Have we ever lived in a more stallmanwasright.jpg time?
Ah. Well. About software. Stallman was right about software
.
I never wanted him to be wrong more than right now. Except for tomorrow, it’s probably going to bé worse, tomorrow
Stallman has never been and never will be wrong.
I sometimes like to read his political posts:
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2025-jul-oct.html
And honestly? I mostly agree with them? Like this:
ABC ordered to pay Antoinette Lattouf another $150,000 for unlawful termination over Gaza Instagram post.
But a company faced with enormous threats wielded by fascist officials who demand that certain views be suppressed will treat such penalties as the normal cost of sucking up.
The [Israeli] army says that HAMAS is using apartment buildings for “surveillance”, and has bombed some of those buildings to destroy them. Based on this logic, the army might bomb every tall building in Gaza City with the large bombs that the US is providing
He has some questionable beliefs as well, though for unusual reasons. He accepts non-binary people but refuses to use they/them pronouns because he doesn’t like the ambiguity of singular/plural pronouns. So he has invented the neopronouns per/pers to refer to singular non-binary persons. I genuinely think no other person on this planet could hold this opinion.
He accepts non-binary people but refuses to use they/them pronouns because he doesn’t like the ambiguity of singular/plural pronouns.
I agree with this criticism, but the entire English language is full of bullshit so you might as well consider using Esperanto
I genuinely think no other person on this planet could hold this opinion.
Eh, I’m pretty close to this opinion.
A family member came out as non-binary, and I don’t like to use they/them (for the same reason as Stallman), but I also think creating my own pronouns is more offensive, so I just use their first name, unless I can’t easily avoid it (like this sentence). I’m not trying to be offensive, I just don’t like they/them as angular pronouns. I also don’t like “you” as both singular and plural, but I’m also not ready to use “y’all”, so I refer to second person groups without the pronoun (if feasible).
On a related note, I also think gender is a social construct and not actually “real.” Sex exists because it’s a biological thing, but it shouldn’t be directly tied to your role in society. To change my mind, I need empirical evidence that there’s some unique difference between men and women (brain wave patterns?) that aligns groups of non-binary people or aligns trans people with people of the opposite sex. I personally don’t think this exists, and gender fluidity is more a symptom of a culture that isn’t well equipped to handle people who don’t nicely fit into a bucket. I think gender is a useful metaphor for what’s going on, and I absolutely support people fighting for using it to get the recognition they need, but I don’t think it’s an actual, scientifically proven thing.
The only real difference is that I use first names to refer to non-binary people’s first names more frequently than to binary people. I hope that doesn’t offend anyone, I just really don’t like using the same pronoun for both singular and plural.
Singular they is over 600 years old by the way: https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
As a trans person, my gender dysphoria is not something caused entirely by social gender roles. Medical transition has greatly alleviated the majority of it. Anecdotally, within the first week of hormone therapy, my dysphoria improved dramatically while only being out of the closet to 2 people outside of my therapist and the medical professionals who prescribed my hormones. It has continued to improve, although I’m still waiting for the surgery that will resolve the remaining things that hormones can’t fix.
Also, there are studies around brain structure differences between men and women, and transgender people tended to have brain structures in line with their gender, not their assigned sex at birth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence#Brain_structure
Perhaps you should believe people when they tell you who they are, and get past your discomfort drawing arbitrary lines in grammar regarding pronouns, when singular they predates the fall of the Byzantine Empire by 75 years.
Singular they is over 600 years old by the way
Sure, and “you” used to be exclusively plural. Language changes, and now you is exclusively singular in some parts of the world (e.g. the US “South” where “y’all” is the plural).
I want separate singular and plural pronouns. Some languages do this properly and don’t even have gendered pronouns, such as Tagalog:
- he/she/singular they - siya(possessive = niya)
- plural he/she/they - sila (possessive = nila)
- singular you - iyo (possessive = niyo)
- plural you - inyo (possessive = ninyo)
there are studies around brain structure differences between men and wome
Sure, but sample sizes are small and many times they don’t seem to control for hormone therapy.
