From 02fab84989f3e4ef6e41472fa1239c666a1e1174 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jade Lovelace Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 21:48:13 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] minor revisions --- .../computing-should-enable-humans/index.md | 55 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/posts/computing-should-enable-humans/index.md b/content/posts/computing-should-enable-humans/index.md index 7fc64ab..291600f 100644 --- a/content/posts/computing-should-enable-humans/index.md +++ b/content/posts/computing-should-enable-humans/index.md @@ -84,10 +84,11 @@ breaks is the release schedule of the software. Assuming that someone (whether you or not) *does* fix the issue, how long are you going to wait to get the patch? Is this months? Weeks? -A major red flag for software remaining unfixed is how homogeneous its -development workflow is: is it one giant repository where everything goes into -a black hole unless you work there? Which organization owns the majority of the -functionality you rely on? Are teams autonomous? +Having a large amount of functionality maintained by one group can be +troublesome. Is it one giant repository where everything goes into a black hole +unless you work there? Which organization owns the majority of the +functionality you rely on? Are teams autonomous? How much power does a single +entity hold? Thinking back on why I switched back to Neovim exclusively as an editor, one major reason is the amount of the functionality that is in plugins instead of @@ -117,21 +118,22 @@ they do. Consider the case study of Microsoft Visual Studio Code, which is free. How are they extracting money? God knows, but they sure are eating market share and -gaining themselves a tremendous position of power in the market by doing so. -From the very beginning, it was released as a closed source distribution of an -open source tool, and various *very important* pieces depend on closed source -code, so that Microsoft retains full control. For example, the remote -extension, an increasing number of language servers, the *extension store*, all -are closed source components under EULA. +gaining themselves a tremendous position of power in the market by doing so, +which could be easily leveraged to do anticompetitive behaviour, advantaging +their other products. From the very beginning, it was released as a closed +source distribution of an open source tool, and various *very important* pieces +depend on closed source code, so that Microsoft retains full control. For +example, the remote extension, an increasing number of language servers, the +*extension store*, all are closed source components under EULA. -As another example, Microsoft Bing tells you to not install Chrome when you -google "Chrome" in the Bing search box. Then, Microsoft Edge [*injects -pop-ups*][edge-popups] into Google's webpage for downloading Chrome. Then they -do it again when you try to change default browser in the settings app. This is -so obviously anticompetitive that it *should* have every country suing them for -billions for the exact same reason they [got sued for billions for doing *less* -to IE][us-v-microsoft], but apparently we do not live in a world where laws -apply to corporations anymore. +As another example, Microsoft Bing tells you to not install Chrome when you use +Bing to google "Chrome". Then, Microsoft Edge [*injects pop-ups*][edge-popups] +into Google's webpage for downloading Chrome. Then they do it again when you +try to change default browser in the settings app. This is so obviously +anticompetitive that it *should* have every country suing them for billions for +the exact same reason they [got sued for billions for doing *less* to +IE][us-v-microsoft], but apparently we do not live in a world where laws apply +to corporations anymore. [us-v-microsoft]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. [edge-popups]: https://www.extremetech.com/internet/329450-microsoft-edge-gets-new-anti-chrome-pop-ups @@ -187,8 +189,9 @@ community. For example: * Does the project have a Benevolent Dictator for Life? * How do they behave? * Do the rules apply to thee but not to me? - * If you disagree with them, what happens? Does the *project* hold special - power, such as access to special APIs restricted to their GitHub org? + * If you disagree with them, what happens? + * Does the *project* hold special power, such as access to special APIs + restricted to packages under their GitHub org? * Does the community accept bigots or convicted rapists in open arms? * Does the project have a code of conduct? Is it enforced? * Are you going to be called a fucking idiot for using the wrong words to @@ -205,7 +208,7 @@ is that going to be? A *big* reason that VSCode is so troublesome to use as someone who wants working software is that it is aggressively not forkable: you have to get stuff merged for it to get into the closed source distribution, they are bad about merging things, and it moves pretty fast while being this -massive thing. +massive blob of things that aren't extensible. In spite of being a card-carrying anti-FSF person, I very much care about so-called "software freedom": I care that I can fix my own software. For @@ -233,8 +236,14 @@ implemented upstream. We spend a huge amount of our lives using software, and there are a *lot* of factors that can make the difference between being under the thumb of software and software being a force of good in our lives. I have been thinking about a -lot of these things subconsciously for years, and it's become clear that these -are actually *values* that I care about, not just software things. +lot of these things subconsciously for years and picking projects based on the +right vibes, and it's become clear that these are actually *values* that I care +about, not just software things. + +Resiliency is important, and it is especially so in things that we need to use +to do our jobs and live our lives. I hope that you too can get to a place where the Computer generally works and is a positive influence on your life. + +🏴