Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
503
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • I agree, which is why I think running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be a stronger safety layer.

    Them being separated should, imho, be a precondition, so that it can minimize accidents and exploits in cars that might be running software that is not immediately up to date as a result from publicly and well known vulnerabilities being discovered as the code evolves.

  • Open source software is not bug free. I'd argue there are more vulnerabilities caused by human error than there are caused by malicious actors. More often than not, malicious actors are just exploiting the errors/gaps left by completely legit designers.

    Running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be an even stronger safety layer, imho.

  • While it's true that Debian installation used to make use of a TUI and it did not have a nice GUI "live-CD" installation image for a long time (I think until 2019), Debian installation process included a default DE for way longer than that (2000). And before they did, the installation offered a choice between different window managers (back in the days before well established DE suites were even a thing).

    They don't customize the DE much, but neither does Archlinux which is a very popular distro nowadays (and the installer on that one is arguably even less friendly than Debian used to be).

    Personally, I feel it has more to do with how other distros (like Mint, Ubuntu, Knoppix, etc.) have built on the work of Debian to make their own variants that are essentially Debian + extra stuff, making them better recommendations for the average people (if one thinks of those as Debian variants then I wouldn't say Debian is "left out"). And for the not-so-average people, rolling release style distros (or even things like Nix/Guix) might be more interesting to experiment in.

  • Running it through the same computer is a bad practice, imho. Remember the Jeep Hack where researchers were able to dig into the integrated infotainment system and control the brakes?

    I wouldn't want to have critical car functions (or emissions control, regulatory software, ADAS, telematics, etc) depend on the same device that someone might be using to connect to the internet and/or run Android Auto apps. Regardless of whether it's integrated or not.

    I guess it might be ok to share energy and some non-critical capabilities with the infotainment system.. but you can do that through a USB-C connection without requiring it be integrated directly in the vehicle. Imho they should be isolated, and what best way of isolating it than being completely different computers?

  • At least for the German one, it's essentially a rebranding of existing open source products packaged/adapted to work as a suite.

    For example, for editing documents they are using Collabora online (Libreoffice-based), for chat it's Matrix, for storage Nextcloud, email & calendar from Ox Cloud, etc.

  • This just applies to the French government, unless you land a public job it's likely you'd still have to deal with that shit.

    Still, it's good news and lets hope it sets a trend.

  • Yes, but that's the point. Why focus on something that does not make them criminals when there are other things that might?

  • Isn't CachyOS more of a general purpose distro anyway?

    I expected the OGC was mainly targeted to gaming-first distros, which in my mind are meant for an entirely different kind of devices with different interests and goals. I don't think there should be much value in CachyOS joining it, regardless.

  • Most people already carry infotainment devices in their pockets that can be attached to holders and charging ports in the car. Even better if you connect a hub with some SSD storage to keep movies/music.

    I feel infotainment systems bundled in cars are mostly redundant and explicitly made to be non-modular so that they can get you into their walled garden.

  • you shouldn’t be adjusting it while driving but, my response is why have it in the first place.

    Exactly. If you shouldn't be adjusting it, then why is the touchscreen even accepting adjustments in the first place? ... it should be rejecting all touches whenever the engine is running to prevent people from even trying, which completely defeats the point of having a touchscreen in the first place anyway...

    It makes no sense to have an input that explicitly requires you to take your eyes away from the road in order to operate it.

  • And specially for Microsoft, they would be shooting their own foot if they were to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the development community over the legality of the use of AI tools like Copilot, which they themselves promote and sell.

  • SIM card is absolutely required even for emergency services

    For anyone wondering: while technically the cell towers might be able to accept emergency calls even without network authentication (which is what's the SIM is for), there are countries/places that will still require an active SIM with the excuse of wanting to prevent hoax calls.

  • They don't say what tech it's behind it but according to the article, it would be decentralized in Europe.

    Personally I don't mind if it's not federated with the fediverse, but imho, at the very least the protocol / basis should be FOSS.

  • The only reason for CSD is touch interfaces on small screens.

    Even in this case I'd argue that on small screens most apps simply have no real decorations (not even client-side).. there's typically not even a close button. Hamburger buttons are menus, which isn't what's typically considered "decoration". One could argue that the bar at the bottom in Android with home/back/etc controls is effectively a form of SSD. Android offers system UI or gestures to send the app to the background (ie. minimize) or closing it, it does not require Apps to render their own, which is effectively what Gnome is asking with CSD.

  • They justify the rejection of SSD because it isn't part of the core Wayland protocol and at the same time push client apps for the "minimize" and "maximize" buttons (along with respecting some settings) despite it also not being part of the core protocol and it being only possible through extensions. There's a ton of tiling compositors that don't even have any concept of minimize/maximize, so why should this be required of every client app?

    It feels backwards to ask the app developers to be the ones adding the UI for whatever features the window compositor might decide to have. They might as well be asking all app developers to add a "fullscreen" button to the decoration, or a "sticky" button, or a "roll up"/"shade" button like many old school X11 WM used to have. This would lead to apps lagging behind in terms of what they have implemented support for and resulting in inconsistent UX, and at the same time limiting the flexibility and user customization of the decorations, not just in terms of visuals but also function and behavior.

  • What about quantum computing having the potential to break traditional encryption and mess up the whole thing? I wouldn't want to be too invested into any one particular blockchain tech until that gets solved.

  • LLMs abstract information collected from the content through an algorithm (what they store is the result of a series of tests/analysis, not the content itself, but a set of characteristics/ideas). If that makes it derivative, then all abstractions are derivative. It's not possible to make abstractions without collecting data derived from a source you are observing.

    If derivative abstractions were already something that copyright can protect then litigants wouldn't resort to patents, etc.

  • You are not gonna protect abstract ideas using copyright. Essentially, what he's proposing implies turning this "TGPL" in some sort of viral NDA, which is a different category of contract.

    It's harder to convince someone that a content-focused license like the GPLv3 protects also abstract ideas, than creating a new form of contract/license that is designed specifically to protect abstract ideas (not just the content itself) from being spread in ways you don't want it to spread.

  • Yes, but they do it in order to fill up a hole in their lives, to have a "greater purpose", give their lives meaning. Ultimately all we do is to satisfy our desires...and the push towards caring for kids is one of the biologically hardwired desires we evolved having, the reason we do it is not really a lack of ego. Having a family is something people want for themselves, for their own happiness.

    I believe it's literally impossible for a person to not be egoistic without going crazy and/or offing oneself. Even christians who preach about self sacrifice and generosity only do it pushed by the promise of a better afterlife and their own self-interest of wanting to avoid hell and/or being closer to their god.

  • RPG @lemmy.ml

    The Lazy GM's Resource Document was released under CC-BY

    slyflourish.com /lazy_gm_resource_document.html