That said, this one looks interesting:
A 2009 MRI study by Luders et al. found that among 24 trans women not treated with hormone therapy, regional gray matter concentrations were more similar to those of cisgender men than of cisgender women, but there was a significantly greater volume of gray matter in the right putamen compared to cisgender men. Like earlier studies, researchers concluded that transgender identity was associated with a distinct cerebral pattern.
And this one:
Rametti et al. (2011) studied 18 trans men who had not undergone hormone therapy using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), an MRI technique which allows visualizing white matter, the structure of which is sexually dimorphic. Rametti et al. discovered that the trans men’s white matter, compared to 19 cisgender gynephilic females, showed higher fractional anisotropy values in posterior part of the right SLF, the forceps minor and corticospinal tract". Compared to 24 cisgender males, they showed only lower FA values in the corticospinal tract. The white matter patterns in trans men were found to be shifted in the direction of cis men.
And this review of other studies:
A 2021 review of brain studies published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “although the majority of neuroanatomical, neurophysiological, and neurometabolic features” in transgender people “resemble those of their natal sex rather than those of their experienced gender”, for trans women they found feminine and demasculinized traits, and vice versa for trans men.
This suggests there may be developmental differences between trans and cis individuals, and there seems to be a correlation between trans people and the sex associated with the gender they identify as.
The body of available science certainly indicates more researchis needed and could lead to answers that show exactly what differences exist between cis and trans people. I sincerely hope that happens. But as it stands,the research isn’t conclusive.
Perhaps you should believe people when they tell you who they are
Let’s be extremely clear here, my support for policy will not be impacted whatsoever by the scientific research, regardless of the outcome. If you feel like hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery or whatever other treatments will help you, you should be able to get them. Full stop. If you want to be treated as a man or a woman, I’ll do that. If you want to be called by different pronouns, I’ll do my best to do it, I just don’t like pronouns that are both singular and plural because they can lead to confusion. That’s it.
If there was a generally accepted gender-neutral set of pronouns (like in my example), I’d use them nearly exclusively. If the scientific evidence was clear cut, I’d admit as much. Neither is the case, so I’m left to find a happy medium that works for my and others in my life.
Okay that’s all cool or cool-and-stubbornly-autistic. But he has some other opinions that are not, about consent and age.
So the blanket ‘fuck yeah, stallman!’ Doesn’t really fly anymore.
Hasn’t he admitted to changing his opinion after learning about the effects on children? I’m not in the loop about this.
But yeah, you definitely shouldn’t treat his words as gospel. A lot of questionable-at-best stuff in there.
Hasn’t he admitted to changing his opinion after learning about the effects on children?
He did. The argument against him was half based on misquotes and incomplete sentences, but the other half was indeed once his opinion - he argued that age of consent was a dumb concept and that instead it should be based on what the child wants to do and any harm they were subjected to.
He later on said he regretted this view because it was explained to him that there’s no ability to consent and this always causes harm to the child. His original arguments were, in typical Stallman fashion, quite obsessed with definitions themselves, almost as if the subject at hand didn’t really matter he was just bothered about how the definition had some flaws.
But even with that in mind… I can’t feel comfortable knowing he defended this point of view, and it does significantly harm my opinion about him.
Everything you said there is pretty typical with high functioning ASD, up to and including others being uncomfortable with past behavior and statements.
I can’t say I disagree with him - in an ideal world. Now all we need is a world where it’s easy enough to tell if someone is mature enough to make those kinds of decisions, no one uses power imbalances to allow them to achieve their desires, kids are fully aware of the impact their decisions will have on them decades in the future, and on and on. That’s clearly not the world we live in, and I expect it will never be, and so we err on the side of caution, and don’t condone children engaging in certain activities until they’re older, and even then only with people of a similar age until such a time where trying to stop them from engaging in potentially reckless behavior is more harmful than allowing them to do so.
I criticized singular they/them for increasing language ambiguity and suggested replacing it with something new like xe/xer multiple times. The reply is usually a shitstorm and downvote tornado. I’ve given up on that front.
Probably because singular “they” predates singular “you” grammatically. Should we go back to using thou and thee instead of the singular you as well?
