Does the UK know? Have they been asleep for the past 20 years?
How about using LDAP? It’s a bit complicated to learn but it’s easy to integrate it in a bunch of applications and it allows you to manage user accounts and permissions in one central place.
Maybe try LLDAP which is a modern implementation (haven’t used it myself) which is designed to be simplified and I assume more welcoming to newcomers.
Pretty clear you either haven’t read the bill or grossly misunderstood it. What you describe is not proposed legislation - it’s the current reality that individuals and independent repair shops already live with.
The 2024 variant of the bill isn’t actually publicly available online, but here’s last year’s WIP text:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB542
Absolutely, the bill you mentioned is the one I was referring to. It does state that manufacturers must provide documentation, tools, and parts to both independent repairers and owners under fair terms. However, the real issue lies in how “fair and reasonable terms” are interpreted and applied in practice.
Here’s a quote from Google’s actual response:
User safety should be a top priority. Improper repair can be dangerous—especially if individuals use faulty parts or are unfamiliar with safety critical components, such as lithium ion batteries.** Legislation should acknowledge the risks borne by unskilled repairers and allow original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to provide parts assemblies rather than individual components to reduce the risk of injury.**
Doesn’t scream right to repair to me, let’s continue.
Right to Repair regulation should focus on: Devices that are repaired by an OEM’s existing repair offerings3 Right to Repair legislation in the United States is focused on leveling the playing field between OEM repair and independent repair offerings and putting consumers first, which we fully support
So, if they don’t repair their devices and only replace assemblies, they’re not required to do anything for RTR, how convenient!
Right to Repair regulation should focus on: Parts that are provided by an OEM’s existing repair operations
Hmm… So the easiest way to comply with the law is to not do anything
Policies should encourage repairers and recycling centers to recycle or to dispose of e-waste responsibly. We believe repair can be an important mechanism to reduce the large and growing problem of e-waste
Classic corporate green washing, this doesn’t mean recycling, it means break products, into as many parts as possible and dispose of them.
This is what recycling means to big tech:
Those are icloud locked iphone mainboards that have had their chips drilled through (this is "recycling). Some extremely smart people have figured out how to scrap them for parts, but that’s the ingenuity of actual repair people, not Big tech’s recycling.
Regarding boost, yep my bad! I did not know that when I asked that question.
As for grayjay, it’s source available, that’s fine to me, there is a difference naturally and it’s worth discussing, but I’d rather live in a world where every piece of software is source available and we discuss the merits of source availability vs pure FOSS, than in a world where understanding our software requires days or months of work looking at asm and poking it with a stick
there is nothing wrong to make money from their hard work
I assume you didn’t read my parent comment or perhaps you extrapolated on my beliefs without asking. I even proposed a direct way to ask users to pay.
you cannot and should not force developers to work for free if they don’t want to.
My word, of course not! Where did you get the impression that I want that from? I would NEVER propose something like that, as it stands against everything I believe in; in fact if you read through my history on lemmy I am certain that you’re gonna find plenty of proof of that.
I stand by the original meaning of the word when I say FOSS. It does NOT mean gratis; the misuse of the term FOSS as gratis is my biggest pet peeve. I don’t care how much you charge for your software, if I like the software I will pay for it, exactly how much you’re asking, without a problem.
The F in FOSS stands for Freedom, not price. I have paid for most FOSS software I use on a regular basis and I’m a HUGE proponent of paid FOSS and I have, multiple times, asked FOSS developers that release gratis software to PLEASE open up donations; I do this constantly and I think I may even have done it here on lemmy once or twice.
If you want free software then there are FOSS options out there and nobody forces you to use Boost.
Indeed. My preferred client at the moment is the web ui on desktop and jerboa on mobile. Those are FOSS and developed by the developers of lemmy themselves (to whom I HAVE donated to). But I was thinking about switching client, which is why I asked for the code for Boost to see if it’s software I would be willing to run on my device (and pay for!).
In fact I will even go as far as to say that it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a user of FOSS applications to donate if you can.
To me if software is not FOSS it signals one thing: they are doing something they don’t want me to know about, sometimes this is acceptable (tho never preferred), but that’s the exception, not the rule.
Being able to decide what software runs on your machine should never be a point of contention. Non FOSS software is always a trade off, and for most things (including lemmy clients), it’s not one I’m willing to make, nor should you!
Yes, it basically just reinforces the usual “Authorized Service Providers” spiel, i.e. it’s not a real right to repair bill.
Special Access for ASPs: manufacturers have to share repair manuals, tools, and parts ONLY with ASPs under “fair and reasonable terms”.
This means if you’re not part of their club and haven’t signed their agreements to become an ASP you may not be allowed to purchase parts. And to be clear, becoming an ASP can restrict you in the kinds of repairs you can provide, and the kinds of information you can tell your customers, under legal threat, and may require you to hit impossible sales quotas.
Parts and Conditions: It gets trickier with parts. Manufacturers aren’t actually forced to give you, the little guy, access to individual parts. What they’re obligated to do is to provide full assemblies to ASPs. So, if you need just a tiny part for a fix, tough luck – they can legally turn you away or make you buy a whole assembly, which is neither practical nor cost-effective.
Do you have a license for that?: It’s like asking, “Do you have a permit for that fishing rod?” before you even get to the lake. The bill implies that if you want to repair these devices, you better have some sort of certification or license. This could be a huge barrier for independent repair shops, especially those who don’t have the best relations with the company they repair devices of, or even DIY fixers. You want to repair something? First, prove that you’re qualified according to their standards, which can be pretty steep or even unrealistic for many. It’s another way of keeping the repair circle closed and controlled while pretending to be the moral authorities of social and environmental justice.
“Can’t you see just how great a company we are? We’re allowing you to repair YOUR device, (assuming that we like you, that is), aren’t we such good people? After all you’re our dear cust---------”
ERROR: CONSUMER ACCOUNT NR. 48570 TERMINATED FOR INAPPROVED WRONGSPEAK. PLEASE INSERT CREDIT CARD TO CONTINUE READING MESSAGE.
Thank you for buying from Google, we support you, we love 😍 right to repair, we love 💚 the environment and we 💕 you, dear consumer 😘… errr… customer
I don’t think Boost is open source
oh, so that’s why it has ads, they don’t care about their users… alright… I’m not interested in this conversation anymore
I’m not a boost user, but why does boost have ads exactly? Why don’t you just ask users to buy a license a la grayjay? Make it 0.99 or less. This has a few advantages:
Also quick question, where is the source code for Boost? I can’t seem to find it
Exactly! This is just a PR stunt, nothing more, and it looks like “journalists” bought it.
except that’s not happening. It’s giving big tech good PR while they keep doing exactly what they have been doing for the past 2+ years (i.e. pretending to care about right to repair, and the environment, and whatever other good-soundign cause they can think of, without actually doing any of it)
That’s a shitty article by a “journalist” that hasn’t read the bill otherwise they would know that it’s NOT right to repair, but rather it’s a bill disguised as right to repair that actually gives even more monopolistic powers to big tech.
I wish nix had something similar as I rarely use flatpaks
Yes sir, I sometimes feel sad when a good piece of software doesn’t have a donation button or license to buy
Yep, I feel that too. There is too much gratis software that’s actually good and I want to pay for but many FOSS developers are scared to ask for money for some reason
wouldn’t it have been easier to just read the source code? (not that GNU’s code is easy to read, but still)