Seriously though, I think it is good illustration point of "this is unacceptable speech" i.e outside of Overton window.

The failure to do so means you get the first proposed solution - yes I agree, the first solution is by definition the status quo before the 'now' solution.

There are times that you have to accept: there is no middle ground, other than the ground you stand upon.

You want to control the user - kid, and not control the user i.e adult, you also want parent to not bother. That is impossible. Either parent have to do active part, other (because by definition kid already is - since the age is already available to whatever malware will be running on device) people will be harmed by surveillance or we keep status quo. Classical choice triangle.

The only "rational" (still for me this seems like possible trojan horse) way would be to actively enforce existence of "for-child OS" on company controlled OSes, and use something like Secure Boot if parent SO DESIRES (with caveat 5 ). 0. (short version) Effectively this would mean buy separate device for kids or learn how to do it. And it would fundamentally be bound to device not user, 1. by enforcing main key to be Owner's (Parent) and signing the OS developer key with the main key for purpose of OS boot (start) - so that OS 'provider' can sign kid-friendly OS version with that developer key. (you probably could ease that with vendor key - but still requires possibility of changing the key which leads to 2. then lock the UEFI by password... that still require knowledge about the tech - unless you get password in device box [then again parents have to exercise some parenting and not give device with the box], and don't start about phones - they would require UEFI and Secure Boot available for user first - not just manufacturer. 3. and you would HAVE TO (this bit is especially trojan otherwise) enforce every OS manufacturer and vendor that provide ones for kids to always provide the non-kid version (and support it!) - so that it would not create de facto surveillance OS/PC. Let me guess this is impossible for you Americans. 4. Then app developers can sign apps for kids with the OS developer key that is FOR the kid variant - otherwise will not run (in that scenario 'kid-OS' only). 5. you would have to limit it for kids devices ONLY so you would have to reverse "ID check in bar" to confirm the existence of kid instead of adult (during buying the OS/device) - otherwise again trojan horse (because of commonality of solutions).

If you find this version 'workable' please have it - but for me it seems contradictory to desire of not bothering parents. *From my perspective this is effectively parental controls on steroids*. This is exceptionally similar to attestation except it has opt out for people who actively kept the password, no IDs, and no 'sending age over wire'. This will help exactly zero to stop spread of some files if parents give a kid in class for-adult phone/pc unless you enforce signing every file by kid-OS and not opening unsigned files - congratulations your kid would be using OS approved by north Korea! - do you start to see the issue with 'workable' ideas? They inevitably flow to surveillance and autocratic tech.

This is anyway probably faulty in something I did not thought about.

"compression is insanely effective" - And what about energy? compression will increase CPU use. It will also make everything slower - slower than just plain deduplication. Also, your reason for using worse for user tech is: the user can mitigate in other ways? This strikes me as the same logic as "we don't need to optimize our program/game, users will just buy better hardware" or just plain throwing cost to user - this is not valid solution just downplaying of the argument.

If you centralise then it is not the question "Will?" but "When?" it will fail.

Do they check every fact that they learn by experimentation?

Or do they trust/believe authority that given them such fact mindlessly?

Can we stop putting our morality and faith above another's?

Any aggressive ideology that forces it believers to censor non-believer viewpoint is ultimately self-destructive - even if you force non-believers they will not believe in it - because they never trusted it.

"You just cannot promote them to impressionable audiences like children" - the fact that child has device is problem not the fact that device can access information.

"or that gore and shock content is free expression." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son

"Read the comments and you'll see their tone is clearly dismissive and condescending" - you think that way because you are biased to classify your religious text as not nsfw - but there is no such reason really - christianity is no longer main ideology of everyone.

I'm not sure that this label works though - I get the F-Droid is doing it because of regulatory push but it seems to me that simply notion of "safe internet" or "safe app-store" is fundamentally misguided (we didn't made TV safe - just gave ranking and let parents decide)- and I can see that someone with modern sensibilities looking at older or god-forbid "ancient" literature will have to mark huge swaths of it as not safe.

I think that most of this rage should instead be directed toward this regulatory nonsense instead of F-droid though.

This does illustrate ironical thing - and what christian puritans forget - bible will not OK for atheistic/modern puritans.

Also you are incorrect - because you are already making wrong assumption:

> crates are not libraries

"never provided a shared library interface" - it doesn't need to, it just need to USE library - distros will convert static one to shared one if that what is reasonable.

Now we have to have C library connected by C headers to (in future) rust application. Sure this somehow works - at cost of memory safety. So someone WILL suggest using rust crate instead of C library, and the problem will inevitably pop up.

You could only say it works correctly as platform stipulates if you did not use any rust crate, or used ones that only your app/lib uses, or trivial finished ones - and I do not see people use rust like that. Even then it is from most linux distributions perspective the distribution job to decide if it should be static or shared linked NOT app-developer.

SSL is something that is prime example of would it best to be written in memory safe language, with safe headers, provided that language makes stable ABI connections, so we can update 0-day not waiting for app developer.

Rust fails spectacularly at last point unless library uses C headers.