Doesn’t feel like you want to have an honest argument when you ask how far we should go back on a proposal about going forward and don’t address the single motivator ambiguity.
Correct, because there is no argument to be had. Intentionally refusing to use someone’s pronouns is unacceptable, every time, with 0 exceptions. If there’s a dire need to be explicitly clear you’re talking about a single person, you could just use their name in that instance.
You don’t get to decide how other people refer to you. I’m sorry but you don’t have that authority. You can dislike people using the “wrong” pronouns, but you cannot compel the usage of the ones you want to be called because of your beliefs. If I say my pronouns are “your majesty” it’s not unacceptable if you don’t use them.
I always found this argument funny because how would you use pronouns for someone whose gender you do not know? They. It’s they. E.g. you are given the sentence: Jordan went to the store to buy apples. And you want to ask a followup question regarding how many, you reply: How many apples did they buy? It’s not that complicated. They has been used for gender ambiguity in everyone’s lives since grammar school. People just have an inherent bias towards trans folks and it’s incredibly depressing and sad.
I always found this argument funny because how would you use pronouns for someone whose gender you do not know? They. It’s they. E.g. you are given the sentence: Jordan went to the store to buy apples. And you want to ask a followup question regarding how many, you reply: How many apples did they buy?
And that’s not how English was taught to me or 99℅ of the population (including English as a second or third language) 20+ years ago. Singular they was only used for situations where the gender (read as superficially visible sex) was factually unknown. You see a forgotten umbrella and never saw who forgot it: “Somebody forgot their umbrella.” As soon as you only got a glimpse on the person forgetting it you would make a guess about he/she.
They has been used for gender ambiguity in everyone’s lives since grammar school.
If you’re younger than ~30 and from Great Britain, maybe. GB were the first to formalize and teach it like that less than 2 decades ago (if I recall correctly).
People just have an inherent bias towards trans folks and it’s incredibly depressing and sad.
That’s bullshit projection.
I, a non-native speaker, complain about increased ambiguity of the language because of singular they as a personal pronoun and make a proposal about new pronouns for the purpose.
You: Ah, must be transphobe. Let’s ignore everything he said (which doesn’t relate to transphobia at all).
It’s so frustrating not to be able to have a discussion about stuff making a language harder than it needs to be without people invoking transphobia, like, instantly.
But hey, I called it: can’t have a discussion about it and I’ve given up on it.
edit: tiny add-on. I was still taught gender-neutral he and only heard about they later while being discouraged to use it in writing.
It hasn’t been used for “gender” ambiguity, but sex ambiguity, because the separation of sex and gender is only a recent thing and it’s not even unanimously accepted.
Oh my gosh, you’re being pedantic. It has been used for “gender” ambiguity for quite some time. If you choose to be ignorant, then that’s your dill, pickle. At the end of the day, you get to choose whether you make someone happy, or sad. Why is that difficult? Why can’t you comprehend the concept of providing joy to someone? Why can’t you just be nice? That’s what this whole thing is about, right? You can either choose to be nice, or not. And I’m so tired of arguing with people to be nicer. Why can’t people get it through their thick skulls, that people just want to live and be considerate of each other. That’s what we all want, right?
Except when it comes to women and girls, he’s absolutely wrong
Unless he’s championing paedophilia and bestiality, which he has done on a number of occasions. Or being an absolute creep with women, which he’s also done.
🪴
“Google stands for free and open internet”
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/keep-internet-free-and-open/
Aged like milk.
aged like a corpse in a bathtub more like it.
Don’t be evilBe evil when it makes money.
we need linux phones ASAP
I think Linux phones will gain some real traction within five years. Last I heard, KDE is putting great effort into making apps for Plasma Mobile
They exist. People just don’t buy them. But there is a Ubuntu phone port you can install on your phone as an alternative to android.
But yeah it can get complicated like any Linux community project and isn’t at all mainstream.
Does anyone know if existing linux phones can run 2FA apps such as Duo or Google authenticator?
