> You can also enable it on firefox with privacy.resistFingerprinting enabled.
Not the same thing.
I use both Firefox and Mulllvad Browser side-by-side on a regular basis and in practice Mullvad Browser is far more aggressive in its privacy preserving measures to the extent that you do sometimes stumble across websites that are "broken" in Mullvad Browser but work fine in Firefox, for example the animated map features on the Ventusky website (which, IIRC, breaks because Mullvad is more aggressive at blocking JS graphics functions).
Then you're committing to maintaining a package for that software.
Like all LLM boosters, you've ignored the fact that the largest time sink in many kinds of software is not initial development, but perpetual maintenance.
Is it though? If the way that I’m going to edit those files is by typing the same natural language command into Claude code, and the edit operation to maintain it takes 20 seconds instead of 10, to me that seems pretty materially the same
This. I wouldn't have touched Nix when you needed someone who was really good at Nix to keep it working, but agents make it viable to use in a number of place.
From what I see running the test on my phone, there's an option to tunnel DNS through Rethink here, which you can change to the VPN's DNS. Everything else is tunneled by default through wireguard. Maybe there's a configuration issue on your end?
Was the above post propaganda? Or was it just a user recommendation?
Perhaps the reason it gets mentioned often is simply because it's a good piece of software. Then again, perhaps not!
In any case, I'd be careful about using 3rd party DNS (and other) services, but that's for the user to decide, depending on the situation one is in.
Using one's own resolver is always a good practice, even in countries where ISPs are not selling customer's private data to anyone that comes along and where governments don't monitor and repress their citizens on every step...
We live in strange times where even EU countries misuse resolvers to censor certain web pages, while, for example, independent Balkan countries do not. Go figure...
I didn't intend for this to be propaganda, I don't even use it anymore since I'm on grapheneOS now.
But I have tried all three. I need to use a VPN in split mode for certain apps, and since using Tor with apps wasn't part of my threat model, I ended up using RethinkDNS (the app only). I don't necessarily like their upstream DNS servers, but considering that I can use my own server (and do), I don't consider that to be an issue.
Installing NetGuard was revelation regarding the amount of tracking in most Android apps.
You can configure it to block access by default and notify you every time an app attempts a new connection. And it rings all the time.
Some software call home at 4am every day, other every hour, some send data to a dozen "analytics" services - services that I never opted-in for, which shows how few apps respect the RGPD.
At least most apps still work when those are blocked, and NetGuard allows you to block connections to Google servers except for Google Apps, which network firewalls and DNS solutions can't.
I am using GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS has a compatibility layer providing the option to install and use the official releases of Google Play in the standard app sandbox.
I could see how they are blocked on your system, using GrapheneOS, but that doesn't tell us if Netguard blocks them on Android systems. One reason for GrapheneOS is to close that kind of hole.
F-Droid only packages open-source software and rebuilds it from source, while installing from Accrescent would move all trust to the developer, even if the license changes to proprietary.
I understand that the author trusts itself more than F-Droid, but as a user the opposite seems more relevant.
They should reword it as "That’s the average time it takes a broken automatic upgrade to land and deploy through your network. When your data, reputation, and revenue are at stake, don't trust third-party software with automated updates."
Finally a voice recognition keyboard that works well on Android and offline! I just tested it and the quality in English at least is great.
Too bad that the license is not open-source, I prefer donating to projects that are open-source even if asking for a fee to use (ex: Netguard, MyExpenses).
Is there a tangible difference between source first / source available and open source? Afaik if you are just a normal developer and not a company it's pretty much the same?
Notably, Source First does not allow for the software to be used commercially ("You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes...") whereas Open Source does allow commercial use ("The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software..." and "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.").
Thanks for the clarification. Source First is obviously better because it prevents big corporations from ripping off small developers and profiting from it.
> a normal developer and not a company it's pretty much the same
Microsoft shares Windows codebase with its partners. Is there a tangible difference between it and Android?
Also, as a developer, why would you volunteer for a "source first" codebase? I don't see any point since you can't really fork it, in the traditional sense.
Correction, it isn’t open-source according to the definition of opensource.org - an organization that famously did not invent the term but just co-opted it and whose primary source of funding comes from private closed-source tech giants such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft - a clear and very serious conflict of interest.
You keep going on about them not inventing the term, as though that matters.
They din't invent it, they proposed a formal definition, and other people agreed, and have been using the term to mean that meaning for decades by now.
You can't change the meaning to suit yourself at this point after other people have already used it. That would be changing other people's words. You can't very well accuse OSI or anyone else of the crime of presumtion while being willing to do that.
"did not invent the term" is just a totally pointless and silly thing to even think about or say. It's as silly as saying that Websters didn't invent the words they write down definitions for.
It’s a fair point that “did not invent the term” is not a valid criticism and I retract my earlier comment.
I still stand by my comment that the OSI is an organization that profits directly from significant funding by closed-source big tech players and therefore has a strong conflict of interest in their definition of open-source according to their Open Source Definition.
The OSD is defined specifically to ensure that open source code, except GPL can be commercially exploited and effectively become closed-source by big tech.
Famously, Christine Peterson the woman who did invent the term, defined "open source software” in 1998 as software which included the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code.
She made no claims about the ability to commercially exploit open source software without compensating the original author(s). Those terms were added later by the OSI definition.
I do think it would be more accurate to claim that software with terms limiting commercial exploitation is “open-source” per the original definition, but is not in compliance with the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)
The FUTO license does not allow for the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. It allows it for certain groups and activities but that is the same as not allowing it.
> You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.
This severely limits the freedom to modify the software or even use it as only certain ways of modifying it are allowed.
> Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.
This limits the ability to modify the software in any situation.
> I do think it would be more accurate to claim that software with terms limiting commercial exploitation is “open-source” per the original definition, but is not in compliance with the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)
No it wouldn't be. You can read all the things said regarding free software for more history since open source was per it's original definition merely a renaming of free software.
“The FUTO license does not allow for the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. It allows it for certain groups and activities but that is the same as not allowing it.”
The FUTO license allows all these things but with the limitation that it not be for the purposes of:
A/ subverting the original code’s payment terms if any, or
B/ commercializing the software as a licensee without payment to the licensor
This is in clear violation of the terms of an open source license under the open-source definition (OSD)TM of the OSI.
However it does not violate the original definition of the term open source as coined by Christine Peterson who specifically did not apply any commercialization constraints in either direction in order to remain non-political.
She simply claimed the term "open source" was intended to highlight the importance of making source code available for use, modification, and distribution without the political connotations of "free software"
The constraints against limiting commercialization were introduced by the OSI in their definition, in my opinion based on influence from their closed-source big tech financial sponsors.
> The OSD is defined specifically to ensure that open source code, except GPL can be commercially exploited and effectively become closed-source by big tech.
That is a real problem, but the solution is to move towards GPL, not away from open source.
