• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
Cake day: November 5th, 2024
  • neox_@sh.itjust.workstoLinux@lemmy.ml•Google is only free if your time has no valueFrançais
    4·
    2 days ago

    Hi there, Océane!

    Firstly, I find the definition of free software as “Everyone should be able to write open source software!” quite problematic. It seems like if it were interchangeable with open source software, or at least somewhat equivalent. However, free/libre software and open source software are very distinct concepts:

    • Free software emphasizes ethical principles, ensuring actual people have freedom to use, study, modify, and share software. Having access to the source code is important to do that, but that’s not the main point.
    • Open source software focuses on practical benefits like collaboration and transparency, without raising ethical concerns.

    Your statement conflates these two ideas, which could confuse people about the philosophical differences between both movements.

    Secondly, I think the comparison between software “written for developers” and software “written for the GNOME community” oversimplifies the diverse motivations behind projects. While GNOME aims to provide a polished experience, many other projects, like KDE or Linux Mint with Cinnamon, also cater to non-technical users with user-friendly designs. GNOME’s approach isn’t unique in prioritizing ease of use.

    Additionally, focusing on specific examples like Linux Mint’s printer notifications doesn’t address the broader landscape of user experiences across distributions and desktop environments… It’s only one example of something that works well.

    Your post argues that platforms like Stack Overflow provide a “stupid experience” for learning, advocating instead for books. While books are excellent for foundational knowledge, dismissing online resources is, I think, short-sighted. Stack Overflow, forums, and community wikis are invaluable for solving real-world problems and learning practical skills, especially when combined with books. The problem is perhaps more how to use this kind of resources efficiently and not only copy code one doesn’t understand.

    Additionally, the mention of tools like GNU Guix, Skribilo, and Haunt without context might overwhelm newcomers. While these tools are powerful, recommending them without explanation of their benefits or practical examples seems not very accessible.

    The critique of Google’s algorithms promoting a “far-right agenda” lacks nuance. While it’s true that Google’s algorithms have biases, the argument oversimplifies a complex issue involving corporate incentives, algorithmic design, and user behavior too. Similarly, the statement about LaTeX being “intuitive” but requiring a good book overlooks the steep learning curve many users experience, even with resources. LaTeX’s complexity lies not just in learning its syntax but also in troubleshooting issues, configuring packages, and navigating its ecosystem. It’s important to acknowledge these challenges rather than dismiss them.

    Finally, the suggestion that learners should “install any distro” and read books is well-meaning but overly broad. Books are good for foundational knowledge, but most people need practice and repetition while solving real-life problems to acquire competences. Encouraging curiosity and providing a variety of resources tailored to different learning styles would be a more inclusive approach.

    Your post touches on important topics, but a more balanced view would celebrate the diversity of learning tools, acknowledge the complexity of issues like algorithmic bias and relation to people’s behavior, and emphasize the variety of approaches to free software development. By doing so, I think it can foster a more welcoming and informed community for both technical and non-technical users.