Why do you need the google Authenticator? Proton has it too. Which (from searching) looks like it’s compatible for the Ubuntu systems. But that’s just from the search. I ‘m personally just using it with a android right now. I am currently eyeing up the fairphone Ubuntu as my next phone
Same reason collectivist people like social media censorship and gun control, to make them feel “safe” even though all it does is centralize power. Besides hi ow many people have the tech skills to even know what third party app repositories are?
Or better apps like Aegis?
What is it with you people trying your best to get away from google but still using the most exchangeable app they have.Lots of jobs require BYOD today (like, most F500 companies) and they limit to non-rooted OSs. I use Aegis for personal apps but I cannot escape microsoft as long as I want to keep paying my mortgage.
deleted by creator
The problem might be that Google will argue this isn’t a downgrade at all, but an upgrade (for “security” reasons). I don’t want to be a pessimist, but the tech illiterate judges could eat that up.
They’re not removing a feature though, so that whole argument falls over instantly.
deleted by creator
That’s not removing a feature though, it’s just changing it. Side loading is the feature.
deleted by creator
I very much doubt that’s how the law works lol
deleted by creator
Because you’re wrong.
There’s never been a more urgent time to switch to Linux on pretty much every device.
The mobile options for Linux are years out from being ready and the hardware vendors are locking them out as fast as possible.
There’s generally been positive reviews for FuriLab’s FLX1 model:
- https://clehaxze.tw/gemlog/2025/07-20-flx1-actually-usable-linux-phone.gmi
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839326
- https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1fa1ljn/furilabs_flx1/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1j46f2w/flx1_linux_phone_display_out/
- https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/03/furiphone_flx1/
Their new one, the FLX1s has 2GiB more RAM (for 8GiB, in total). I’ve heard battery gets 2 days without charge even with Android emulation.
deleted by creator
Sure; but we won’t close that gap immediately. Intermediate progress can be helpful for further progress.
deleted by creator
For those in Europe, write your representatives.
Fro me f-droid’s post: https://f-droid.org/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html
What do we propose?
Regulatory and competition authorities should look carefully at Google’s proposed activities, and ensure that policies designed to improve security are not abused to consolidate monopoly control. We urge regulators to safeguard the ability of alternative app stores and open-source projects to operate freely, and to protect developers who cannot or will not comply with exclusionary registration schemes and demands for personal information.
If you are a developer or user who values digital freedom, you can help. Write to your Member of Parliament, Congressperson or other representative, sign petitions in defense of sideloading, and contact the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) team to express why preserving open distribution matters. By making your voice heard, you help defend not only F-Droid, but the principle that software should remain a commons, accessible and free from unnecessary corporate gatekeeping.
https://f-droid.org/2025/09/04/twif.html [^antifeatures]: F-Droid Anti-Features overview: https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/ [^howmanyusers]: How many F-Droid users are there, exactly? We don’t know, because we don’t track users or have any registration. “No user accounts, by design”: https://f-droid.org/2022/02/28/no-user-accounts-by-design.html [^sideloading]: ‘“Sideload” is a weird euphemism that the mobile duopoly came up with; it means “installing software without our permission,” which we used to just call “installing software” (because you don’t need a manufacturer’s permission to install software on your computer).’ — Pluralistic: Darth Android: https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/01/fulu/ [^playprotect]: “Google Play Protect checks your apps and devices for harmful behavior”: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853
I’m starting to think these for-profit companies only care about making money.
So when this happens, can’t fdroid just make a PC side installer that syncs apps to the phone through adb? Sure it sucks that you can’t just tap to install now but at least people could still use their 600 dollar phones for as long as they were supposed to by plugging in every now and then when your PC fdroid client tells you there’s updates. Heck on the meta quest I used adb only with the quest headset once I got it configured, it was some self hosted adb server and let me do all the sit I needed a computer for in the first place without one, maybe fdroid could change the client to use a “remote adb” solution like that?
Isn’t this illegal in Europe? Was that the whole point of forcing apple to allow alternative app stores?
Technically, third party app stores are allowed. Developers “only” register with google to receive a developer certificate. Isn’t apple doing the same thing in response to the EU regulations and that has been allowed?
