Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@malwaretech

> my Mastodon feed is a little dead

Just follow more people then! You can make it as alive (or dead) as you want.

@smoot

@n yes! Apparently it is built following the drawings/specs from a Swedish navy training ship from 1857, so it's somehow the style from those days.

We were lucky with the wind on that day, it was light winds so the crew decided to set almost all of the sails. Lots of work pulling ropes and things, you can't be lazy on that kind of ship. 🙂

@hehemrin jag tror de gillar det! Piggar upp flygningen och har man koll går det säkert att hitta trevliga uppvindar att använda sig av.

@akshay I consider Google a harmful company and have decided to boycott it.

@OCajsamyCajsa @Martin@mastodonsweden.se

välkomna till ett trevligt ställe 🙂

@doktorzjivago

Photos from three weeks ago when I was on a short but fun sailing trip with the brig Tre Kronor, a.k.a. "Tre Kronor af Stockholm", see https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tre_Kronor_af_Stockholm #ShotOnLibrem5

@codesections how about Debian?

@lispi314

In this way, large companies have an incentive to make things complicated, because in that way they are moving power away from individuals, to those companies. "Open source" does not protect us from this threat.

If our interest is the public good, then we should strive for simplicity and we should not expect huge companies to lead the way because it is not in their interest.

2/2

@lispi314 yes!

Then there is also the aspect of where power lies: a simple tool can be useful for everyone, including individuals, also individuals who are not experts.

Making the previously simple tool more complicated means that it is no longer useful for individuals, moving towards a scenario where only a large organization can really benefit from it.

1/2

@lispi314

> less code/logic a positive

Less code is very positive, also for other reasons than errors sneaking in: simplicity is needed to allow anyone to understand and work with the code at all.

Taking it to the extreme for the sake of argument: if code gets infinitely complicated, then we lose the whole point of having access to the source code, because we cannot do anything with the source code as we cannot understand it.

Making things complicated means undermining software freedom.

@fiaewald mm det är intressant att försöka förstå hur folk tänker.

Jag tror tankegången är så här: folk tror att de själva har "rent mjöl i påsen" och att de därför inte behöver oroa sig.

För att kunna resonera så behövs:

(1) Dumhet. Det där "rent mjöl i påsen"-tänket funkar ju inte alls om man tänker efter.

(2) Själviskhet. Man bryr sig ju inte om att det finns andra som faktiskt värderar och behöver privacy, bara man själv inte drabbas.

Folk är så pass dumma och själviska helt enkelt? 😕

@AliceStollmeyer wow, super interesting topic! I will listen.

@hund

> Google Maps

Jag tänker låtsas som om jag inte hörde det där.

@gustav

@jajo aha tack

@jajo vad var det om?

@liw

> Debian insists on being self-contained.
> Anything that is packaged in Debian,
> by Debian, must be built (compiled)
> using only dependencies in Debian.
> Also, everything in Debian must be built by Debian.

I appreciate this very much. It is absolutely awesome.

@karlemilnikka läskigt, bara två partier med hedern i behåll, och det är små partier dessutom. Vilket haveri.

@billigtgarn

> ett ord som inte ens borde vara ett ord

ja det finns en del såna ord. Här är ett annat exempel:

"skolkoncern"

@jan I think it's sloppier coding. My feeling is that it's part of a general trend in recent years that quality (in code as well as other things) is not valued as much as it used to, nowadays quantity is valued instead.