But at least it seems that OpenSSL is dynamically loaded after start so they are not changing that too soon.

When I decide to patch some library for my use case I may want to use such library in every instance in every program on the system. Rust crate makes this impossible - now I need to rebuild everything even if I could not reasonably touch ABI boundary in same C code.

Ultimately I think many of linux rust critics see it correctly as company-first/app-centered/containerized/not developement-aware user language (i.e user who can patch software for their specific needs who actively want to inspect every dependency in ONE way), and they prefer the known pro-community/pro-distro/pro-user-developer C/C++ paradigm instead. (At least fact that many criticism start immediately when GPL project get BSD rust rewrite does point it to free-software/open-source i.e pro-community/pro-company schism)

Many linux users especially developement-aware users just have enough of pip, cargo and every 'modern' stuff - they just want old good apt or pacman.

Then you have people that think slow development and no revolutionary changes should be IT priority in modern times.

Then you have people that do believe that any alternative should be better, easier and simpler than old stuff before it should be treated as even a alternative way.

And then you have contrarians.

Linux systems: Any library is system library because otherwise there will be no real OS libraries or API.

Rust: No ABI. = No (real) shared libraries.

Debian: https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes/issues....

Me who wrote long, long comment and then accidentally pushed close tab shortcut. !!@@!

I would recommend building some packages containing rust, especially on older hardware - and then realize that because of static linking you will need to rebuild it very very often - and don't forget that you are building clean. Because it is expected that you will use required shared libraries to make life easier.

I think that rust people should maybe sometimes just consider - that rust if pushed in such way will be more hated than C.

Maybe you should not try to deflect criticism about stable ABI and shared libraries - linux OSes REQUIRE IT - nobody will change OS architecture because you want it. And maybe we should be more conservative architecturally in especially most critical pieces of software architecture.

If US did exercise it's antitrust laws we wouldn't be here.

> If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement.

Talk about fallacy.

It would be better if US started dividing these giants thereby allowing other companies to enter the market.

And before you say something on AI - your companies don't follow your laws either - IP laws - should we remove these? I would advocate that yes, we should - they are nothing more than nuisance (with all the suing costs) in modern times anyway.

We had a tech scene before 2010s - you just can not outcompete these US state-sanctioned companies when they don't follow the law and US cries every time when sane control is applied. And then there is China to add to that with Temu. Add to that Amazon and fact that there is more than one digital market based in central Europe should be impossible - but they do exist.

And yes we DO have conditions and 'sunlight'.

Look at payment for example:

Google - late 2010s Apple - middle 2010s Central European payment systems - 2000s

Some countries reached banking transfer unification - i.e one system to payment transfer with every bank in middle 2010s IN BANKING SYSTEM ITSELF - so as long you have bank account you don't have to have any other transfer system - your bank does it for you - instant.

Yeah so why exactly we have even any competition with Google and Apple? Ah yeah google pushes it's solution with 'card number' (which if you live in central Europe only time you will use is with US companies) to android.

I still remember culture shock card number gave some people. When my family member was asked by Netflix to give card number he thought it was fraud - because NO ONE ever did that. It took enormous amount of persuasion (and call to the bank) that yes - card number is valid system. He asked me what blocks netflix from slurping all the money if he cannot see the bank website. He solved problem with (I kid you not) separate banking account where he transferred money before giving that account card number.

And before you have misconception - he was poor but did somewhat (more than most I would say) understand IT - he just did not have trust for his 1000$ pension to not be misused by Netflix employees.

More? How about Comparison shopping website?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-court-upholds-googles-...

Do you see pattern?

The issue is not that EU cannot make companies - it is that EU companies cannot survive in hostile US market that confuses capitalism with company owned oligarchy.

The thing about EU companies is that they are much more localised - after all they were historically created with country language in mind, not English, some today still don't exist on English web, so you will have trouble to even know about them. Most of them to this day only work in the same country.

American companies have 380M market + L2 + L3. They rarely limit themselves to country. EU companies have at best something in range 100M - but realistically if we talk about any other country this falls sharply to ten/s of millions of users.

You already have structural advantage.

US proved that cannot regulate and dismantle its molochs, your choice, but don't come to cry when EU looses patience.

Don't expect that if you try to build & hold monopolies in US because that makes US market "bigger" other countries will not punish you - it's unreasonable.

If you require everyone to have a computer/phone to live in society for example by digital ID - then is ubiquitous and you must regard it as such.

> This incredibly selfish point of view put forth by a particular sect of _OSS polls sufficiently well at the engineer's only meeting in Palo Alto and nowhere else.

No one forces you to change your OS. No one forces you to code. No one forces you to dissemble. No one forces you to compile. No one forces you to add or remove certification authority (change the trust).

We only want to force corporations and states to allow Us to do that to device we own.

You are already responsible on code - closed source also GIVES NO WARRANTY.

> sect

the 'sect' as you called it - envisioned world in which when you get device you have driver to it and code to it.

Should manufacturer decide that you will get no new updates - you COULD go to another company and buy updates from them - because you would have ownership of software.

