jumpwah

It's not possible because pretty much all baseband processors (radios) run nonfree software.

The FSF defines freedom as the four freedoms. Copyleft is about preserving those four freedoms. Copyleft is still free software in terms of the four freedoms. Sure, you could take freedom as being able to do completely anything (or more things than just the four freedoms), but this is like saying the declaration of human rights is bad because it doesn't give you the freedom to enslave others.

So the question comes down to whether or not you think nonfree software is a bad thing. If you don't think nonfree software is bad, then how does it hold that you're saying you care more about user freedom than those who use copyleft?

To me, those who really like and care about freedom to use, study, modify and share software have no problem with copyleft. The people that seem to have a problem with it seem to just want to deny users that freedom. That's really what it is all about. I don't know how on earth you came across this as being like "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength", when not having the four freedoms in the case of nonfree software is the real slavery here. And copyleft prevents such nonfree software.

TLDR haiku by RMS:

    Using GPL
    is encroaching on our right
    to encroach on yours

BTW, the LGPL, GPL and AGPL licenses are all "open source" in the sense that they are approved by the OSI, who are the ones who created and defined the term "open source" in the first place. So saying the GPL is not an "open source" license is technically incorrect and confusing.

Exactly. However I see now that there's an Emacs workaround... maybe I'll try that some time.

It's also easy to have multiple versions installed using nix.

> What the world needs is an operating system (or systems) or even an application or set of applications that almost everyone would want to use that require programming in some form or fashion to accomplish everyday tasks better.

Tangentially related, but this is why I think Emacs is a great... should I say, 'platform'. Maybe not for young children as in the case you talked about with yours, but a quote from one of RMS's talks about Emacs [1] I think shows what I mean:

> The editor itself was written entirely in Lisp. Multics Emacs proved to be a great success — programming new editing commands was so convenient that even the secretaries in his office started learning how to use it. They used a manual someone had written which showed how to extend Emacs, but didn't say it was a programming. So the secretaries, who believed they couldn't do programming, weren't scared off. They read the manual, discovered they could do useful things and they learned to program.

Maybe it was the syntax of lisp (by which I mean the use parentheses/'S-expressions' vs. using other 'strange code-like' symbols such as curly braces or semicolons) was a part of why they didn't realise they were actually programming?

Of course, this will not work today because editing/writing text in anything other than a WYSIWYG word processor interface is too unfamiliar to the average general purpose computer user, and therefore Emacs would too easily 'scare' off most users. But your comment reminded me of this and I thought it would be interesting to mention.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html

> Remember, git came before github.

That's exactly my point. Using a "request-pull" instead of a "pull-request" will probably mean you can do this git-lfs thing with it. My understanding was that it was not working with "forked" repositories, which you need to have to make a "pull request". To make a "request pull" (or to just send a patch file), you don't need to "fork". ;)

Except that's not a "pull request".

There were no big flaws in Bayern's game that day. Arsenal sat deep specifically to shut down what muller and lewandowski could do, but I wouldn't call that exploiting. In fact Arsenal didn't really 'exploit' or target any aspect of Bayern's game (it's hard to find flaws against "top top class" teams anyway), they were just really well disciplined and played some really good high tempo counter attacks. The lay-low and counter attack was just a good gameplan, not really an 'exploit'.

But Bayern still mostly dominated and played really well. Arsenal's goal was mainly due a horror error by Neuer, he really should have caught or punched that. (Yes it's a set piece so anything can happen, but other than Walcott's header, Sanchez's chance and Giroud's late header from a corner, I don't really remember many more threatening set pieces, so Neuer should have really dealt with that, especially after the Walcott save.)

The only 'flaws' that Bayern had were that they didn't finish. Costa should have scored. Lewandowski should have scored maybe twice even though it was a quiet game for him by his standards. (Sanchez's mistake was what lead to Costa's chance on goal too.)

That last goal by Ozil was really just more of a case of Bellerin being a freak surprisingly right at the end of the match rather than Arsenal specifically exploiting anything. Arsenal was not high pressing (as a team) on that play, it was just a mistake (slow pass) combined with the incredible anticipation and speed from Bellerin (not to mention the desire to bolt into the box rather than jog to the corner flag).

In fact, you could clearly see throughout most of the match that Bayern was the one that kept wanting to target Nacho. Which was pretty weird because if they did their homework, they should have known how massively impressive Nacho has been recently.

> This has been slowly changing the past few seasons however.

And despite all of what I just said, I am acknowledging that Arsene isn't as 'old-fashioned' as he was maybe 5 years ago. Because that comment was more of an observation in general of the post-Highbury era, not literally the past few days when it's obvious that there's more to Arsene's game nowadays.

