Are there still people under the impression that the correct way to use Stack Overflow all these years was to copy & paste without analyzing what the code did and making it fit for purpose?
If I have to say, we're just waiting for the AI concern caucus to get tired of performing for each other and justifying each other's inaction in other facets of their lives.
The trend is global and inherent to online psychological coupling and self-selection bias. The longer we go without healthy information spaces, the more the population will regress.
There does however seem to be a "free/libre" vs open source rift along the Atlantic ridge, and it is being wedged apart by the US government flirting with a return to isolationism mixed with bullying and self-enforced credible threat geopolitics.
It is really counter-productive for Europeans to think American OSS people are monolithic with US tech giants and the US federal government. Nonetheless, pluralism is good, and innovation will win, so I suppose it's just another hairpin in the game.
As a US citizen, when I see the phrase "European digital sovereignty," I'm a bit concerned that our OSS enthusiast and activist allies in that geography are learning to associate American OSS with American tech companies and US government. This could deepen the old free/libre vs open source divide that seems to have polarized along the separation by the Atlantic ocean. If so, in a time where Americans may be soon head-to-head with a runaway tyrannical government, our EU allies will be busy retreating into free/libre commensalist thinking that seem tunnel-visioned on using government funding to escape MS Word, something that is going to be the last thing on their minds if actual sovereignty concerns emerge.
The more general goal will remain to protect all individual freedoms from all tyrannical governments, not to depend on them. It will remain to use better information technology to enhance the functioning of all governments and to create healthy competition in all markets to protect consumer choice. American OSS has not forgotten this one bit. Our country is just having a moment, and it won't help if EU OSS participation writes us off as casualties while EU OSS focuses on "uniquely European" solutions.
I don't think anyone is confused about American OSS and American corporations run amok with wealth accumulation and regulatory capture. It's a European conference held at a time when governments are waking up to the realization that foreign-owned proprietary software is a bad idea, and the idea of "digital sovereignty" has been around for a bit and did not originate at FOSDEM. The governments also seem to understand that OSS helps with transparency and minimizing costs by investing into a commons (though the message bears repeating; FSFE, EDRI and such do a good job getting it out), so hopefully they'll stick with that and not replicate the US model.
How did I lump both together when I specifically called them out separately, lol.
Everybody understands OSS/free software is global (though copyright/left is still subject to export controls and other laws.) No question about that. And I was specifically talking about proprietary software there, you even copied that in your reply...Proprietary software is bad; foreign-owned is even worse, like the EU has learned recently when Microsoft cuts your email short, for example.
The "US model" is obviously big monopolies or duopolies run unchecked, allowed to buy, prevent and starve competition, then seeking regulatory capture to secure a moat. That is what people know, for better or for worse. No laymen knows the FSF, or what that guy in Arkansas in the xkcd is doing for the digital infrastructure.
I think the main challenge for Europe will be to manage those public investments in an effective way for people's benefit. As far as I know, there are few precedents, and maybe nothing of that scale. China pulls off of open/free software significantly, mostly to avoid US proprietary software, but to my knowledge they don't give much/anything back. So it seems challenging, but I'm also excited for how/if they pull it off.
By the way, I donate to both US and EU free software and digital rights organizations. It was not my intention to nurture your conception of a divide, if that is what you took from my comment.
> The more general goal will remain to protect all individual freedoms from all tyrannical governments, not to depend on them.
This is more of an American pov and will probably be a disconnect for Europeans. Their governments don't screw them as much, so they probably don't see them as tyrannical. Those governments investing in proprietary software to move away from other proprietary software would be a mistake; so government investment into free/open source should be seen as a win, not something to shy away from in the name of individual freedom.
> How did I lump both together when I specifically called them out separately, lol.
Dude, "American OSS and American corporations" is simple conjunction, a union, treating two things as one so that you can make a single predicate statement about them. If you mean to make separate statements about the two things, maybe don't group them into the same sentence phrase?
I asked you not to group these things together. If this provokes you to begin regurgitating "free/libre" ideology all over again, you obviously think that being asked to separate American OSS and American corporations is somehow incompatible with OSS or "free/libre". American OSS marched in front of Microsoft to demand refunds. Get it right.
At this point you're clearly misconstruing my statements, and/or have some problems with reading comprehension. Your others comments don't leave much to be positive about, either.
You would have been able to see this by looking at a graph of my karma against the hour of day. There's truly an ideological dispersion across the Atlantic.
OSS and FOSS are global, not American or EU or anything. The geopolitical situation is on another plane. FOSS can and will be used as a tool for strategic autonomy, for better and for worse.
Why would one at this very moment look with suspicion at a FOSS contributor for the sole reason (s)he's American?
1.) it's quiet clear the European sovereignity is a pitch to get resources into the OS eco system.
2.) it's very easy: after governments companies ans users will follow as os proofed to work.
