I also have a vector network analyzer (LiteVNA) that can be used for checking antennas, so I will also try to build some antennas myself. I doubt that my custom antennas will approach the performance of the professional ones… But I just find it such a cool concept.
Have you already gotten to play with it? What is your experience so far?
I’ve received a T Deck and I’ve got it configured but I guess there is no other meshtastic devices around so I can’t do much of the moment but I have a wiz block on the way so then I can communicate between the two.
Ah, cool! I got my 4 devices today and I have managed to play with them a bit. They are pretty cool! I was able to walk over to a park near my house and spoke with people across the world with no data in my phone :D
You could also use Matrix or XMPP without all the complicated e2ee stuff, room keys etc. It’s encrypted on transport. It won’t be super safe and have the highest level of privacy this way, but easier to use. You just have to remember not to enable room encryption. And maybe use SchildiChat instead of Element.
That is a great chart. Do you think it’s up to date? One issue I had was trying to discern very old from current materials.
Thanks, we don’t need high level security, just a reasonable modern attempt at it. Due diligence. I had a hard time understanding what kind of encryption we “should” use.
I tried SchildiChat and I liked it except for all the problems that seems inherent to matrix.
Sure, this chart is updated from time to time. (The guy who published it also has a very nice german tech blog: www.kuketz-blog.de ) But it only contains widely adopted messengers and focuses on open-source. So it doesn’t necessarily contain every good messenger out there.
I know. Matrix is quite good. I learned how to operate it, so that’s alright for me. But I know there are a few annoying things in there. And I think they did a few design decisions with the encryption that make it difficult to use. In the years I’ve been using it I’ve been annoyed many times by incompatible verification techniques or missing encryption support in some clients/libraries. It’s getting better but I can understand why you would prefer something else. I’m not an expert on messengers, I hope some of the other suggestions here work for you.
me neither! and I have not desire to become one. :D
It has been a big surprise to see how involved you have to get and how much complex understanding is required just to chat. And in my group of friends I am one of the more power user types. If I struggle to use something, then I can’t recommend it to others. So far everyone is really discouraged and I think it is reflecting quite badly on the concept of moving away from corporate/proprietary solutions. And FLOSS. It seems like just not viable for average users. :(
In this kind of situation we don’t have unlimited chances to try all different options one by one. because in requires a coordinated effort for multiple people to make accounts, set up devices, learn new software etc. People do not have time for that on demand. I think for most people, you have 1 shot at this kind of thing, if any. And if they are not FLOSS-type people they will be basing their opinions of all of FLOSS alternatives on the experience.
Patience is wearing thin. I think if the next thing we try doesn’t work, then it’ll be back to facebook/whatsapp/sms for the next 10 years. So I want to find a viable suggestion or be able to manage expectations and adapt to what is realistic.
Well, I get your frustration. But I also disagree.
There are several different things at play. first of all I think Matrix has made some non-optimal design decisions with their protocol. For example I think e2e-encryption should have been mandatory for clients to support from day one. With like 2 mandatory verification processes that are well-documented and taught to the users.
The second thing is, some clients are bloated and also expose weird stuff to the user. For example the device-keys (session-/room- whatever). That should be build on-top the encryption and handled without the user knowing anything about it.
That would leave us with 3 concepts to understand:
How to do the emoji-verification to verify new devices and other people
You need to do 1 backup to make sure you don’t ever lose access to your account, just write down a sequence of words or characters on paper or do a screenshot
a screen that shows you which devices are logged into your account with a button to delete them. No further handling of cryptographic keys
And I think with a few limitations that are due to the history of Matrix’s development, they strive to become that and aren’t far away from it. I don’t think it’s too complicated. I’ve taught 15 year old kids how to do the emoji-verification and why that’s important.
And it is important… If you take end to end encryption seriously, there is no way around verifying the other end once. You can see which messengers take it seriously and which don’t. For example WhatsApp doesn’t ask you this. And it can’t ever detect if this is really the person they claim to be. The only thing it can do is assume it and make sure the person at the other end doesn’t change. And the backup is non-negotiable, too. You either do that yourself, or let your provider do it. But then they have access to your messages.