If you wanted to use a recent example anyway, the game against United would have been a much better example imo (league games is generally when you should be 'exploting' anyway, not in the cl, because you should be expecting anything in cl games, just because of the occasion). You could clearly see that Arsenal specifically targetted United's slow midfield by high pressing on them (Walcott's and Ozil's workrate was impressive). And they were basically one-twoing their way past Bastian "cannot run no more" Schweinsteiger the whole match.

If by football philosophy you mean "the thing about Arsenal is...", skc got it right I think because 15 years ago he was definitely considered 'progressive' or 'modern'. But now I think he's considered "a stubborn old man" because of a "lack of a plan B...". (Of course, past few seasons that "lack of plan B" criticism is not really relevant anymore, but you probably know what I mean.)

About football the sport, I've always seen him as 'progressive' because for example he has always advocated for video replay technology to be used, goal-line technology to be used etc. And so it's definitely possible that he's not afraid of using all the technological help he can for coaching.

It's just that he has rejected using 'technology' to help his coaching in the past. By which I'm referring specifically about him not using video replays of how his opponents play to coach his players with (which has since changed). But I think that is more the case of just not being part of his coaching philosophy, rather than not wanting to use 'technology' or something.

What? Couching is not all scouting... no one's denying that Wenger is always on the look out for young prospects.

But Wenger is a sort of 'old fashioned' coach. He prefers focusing on how his players can do better, rather than trying to focus on the weaknesses of the opponent, which is definitely not 'modern'. This has been slowly changing the past few seasons however.

That being said, I'm definitely no #WOB just in case you think that.

https://github.com/vim-pandoc/vim-pandoc is far superior.

Sweet! I never bothered to check how to do it on the cli, and instead of being interactive, I just assumed you would have to reference the hunks by line number or something. Naive of me.

With magit, it's easy to only stage individual 'hunks' so that you can have only the relevant parts of a file staged. And so this problem goes away.

I also imagine it's easy to do this in fugitive as well.

It's probably also possible on the cli, but I imagine that would be too 'hard' or time consuming, hence you will probably start to be lazy about doing it correctly.

I'm not sure cabal can really be considered a package manager as the article here states [1]. Stack helps, but I think just using a dedicated package manager to manage haskell things is probably the way to go.

Nix has a lot of haskell packages in it already, and guix has a hackage 'import' tool which helps you with writing a new package definition for a project that hasn't already been packaged.

You may think that's overkill, and fair enough. But I've been through cabal hell before, and I'd honestly rather not anymore, ever.

[1]: https://ivanmiljenovic.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/repeat-after...

Sorry for the late reply. I found it, I got the method from this blog post [1] initally. Also see [2].

However, I'm sad to say that when I tried this again rn, it didn't work anymore. (I know for a fact it used to work great because I used to use it.)

The funny thing is, ranger's image preview still works for me (same terminal and everything), so I guess one could start going through the ranger source code to see how they wrap w3mimagedisplay if they really wanted to.

I don't really have the motivation for that though because, although I'm a heavy terminal user (and it would be nice), recently switching to emacs means a lot of my file management can be done with dired (an emacs package). And dired can do image previews quite nicely already [3] (I'm assuming provided you're using GUI emacs^). ^^

^Emacs can fire up terminals inside it anyway, so using GUI emacs is not a problem for me, even though I'm heavily terminal orientated.

^^Although I think I prefer sxiv's thumbnail mode for browsing directories full of images (as opposed to a few here and there).

[1]: http://blog.z3bra.org/2014/01/images-in-terminal.html

[2]: https://github.com/hut/ranger/wiki/Image-Previews

[3]: https://github.com/ralesi/ranger#screencast

urxvt also supports viewing images (or at least I know that because that's the emulator I use, maybe other emulators also support it)

Like I know ranger has an option for it, but iirc there's also a way to just run a command ala `cat`ing a text file. If you'd like, I can look into it more if you can't already find out how to do it by searching.

Also, people are mentioning feh, I'd like to plug in sxiv (not my program though).

I prefer maim [1] to scrot, you should maybe check it out if you didn't already know about it?

[1]: https://github.com/naelstrof/maim

One of the dealbreakers for me with Kallithea at this point of time though is the lack of an issue tracker. I think their main reason for not having it was that they don't want to impose one when you could be using one already.

But I would like it all integrated nicely with the git web interface.

Have you heard of kallithea [1]? Not sure if it be what you want though because it also supports mercurial (and uses it for its development). But iirc, it's written in python.