Should your phone manufacturer decide that you will not get no new updates - you COULD go to another company and buy updates from them - because you would have ownership of software.

Should your washing machine manufacturer decide to s-you and force you to connect to cloud via their app - you COULD go to another company and buy software that doesn't force you to do that, and let them install it for you - because you would have ownership of software.

If you want to use smart home - you could without any manufacturer connectivity bs - because you would have ownership of software.

You could decide that you trust company A for OS updates - and if they deceive your trust, change it to B. because you would have ownership of software.

Yes you would need to pay for updates and software - unless software company did sign a real deal with you for your data.

I hate when people say that Free Software is communism - it is not, it is consumer capitalism in purest form.

The whole point wasn't you SHOULD do it yourself - but you CAN do it yourself. The problem - you need market before any company can enter it. No libre drivers, no libre firmware - no such company.

And before anyone asks - yes you could extend it to cars. You would need stricter CA check (here you can make a reasonable exception that self-signed should not work) on that type of device though, but no longer ONLY MANUFACTURER. Why would you pay another company to do software updates / change when you do buy a repair / parts from third party?

This was intent - not 'increase self-dentistry literacy' - the literacy part came from the users of Linux mostly - you should think about it as after-effect.

> The solution to a bridge collapsing is to increase civil engineering literacy?

If the bridge collapsed because you have no good engineers then yes.

> How much of how many literacies will we be willing to acquire so as to balance the responsibility we ask of every other profession and even those who are low and unskilled?

You are not making good engineers/politicians/doctors etc. if you take ones who want to get paid big money - you are making good ones if the people teach are interested in their work and are willing to get better in it.

To do that you must give them opportunity to grow.

You need casual->small->big->"anti-monopoly split" company path

if you remove casual you don't have a market, you have a graveyard of one.

They do. Categorically.

> The only reason they would try is because they are being scammed with offers of getting something or cajolement entreating them to allow it.

F-Droid installed German university made QR app. Messaging app that government does not like because it disallows spying on citizens.

> The current status quo serves them and many millions of other people very well

Said you.

So well that only time I had to deal with malware and scam in one was when my parent installed QR App from Google Play and got AD served to them to confirm mobile payment.

REALLY * WELL.

> to them

To you.

> it only represents freedom to be exploited.

There is no reason that verification cannot happen in SSL style - and no layperson will create CA certificate, believe me.

> be very cautious when

Because of that Google decided that it will first introduce it in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand... wait a moment I think I seen that list somewhere...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Thailand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Indonesia

This was created so governments can censor any application that allow people to communicate. To limit freedom of expression. You are made into useful idiot.

The fact alone that the 'test subjects' are people living in censorship-like countries should tell you enough.

> Experts in other fields determine the extent

There is exception here - no one determines who can speak - but now Google can do so by revoking application certificate.

> rip that away

You are ripping that away - all of current democratic infrastructure now requires computer communication.

You are removing user's ability to install software, You are giving governments way to censor and spy on citizen on massive scale. You want change. You should be careful not us.

> all the time.

Not all the time - only when there is reasonable ground. You do not provide one - if you think your 'reason' is good then we should ban all communications because someone may send malware in one of links in them.

If you want apple go apple.

> Me? I’m not asking for control.

Yes you do - you asking for control to be given to governments in long run, saying otherwise is disingenuous.

There is ONLY ONE valid way to check trust - it is called keyring.

All linux distributions do use it.

Think on how you use SSL certificates on your browser, now remember that you can always import your own Certificate authority.

As simple as that. Unless you have nefarious purposes.

> limitations

Do you want to read and click thru license agreements before entering website? Do you want to have to use Chrome, Opera or Edge for specific website because 'author' forced you so?

> As the author doesn't provide those tools, he cannot legally dictate in which ways this is turned into a completed work by the consumer.

That is factually incorrect - if we accept 'html is program' then YES 'author' has right to do so.

> I believe the case needs to be made that an article of a website is not a completed "work" in the sense of a compiled application

This won't work because German law would consider it irrelevant in this legal context source: the law in question.

>Yes agree, but the case must be made legally, not technically.

If technical reasoning ends with absurd then it should be legally rejected - reductio ad absurdum.

>If the author of that website doesn't want his page to be assembled in certain ways, he is free to provide his own means (app) or restrict access behind a mutual contract.

The point - the company wants it to be a webpage (be on internet) and does not want legal implications of it being a webpage but does want legal implications of it being an app. You cannot have a cake and it too.

It is document, PERIOD.

Should we ban links, dillo and lynx for not having a concept like js?

Also EVERY browser is NOT 100% compatible with html/js specifications! Should we ban all browsers? What if browser changes behaviour after creation of website?

Let's not skip legal implications which AGPL or GPL browser (ex GNOME Web) would have on supposed 'program' that results of opening the page? Would user of such browser always commit piracy? After all he was not given right to relicense supposed 'code' of the site, or did he when he informed website that he connects from such web browser which server accepted? Or did site broke the license by using engine to produce a result which cannot be distributed?

> HTML = Hypertext Markup Language

> A markup language is a text-encoding system which specifies the structure and formatting of a document