And this isn’t Matrix’s or XMPP’s fault. security and convenience are somewhat on opposing ends and you can’t have both at the same time. It’s somewhat like this, and it’s a limitation of how the world is:
You’re free to choose where you want to be on that triangle. You can have something with many features and very secure. But that won’t be easy to use. Or you want something easy, but it won’t ever be secure. Matrix tries to be everywhere, but that can’t work. You can just disable encryption on Matrix, this will do away with all of that complicated stuff immediately, at the cost of some security. But you could also use WhatsApp or iMessage to talk to your friends. My grandma could use it, but it has other downsides.
I’ve been with the FLOSS people and advocating for freedom and empowerment of the user for quite some time. It’s always a struggle. You always have to actively fight for your freedom. And if you want to stay in control of your data, you have to take matters into your own hands, to some degree. And that is some work. You have to learn concepts and gain a certain amount of literacy. The other option is to give up parts of your autonomy.
With that said, I still think Matrix could do a better job and make it easier. I think it’s usable. But I’d be happy, too, if I could recommend it to more of my friends without there being any catch. In fact, I recommended it to other people and like 3 friends use it, my dad, my spouse and like 15 other people I know from real-life. They’re not all tech-savy and it works. There have been some issues, but that was some time ago and issues have become less and less over time.
I did the emoji thing and even though I went through it correctly it did not proceed reliably. A problem with the client? Network issue? Who knows. Sometimes it works after a few attempts and other times not.
Encryption keys didn’t work because my password manager ended up with several keys all associated with the same account but I didn’t know what each one was for. (And did the keys each also have another password too? I might be thinking of something else.) They were for the account or the device or the conversation or the client or the session? And my friends were having similar issues; even when I get it set up someone else is having a problem.
I guess with all these things, it gets easier once you get going and stable. You can’t do the emoji thing without having a logged in client available. If everyone is bouncing around clients it’s a mess. There is nothing stable for any of us to join onto. I have used the occasional established matrix community and I don’t have these issues in that case. A lot of the complications come from the fact that we are trying to move together.
I’ve been with the FLOSS people and advocating for freedom and empowerment of the user for quite some time. It’s always a struggle. You always have to actively fight for your freedom. And if you want to stay in control of your data, you have to take matters into your own hands, to some degree. And that is some work. You have to learn concepts and gain a certain amount of literacy. The other option is to give up parts of your autonomy.
I mean the other other option would be to take care of each other and struggle collectively. I do not really think we get freedom one by one. I believe that to be in alignment with FLOSS.
Philosophically it’s kind of regressive to say that lost autonomy is deserved by people who fail to learn to the standards you think are reasonable in the areas you think they should know about. There is way too many things in the world we can’t all know about all of them.
I did the emoji thing and even though I went through it correctly it did not proceed reliably.
Oh. That’s not how it’s supposed to be. I self-host my own (Synapse) matrix server. So I wouldn’t know if there are issues with the network or something like that with the established, big servers.
several keys all associated with the same account […] (And did the keys each also have another password too?)
Yeah, That’s too many details. It should be: you sign up for a new account, keys are generated and you are requested to back up your master key. Maybe that backup can be protected with an additional password, I don’t really know. From that point cross signing and all cryptography should kick in automatically. Everything should be handled without the user needing to worry about additional keys. And in my oppinion the additional inner workings should be hidden from the user. At that point you’re set and once you log in with a different device or add a friend, a popup should open telling you to verify the other user/device with the emojis.
If everyone is bouncing around clients it’s a mess.
That is the most annoying thing with Matrix. I’ve also had this happen. Some time ago I had clients not support emoji verification. Or I try to write a bot in python and it runs on a server with no means of displaying emojis. I think Matrix isn’t strict enough to handle the diversity of clients. In theory diversity is a good thing, but for Matrix… I’ve also had some issues with that exact thing.