[1]: https://bitbucket.org/conservancy/kallithea

Right, sorry. I still thought you were talking about git after the first line, at least that's how I read it. Misunderstanding, my bad.

git is not a GNU project.

Isn't this like a huge security risk?

Just in case, do you know about https://github.com/SMSSecure/SMSSecure?

Wow thanks for the taking the time for the comprehensive reply! :) Really, my comment turned into a half-rant, and I wasn't expecting such a response!

Well honestly, if it does become "hackable" (i.e. ui, addons), then that invalidates all of what I said. But yes it is still experimental as you say of course, so I understand.

This is a bit off topic, but one thing that's really deterring me from firefox lately is the signed extensions thing. [1] To cut to the point, I'm not sure how credible random tweets are, but just as a light example, I got someone (from mozilla security) to admit it's a mistake [2]. (Sort of, I'm twisting the words I think, english actually not my native language, so I still have trouble expressing myself sometimes.)

My comment is just that I hope that servo/browser.html doesn't make the same "mistake". I.e. implement proper addon security, sandboxing etc. Because, if you guys do plan for an addons api, and if you give it the power ("except they would be for the whole browser chrome"), then you should also plan ahead on the security implications of that too, if any. I guess I should watch the servo project for any addon plans and bring it up there! But other than that, I'm not a security guy, so I cannot say what exactly to do.

If you're wondering why... yes extension signing is great of course, just not when only Mozilla has the power to do so imo: [3] (Not my blog, but iirc I think I agree with most of the post.)

And funny that you mentioned servo-shell by glennw, I actually remembered that when writing my previous comment and had a tab open on it! See my screenshot, top left! :p

Also, thanks for the irc hint!

[1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing...

[2]: https://twitter.com/dveditz/status/591996675100545024

[3]: http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/110743007958/mozillas-...

Thanks for the response. With browser.html, I think I meant functionally, like isn't it supposed to be marketed as a simple, out-of-box, no configuration browser for those who just want no hassle simple web browsing? (Because otherwise I might be confusing it with something else, although I was sure I saw that Mozilla research was doing something like this.)

Because if it is, I obviously don't want that... I "just" want a free software html/css/js spec compliant browser (obviously without the drm, or an option without that part, because that's not free software), but the catch is that I sort of need it to be quite customisable...

By which I mean something akin to the current firefox, which allows addons, a great powerful addon api, unlike chrome, allows modifying the ui (via userChrome.css), modifying display of web pages themselves (via userContent.css), developer console, setting configuration options via a config file, view page source etc.

This seems off-topic and almost like a personal feature request for Servo or whatever, but my point is that I know my "setup" isn't exactly 'mainstream', hence why I basically require powerful customisation options. For example, I'm on firefox (37), but it looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/L9P8XhC.png. And it's not exactly a whole heap of fragile customisations which are destined to break, it's "just" one userchrome file and one addon, so it's actually fairly reliable too.

I care about the ui in that I want the power to change it to what I like. If I can do that, I don't care what the default ui is. But I don't think browser.html's purpose is to be powerful like current firefox is it?

I guess normal isn't the right word. If anything, you're right, browser.html is normal, but not in the way I've grown accustomed to with the feature-filled firefox. If you're familiar with zsh and the fish shell, I mentally labelled browser.html as the special "fish shell" of browsers the first time I saw it, hence why I was quick to dismiss it as a future option. I should probably go and embed servo in emacs or something.. :)

This is obviously the main issue. The DRM component itself is nonfree, downloaded from Adobe's servers (iirc).

With this DRM section in the official html specification, it is impossible to implement a fully html spec compliant, free software browser, which personally I think is outrageous.

At the end of the day, it's still "just" a spec, but I don't think someone (like the WHATWG previously) can just come along and "fix" this and get everyone on their side. At the very least, this almost feels like a betrayal by the w3c.

The plain truth is that no one cares about free software, even when the software (a web-standards compliant web browser) is concerning one of the greatest technological revolutions in human history so far (the internet), which is just honestly sad in my opinion.

On the topic of firefox though, I hope Mozilla keeps the DRM part of the browser an opt-in to download, rather than coming directly with the firefox package itself. Anyone know if this is still the case or not? Also, does anyone know if this DRM component is in the linux packages? (The article mentions only windows vista+.)

Are there any plans to build a completely new browser from Servo? Is there even any worth in that? (A firefox-esque "normal" one, not like that experimental html browser thing.)

The end draws closer: http://i.imgur.com/eZdoFUW.jpg (See the kernel version just below the t-800 box in the center.)