I can’t believe how useless the EU regulations are.
What pisses me off it that they say they do this for security. It changes absolutely anything.
They really think that malware developers will say “oh no! I need to submit a picture of an id card to sign my malware! It’s literally impossible to submit a jpg of a stolen id card, I’m ruined and out of a job!”
What does it change? Waste 20 minutes of some malware developer while they register under a stolen id? They already have a system that scans for known malware and automatically remove it.
Thing is, Play Store is already filled with malware or near-malware from seemingly verified developers. I ran into several scam clone apps just today. It’s even snuck in through OEM apps.
Same on iOS, which supposedly verifies devs.
If ‘verification’ and curation is their idea of security, well… It appears their system is already overloaded, yet they want to expand it?
It’s always security when someone wants to take our freedom away. Always security…
Both things can be true. It definitely is better for security. It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.
But you know what would be even better for security? Not allowing any third-party code at all (i.e., no apps).
Obviously that’s too shitty and everyone would move off of that platform. There’s a balance that must be struck between user freedom and the general security of a worldwide network of sensitive devices.
Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices as long as they are (1) informed of the risks, (2) prevented from doing those things by accident if they are not informed, and (3) as long as their actions do not threaten the rest of the network.
Side-loading is perfectly reasonable under those conditions.
It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.
I dispute this. While adding extra layers of security looks good on paper, flawed security can be worse than no security at all.
Android packages already have to be signed to be valid and those keys already are very effective in practice. In effect these new measures are reinventing the wheel as to what a layperson would think this new system does.
Adding this extra layer in fact has no actual security benefit beyond posturing/“deterrence”. Catching a perpetrator is not the same thing as preventing a crime. Worse - catching a thief in meatspace has the potential to recover stolen goods, but not so in digital spaces - either the crime is damage or destruction of data for which no punishment undoes the damage or the crime is sharing private data which in practice would almost certainly have been immediately fenced to multiple data brokers.
And were only getting started with this security theater:
- Nothing prevents an organization from hiring a developer for long enough to register before being flushed (or the same effect with a burner account on fiver)
- Nothing in this program does anything to get code libraries vetted - many of these developers may accidentally be publishing code from poisoned wells that they have no practical knowledge of.
- None of these measures make scams less profitable.
- None of this addresses greyware - software that could technically qualify as legal (because the user agreed to terms of service for a service of dubious value)
- All of this costs time and resources that will likely inevitably be shouldered on low paid engineers that could have put that effort to better uses.
- Metrics and statistics may likely be P-hacked to reflect that the new system as a success (because there’s internal pressure to make it look good) this turning-security-into-press-releases would have collateral of making accountability overall worse.
But you know what would be even better for security?
While we’re at it we could add the tropes of removing network connectivity, or switch to using clay tablets kept in a wooden box guarded by a vengeful god. Both of those would be more secure, too.
Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices
100% agree with you here - it’s fundamentally the principle of “Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”. Users should be given the tools and freedom to do as they want with their property - up until it affects another person or their property in an unwanted way.
I think we mostly agree. And I do agree that “flawed security can be worse than no security at all.” I think, though, that this doesn’t make security worse, just that it doesn’t make it that much better.
But even simple filters can make a significant difference: maybe you remember the early-ish Lemmy debacle of turning off captchas for signups by default, ostensibly because captchas are now completely defeated… which led to thousands and thousands of bot accounts being created pretty much immediately across a bunch of instances, and the feature being turned back on by default.
I’ll agree to that.
And I also think that there’s no way I trust Alphabet (holding company of Google) to be the sole arbiters of who gets to run code - neither in a philosophical sense nor as a gatekeeper to one top five compute platforms used by a substantial chunk of the world population.
It absolutely does not justify creating a policy that would wholesale obliterate F-Droid, arguably one of their larger competitors.
100% agree
My job doesn’t allow me to use a jailbroken/rooted device
So if/when this goes through I’ll be switching to iOS.
Given the choice between two closed platforms, I’ll pick the one that ostensibly says they’re privacy focused instead of the one actively enshittifying their product.