[…] struggle collectively. I do not really think we get freedom one by one.
That is especially true for messengers and social media. There is the network effect. A platform has little to no benefit if it doesn’t connect people and it’s just you ;-)
Philosophically it’s kind of regressive to say that lost autonomy is deserved by people who fail to learn to the standards you think are reasonable in the areas you think they should know about. There is way too many things in the world we can’t all know about all of them.
I agree. I have compared this to the Age of Enlightenment before. There is some basis we need to agree on. Everyone has to agree they want freedom and be ready to put in some work and face the struggles. But not everyone needs to become a computer expert and have this as their primary hobby. Just being a follower should be alright, the only thing is you can’t be annoyed by change and experiencing a dry spell every now and then. I think this is consensus and also how it works with parts of the FLOSS ecosystem. There are clubs and individuals who operate the servers and handle all the difficult and tedious parts of hosting. Not everybody can, or wants to do this. As a user it is your obligation to know how to operate your computer and smartphone. But it shouldn’t be overly complex. That takes away from the spirit and makes it inaccessible for some people. And we want the opposite of that, spread the freedom amongst everyone who is willing to participate.
I really don’t know what to recommend to you. Don’t resign and let the technical difficulties keep you from getting what you want. It’s the right choice. Maybe you find something better than Matrix for your use-case. I’m kind of in another situation, so my experience doesn’t necessarily apply to your situation. Maybe have one person do the work, try out a few servers and Apps/clients and pave the way for the rest of the group. It definitely doesn’t work if it’s an uncoordinated effort and there are sub-optimal choices and traps out there. And it will scare some people off (rightfully) if they have to start over for the third time.
With our group, we have tested matrix for some months with two people, then a third and then a friend of mine invited all the other people. Most of them use matrix.org as their Homeserver. And we keep the room unencrypted for maximum compatibility. We don’t give admin rights to everyone, that would lead to confusion. One person manages the room and they put in the effort to learn how to manage the room and help people get the app installed on their phones and join the room. I could help out. But I try not to. Sometimes I’m too deep in the rabbit hole and struggle balancing my explanations with people who aren’t that tech-savy.
I would suggest actually naming the license under which it is released if you're talking about the website that is generated by your software. If you're talking about the content of a website describing your project, like a landing page or something like that, I'd either attribute copyright to who wrote the content, or release it under a Creative Commons license such as CC-BY-NC.
GNU does not own a monopoly on the definition of free software. It wouldn’t be hard to argue that capitalist exploitation of the commons ruins the freedoms many would like to see.
GNU does not own a monopoly on the definition of free software.
Terming it as a ‘monopoly’ doesn’t invalidate what it is. FSF’s definition of Free software is what’s accepted as canonical definition of free software - just as OSI’s definition is accepted as the definition of open source. The entire analysis of FOSS ecosystem is based on these definitions. It’s not open to interpretation. You can’t claim victory by insisting on accepting a falsehood as the truth.
It wouldn’t be hard to argue that capitalist exploitation of the commons ruins the freedoms many would like to see.
That’s not an excuse for misrepresenting the motives of a project. If you don’t want capitalists not using your work, you’re free to restrict that. What you are not free to do is to claim it as free software. You can’t have it both ways.
Yet folks often say their $0 software is free software because gratis. Words evolve/change & only mean what the folks think it means. If anyone wanted to take over a word, they could. To say it’s not open to interpretation is silly. To assume the ideas they first put out long ago never need a revision or update or were infallible missing no changes to software/society is a religion. Right now we see folks come to terms that outside GPL, a lot of code is being used for AI training models & then sold while not giving users a hint at who wrote it or where to get the source. These ideas probably need to change & projects like Peer Production or Blue Oak or License Zero feel they want to actually take on your enshrined terms like “free” & “open source” because there is not a better word to describe what they are proposing, then I don’t see a problem other than possible confusion (but folks might be confused either way like saying those licenses are nonfree just because a for-profit entity can’t use even if individuals, collectives, nonprofits can).