3.) this is not us vs eu,.it is just us vs. The rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are threatened by Trumpy as well and located on another side of the Atlantic and probably their government are interested into OS as well.
4.) As there is not an os business model of US will work , money and users will be else where starting in Europe. It will be easier for Open Source somewhere else.
5.) so this is my last bit: your comment sounds like American don't want to protest against Trump because it is too dangerous. Well, that's the result as 50% of people voted for Trump. In your scene: Less resources for open source in the us
> your comment sounds like American don't want to protest against Trump because it is too dangerous
At this time, we are still openly committed to the 2nd amendment in defense of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and so on. I am encouraging others to participate in open-carry demonstrations to make it clear to the authoritarians that they will not get the intimidating optics of an unopposed crackdown against a helpless crowd that they want. Personally, I grew up shooting things, so handling bootlickers will be natural if it comes to it.
Technically enabled solutions to better communicate, organize, and represent the will of the people would help a lot. Bomb-shelter thinking will not help much. If the US devolves into a Russian style authoritarian state, one where I will no longer be welcomed off the plane, the EU will have more to worry about than Windows. My ideas on the technically enabled side are complex but sound, so I encourage any interested in doing full stack Rust to get a hold of me by clicking links. I'll be finishing up some shader programming and feedback rendering today as the next piece of my strategy.
> the EU will have more to worry about than Windows
The US can, right now, crash pretty much the entire western industry/economy by disconnecting their digital services.
The US already threatens the western world with that power. They already use it.
Of course the EU has to care about that. The reason they accepted the dependency was that for a long time they were looking up to the US, and couldn't imagine that the US could become an enemy in the space of a few weeks.
Now the US has proven that they could realistically go from this state that the western world trusted to declaring war to allies in a matter of weeks. Of course everybody is scared.
The EU will have more to worry about than Windows, but it also has to worry about Windows. Trump banned the head of the ICC from Microsoft, successfully disrupting their prosecution of America, via pure software means.
Outside the constitution, outside their jurisdiction, and not lawful.
Popular sovereignty always works. One way or another.
The most wrong opinion in the debate is to claim that we will be punished for open carry demonstrations. Only an abuse victim excuses the attacker, and allowing the attacker to do what they want is just catch 22.
Leptos etc. WASM is mature enough to just go for it. Same code sharing arrangement as using TS on the backend but using the backend language on the frontend instead.
Yeah. You can bind C in swift. You can expose C interfaces from Rust. Write non-iOS code in Rust, then bind. Now you have iOS support with common client code in Rust.
You can compile Rust to WASM. You can run Rust on the backend. It's gaining popularity on k8s for memory consumption. You can write music visualizers in Rust. You can pivot to killer drones or embedded in Rust. It has very few foot guns compared to C and all of the advantages of C.
The people who want Swift to succeed off of Apple hardware are basically waiting for someone else to do it. Rust users will just invade Apple from every side. It is very clear which platform is the better investment of anyone's time.
I can't believe I'm even wasting keystrokes thinking about this. I saw a bunch of upvotes and can only imagine this has to be wishful thinking from Swift users.
I don't agree that sibling to my comment: "make money by getting papers cited". it is not a long-term solution, much as Ad revenue is broken model for free software, also.
I'm hopeful that we see some vibe-coders get some products out that make money, and then pay to support the system they rely on for creating/maintaining their code.
Not sure what else to hope for, in terms of maintaining the public goods.
Any "exposure" economy has real money somewhere else turning the wheel. If that money isn't sensitive to healthy signal, neither is the downstream. Well-wishers are just alternative perpetual motion machine enthusiasts.
Anyone who hates driving, being stuck in traffic, anyone who benefits when the cost of transportation is cheaper, anyone who hates insurance, all of society benefits. In some parallel universe self driving and fusion are both crash projects receiving well administered social scale funding. Lots of things are. It is somewhat miraculous that we don't all live in this conclusion, realizing these huge value creation opportunities by investing aggressively in the upstream tech. There is a horse I would very much like to drown for only a few million USD.
None of that is solved by automated driving. You want public trains, BRT bus systems, trams, etc. The ideal universe is you stepping on public trans, not piloting various rube goldberg-esque machines that are far more dangerous and will always contribute to traffic and "one more lane" does not work.
Sure, public transit can be nice. But so is owning my own vehicle that isn't subject to routes, schedules, and minimal luggage constraints. I'd much rather hang out and read a book or play a video game than babysit a vehicle in stop and go traffic for half an hour. Even if traffic is moving at a decent clip I'd still rather do something else.
Public transit is great but it is not a catch all solution. Farmers need trucks, people in rural areas need to get places at odd hours. Drunk people need to be ferried to distant places. Automated cars and good transit are not mutually exclusive.
All formal methods came from natural. Somewhere in the meta-language stack, without natural methods, any system is stuck within an inescapable well. Bad formalisms are stuck and wrong. Natural methods are bad, but not stuck. They can arrive at new formalisms.
reply