You should just get a cheap phone to use for work. No reason to have their software on your own device. That will undoubtedly be used for creepy purposes.
And the obvious annoyance of having two phones
Still worth it. The amount of time you will save by not having junk on your phone slowing it down will make up for it.
I don’t find this applies. I have an email account and chat app for work. I’m using a 4 year old phone. It’s not slow.
Also having stuff consime your disk doesn’t really slow it down.
That’s not really company imposed spyware though. If I thought in any way that my boss was trying to make me install spyware I wouldn’t the very least install it in shelter, something that has been disappeared during the Google play store purges. You can still find the apk online atleast until Google kills android soon with their ban on user installable software outside of the play store.
Let’s hope that the rest of the world, specifically Europe smash this ridiculous proposal apart for what it is. Europe has already sorted out USB-C etc. Its not perfect and they don’t get everything right, but certainly big enough to make stuff right.
They’re too busy forcing chat control and age gates through our collective throats.
Yep. The E.U. has allowed itself to be dominated for too long by the US megacorps. It has the talent, ideas, and manufacturing to tell US firms to bugger off … and the sooner, the better for us all.
they are also going hard on surveillance, private info too, backed by RU of course.i think russell vought is behind the anti-porn verifications in the EU
At this stage the EU probably pushed Google to do this. They’ve taken a sharp turn to authoritarianism.
It seems to me that part of the problem is overreliance on phones as computing devices. A lot of things, like banking, are best done on an actual computer. We have become too dependent on phones.
Yep I absolutely refuse to put any banking apps on my phone. The only thing that has access to my bank is me physically going there or logging into their website via my own computer. Fuck any app that asks for access to my bank account including autopay services through third parties.
The only third party service I use for payments is paypal and that only goes to my credit card.
Right now the only decently speced phone with mainline Linux support is the Oneplus 6, and the only one I can find is being sold for $2000
There’s the FairPhone 6, running e/OS, Which is a deGoogled port of android, running microG
https://murena.com/america/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairphone-6/
If f-droid doesn’t expect to survive I think the whole stack /e/OS relies on might eventually collapse (microg, lineage, …).
I dunno how viable it is, but linux phones with waydroid is a thing
Also, I’d imagine that a small pocket of custom ROM amd root folks will still exist
Come hell or high water, i will retain control of my phone
Google’s developer verification will only run on mainstream Android with play services. It’s not supposed won’t be running in standard AOSP so the easiest solution would be to switch to a custom ROM like GrapheneOS.
They are also working to similarly kill custom ROMs. Just recently the GrapheneOS team mentioned that Google is no longer making their hardware drivers Open Source, and so compatibility with new phones means reverse engineering their own drivers - which is a big reason that custom ROMs support such narrow hardware options already and very often come with limitations and/or features that just don’t work. At best, they figure out how to make it work, but it takes time and updates can lag significantly behind.
We have a lot of options on the software side for avoiding google (or android), but very limited options on hardware. We need open source mobile hardware support ASAP.
They’re not so much working to kill custom roms as they are just not giving away their code anymore, going closed source for their own hardware.
Why do you think they’re making this arbitrary change?
Because Google have been wanting to be closed source for years, which is why nearly all their new features since they released the Pixel have been PixelOS exclusive and not in AOSP.
They don’t care about killing custom roms, that’s just a side effect of them going closed source for their Phone.
What do you think the benefit of closing sourcing their software is if not to stifle competition?
It means they can do way more features without giving away precious IP, and it also just reduces their workload. They don’t need to keep giving out their code for free. It makes their job harder.
AOSP projects are not and never have been a threat to Google. They aren’t trying to stifle them - that’s just a byproduct of not giving away their code anymore. Giving it away gives literally zero benefits to them. It might only save them 0.01%, but that’s a lot money.
As someone whose job runs several FOSS projects, I think you’re making up the fact that it adds meaningful workload.
I think that, for all intents and purposes, protecting IP is equivalent to stifling competition.
I think giving away code benefits the entire Android ecosystem, which might be the largest data mining operating Google has. I fully believe that’s of nonzero benefit.