It is kind of copyfarleft, so by essence it is it open source according to the OSI definition (which must by the only definition to use), more free / libre according to the FSF definition (which is the only definition also to keep).
All I’m saying is folks should be more open towards these extra clauses if they feel it can prevent exploitation of their work along with being open to different definitions of free.
There is also only a finite set of English words for the concept & it seems silly that that one entity would get the final say one what one true Scotsman is. Even the average layman thinks “free software” only applies to gratis. Words can have multiple meanings, but what would you propose software in licensed as free-but-anti-capitalist be called without invoking a long hyphenated adjective?
In software ecosystem indeed there is an issue about the word “free” which can mean “free of charge” or “libre”, that is the reason why the term FOSS should be replaced by FLOSS.
In this very software world, the OSI defined “open source” by 10 conditions. The FSF defined also since eons the term “free / libre” by 4 liberties. These two things are the base of trust and understanding for every one.
For several years capitalist companies try to redefine these words because cannot bear to see that communities dislike or hate how they change the licences of their products (e.g. Elastic with BSL, Mongo with SSPL, Terraform with BSL too). They try to get excuse and fake reasons to be allowed to change the definitions but they are not legit at all.
About your example for a “free and anticapitalist” license, it cannot by “free” because one of the four liberties of the “free” definition is not filled.
However this is an interesting point because there is a new family of licences which appeared several years ago: the ethical licenses brought by the Organisation for Ethical Source (ethicalsource.dev) which define the term « ethical source » by 7 principles. You can get more details about the anti-capitalist license here: anticapitalist.software).
In few words, we must keep the OSI, FSF and OES definitions for open source, free and ethical source words because there are meanings, history, facts and fights behind. If they are disturbing for people or if people disagree, they have to create something else. Not change the definition for pure rebranding.
I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with what OSI & FSF are putting forth nor would I discount all of the importance of the past & the trail they have blazed to get these ideas in the software zeitgeist—but I will say is there should be room in the discussion for supporting these alternative ideologies on what “free” and “the commons” should be. You can choose words like “ethical” and that might be applicable, but as a result, consider your perception of a software now being tagged “nonfree”—I know I get a bad feeling about that personally.
Copyfair & copyfarleft licenses offer an alternative interpretation that I think a lot of folks agree with on priciple—such as megacorp with its massive profits gained by using our software should be contributing back in maintenance, documentation, marketing, or cold cash for financial compensation (e.g. not agree without exception to FSF’s freedoms)—because a work wasn’t created with those entities in mind. Where this gets tho most messy however is taking such stances (obviously) makes one’s project incompatible with the large body of existing work, but also shaming of folks interested in choosing those software licenses or even going CC *-NC on creative works due to compatibility with strict OSI/FSF definitions.
Speaking of the “nonfree” thing, nixpkgs as things labeled only under those terms while these other banners such as “ethical” are missing. Perhaps I should take a look at what it would take to cover those licenses too as you’re almost meant to feel guilty for using “nonfree” software which requires environment variables/config flag & for, at a high level, trying to accomplish a similiar goal of allowing users to share their source with the commons.
It wouldn't be FOSS because a landing page with nothing but content isn't software. I'm referring to the site at blender.org vs the source code for an application at a git repository.
It’s funny to me how windows users expect package management from each and every individual application instead of expecting that to be a basic function of their operating system.
There is a package management in the OS called Windows Store, but LibreOffice charges money for it. Since it is such a popular software with likely some security exploits I don’t think it is very responsible to avoid this topic for so long.
The windows store is really just a single application repository though, not a full featured package management system e.g. one that updates the operating system itself or allows alternative repository sources.
Function. In this case it’s not just a matter of definitions because the windows options do not offer the same utility and convenience I’ve come to expect from a package manager for the last decade or more. It’s a bit like me asking for a chocolate chip cookie and someone handing me a handful of chocolate chips and a cup of flour and wondering why I look disappointed.
I expect a package manager to handle all of my packages, be they system or third party. I also expect to be able to add repositories from developers for apps I need to be more up to date than the default system versions. This functions to also allow applications to be managed that aren’t in the default repositories at all. I expect to be able to handle all updates with a simple command and be able to schedule those updates for when it suites my convenience, not when the operating system developers see fit. Those are the things I mean when I call something a package manager.
Windows Update does the system in the background. Microsoft distributes their apps through Windows Store and so can third parties sign up there in principle, it has restrictions unfortunately, but to say there is absolutely nothing is not quite correct. And by this point so many apps have their own integrated updaters it is to be expected. I understand it is nothing like Linux still.
I know how it works. And I’m saying it doesn’t work for me. Ubuntu has an app store too and it fails for the same reasons the Windows store fails. Only windows and Mac users expect such a fragmentary and redundant system of what you call “integrated” updates.
If you have to use Windows, the Chocolatey package manager knows about most great foss apps in the base config, including LibreOffice. You can first ‘choco install libreoffice’ and later ‘choco upgrade all’ to keep apps updated.
I rarely need to spin up my Windows vm, but after discovering Chocolatey it’s been much more pleasant keeping those apps updated. Same idea as homebrew for macOS; providing *nix-style pkg management. Enjoy!
This one is very simple but very interesting! It’s sad that the last commit was in 2020 but I think I’ll use it anyway if I don’t find a better alternative, thanks for pointing it out!
It is way more readable (at least for me) so it’s easier, especially with longer formulas, to check if there are errors or not. Woth plain text calculators like Calculator++ I do a lot of mistakes confusing all those brackets
SoftMaker Office is the best alternative, but most people don’t consider it, because the full version costs money.
For some reason everyone expects alternatives to MS Office to be exactly as good and 100% compatible while at the same time being free of charge.
I have tried Softmaker Office and unfortunately its font rendering/kerning is the worst, (printing unaffected). MS Word, LibreOffice are running around it in circles. I assume a high DPI display would minimize these woes in the future. I worked around it by using Roboto at 11 pt, makes it bearable. But aside from that it checks all the marks for an Office program. I wonder how far its spreadsheet program will take me. Cannot imagine it coming anywhere close to Excel for highly advanced usage.
I’m waiting for the PineNote to be out of the development edition so I can get one. I do have an older kindle that I jailbroke a while ago and disabled OTA on. It still sucks, but it is better with KOreader.
reMarkable is also a good device, very light and you can enable SSH/root access with a simple toggle on settings. There are also entire repositories of software for it toltec-dev.orggithub.com/Evidlo/remarkable_entware
Do you have one? I’ve seen them used, and I think they’ve got a lot of potential. If I could use handwriting recognition to work with my Workflowy notes and edit markdown shut up and take my money. However a quick look at the Toltec stuff tells me it’s mainly terminals, kernel managers and Doom. Am I missing something?
Package list at bin.entware.net/armv7sf-k3.2/ and toltec-dev.org/stable/. Personally for me Syncthing is the most important thing I’ve running there to quickly sync files. After all we’re talking about a ePub/PDF reader not an Android tablet.
Even thought it won’t ever be an android tablet with hundreds of applications, I like the fact that they actually don’t make you go through the nine circles of hell in order to SSH as root, compile code and install stuff on a device you bought. They don’t also include spyware like Google does. :)
I hear the ReMarkable 2 lacks Bluetooth, so if you want to type you have to buy their keyboard which is $299 here in Canada. Altogether that makes it $768 plus tax, which is pretty steep for what it is.
That is, until the community reverse engineer the communication between the tablet and keyboard. It’s through the 5 pins, serial iirc? The complicated part would be to produce/find a decent keyboard
Bringing things out of “early access for developers and enthusiasts only” isn’t something Pine64 does. They’ve got a laptop, phone, watch, tablet, ereader, and probably shit I’ve missed, none are ready for prime time and never will be.
opensource
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.