Kyle Piira

2020-01-09 07:45:00

So I was recently asked why I prefer to use free and open source software over more conventional and popular proprietary software and services.

A few years ago I was an avid Google user. I was deeply embedded in the Google ecosystem and used their products everywhere. I used Gmail for email, Google Calendar and Contacts for PIM, YouTube for entertainment, Google Newsstand for news, Android for mobile, and Chrome as my web browser.

I would upload all of my family photos to Google Photos and all of my personal documents to Google Drive (which were all in Google Docs format). I used Google Domains to register my domain names for websites where I would keep track of my users using Google Analytics and monetize them using Google AdSense.

I used Google Hangouts (one of Google’s previous messaging plays) to communicate with friends and family and Google Wallet (with debit card) to buy things online and in-store.

My home is covered with Google Homes (1 in my office, 1 in my bedroom, 1 in the main living area) which I would use to play music on my Google Play Music subscription and podcasts from Google Podcasts.

I have easily invested thousands of dollars into my Google account to buy movies, TV shows, apps, and Google hardware devices. This was truly the Google life.

Then one day, I received an email from Google that changed everything.
“Your account has been suspended”
Just the thing you want to wake up to in the morning. An email from Google saying that your account has been suspended due to a perceived Terms of Use violation. No prior warning. No appeals process. No number to call. Trying to sign in to your Google account yields an error and all of your connected devices are signed out. All of your Google data, your photos, emails, contacts, calendars, purchased movies and TV shows. All gone.

I nearly had a heart attack, until I saw that the Google account that had been suspended was in fact not my main personal Google account, but a throwaway Gmail account that I created years prior for a project. I hadn’t touched the other account since creation and forgot it existed. Apparently my personal Gmail was listed as the recovery address for the throwaway account and that’s why I received the termination email.

Although I was able to breathe a sigh of relief this time, the email was wake up call. I was forced to critically reevaluate my dependence on a single company for all the tech products and services in my life.

I found myself to be a frog in a heating pot of water and I made the decision that I was going to jump out.
Leaving Google
Today there are plenty of lists on the internet providing alternatives to Google services such as this and this. Although the “DeGoogle” movement was still in its infancy when I was making the move.

The first Google service I decided to drop was Gmail, the heart of my online identity. I migrated to Fastmail with my own domain in case I needed to move again (hint: glad I did, now I self host my email). Fastmail also provided calendar and contacts solutions so that took care of leaving Google Calendar and Contacts.

Here are some other alternatives that I moved to:

• Gmail → Fastmail → Self-hosted (via Cloudron)
• Google Contacts → Fastmail → Nextcloud Contacts
• Google Calendar → Fastmail → Nextcloud Calendar
• Google Search → Bing → DuckDuckGo
• Google Maps → Bing Maps → OpenStreetMaps and OsmAnd
• Google Analytics → Matomo Analytics
• Google Drive → Nextcloud Files
• Google Photos → Nextcloud Files/Gallery
• Google Docs → Collabora Office (Nextcloud integration) and LibreOffice
• Google Play Music → Spotify / Plex → Spotify / Jellyfin
• Google Play Movies/TV → Plex → Jellyfin
• Google Play Audiobooks/Books → Audible/Kindle
• Google Play Store (apps) → F-Droid / Aurora Store
• Google Android → Lineage OS → Ubuntu Touch on PinePhone (coming soon?)
• Google’s Android Apps → Simple Mobile Tools
• Google Chrome → Mozilla Firefox
• Google Domains → Hover
• Google Hangouts → Matrix and Nextcloud Talk
• Google Allo → Signal
• Google Podcasts → PocketCasts → AntennaPod
• Google Newsstand → RSS
• Google Wallet → PayPal and Cash App
• Google Voice →Ting Mobile

Migrating away from Google was not a fast or easy process. It took years to get where I am now and there are still several Google services that I depend on: YouTube and Google Home.

Eventually, my Google Home’s will grow old and become unsupported at which point hopefully the Mycroft devices have matured and become available for purchase. YouTube may never be replaced (although I do hope for projects like PeerTube to succeed) but I find the compromise of using only one or two Google services to be acceptable.

At this point losing my Google account due to a mistake in their machine learning would largely be inconsequential and my focus has shifted to leaving Amazon which I use for most of my shopping and cloud services.

The reason that I moved to mostly FOSS applications is that it seems to be the only software ecosystem where everything works seamlessly together and I don’t have to cede control to any single company. Alternatively I could have simply split my service usage up evenly across Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple but I don’t feel that they would have worked as nicely together.

Overall I’m very happy with the open source ecosystem. I use Ubuntu with KDE on all of my computers and Android (no GApps) on my mobile phone. I’ve ordered the PinePhone “Brave Heart” and hope to one day be able to use it or one of its successors as a daily driver with Ubuntu Touch or Plasma Mobile.

I don’t want to give the impression that I exclusively use open source software either, I do use a number of proprietary apps including: Sublime Text, Typora, and Cloudron.

kylepiira.com/2020/01/09/why-i…

feld

2020-01-08 17:20:17

I'm tired of these dishonest diatribes trying to argue that Social Media provides no value to the world.

Tell that to the grandparents who have been able to keep in touch with their grandkids on a daily basis instead of the way it used to be: whenever they could manage to get on the telephone or visit.

Tell that to the marriages that happened because people were able to connect.

Tell that to the businesses that started because people were able to easily network.

Tell that to the families split across the world who can keep in touch (like my wife's uncle and his family in Germany, who she would only ever see for a week every 5 years when they came back to the USA to visit)

We wouldn't be here if Social Media sucked. No, we just don't like the corporations extracting their own value from our lives. We're here because we want the power back, and we finally have the tools to do it.

Drew DeVault

2019-12-07 17:53:39

Developer-driven software distribution is a bad idea, which is why I dislike things like Flatpak.

Having distro maintainers involved in the process and installing your software from a free software distribution like Debian or FreeBSD is a much better distribution of power. The packages can be tuned to suit their environment without the developer having to repackage it for every distro, and the distro maintainers can keep out anti-features like telemetry and advertising.

The middleman may seem annoying to developers, but embrace the model and it'll work for you. Landing packages in your favorite distro isn't actually that hard, and the rest of the distros will follow. If you're an end-user who wants to see some software available for your distro, look into packaging and volunteer - it's easy.

Software Freedom Conservancy

2019-11-25 19:11:50

We’ve been challenged by a group of amazing individuals and Private Internet Access to raise a total of $113,093 during this fundraising season -- renew or begin your Conservancy support today! sfconservancy.org/news/2019/no…

Steven Hoefer

2019-11-19 20:44:18

I'm hearing more people at coffee shops ask "Do you take cash?"

Every time I hear it, I scream into my head, "What kind of world are were creating FFS where only people with access to the right technology can buy shit!!!"

I know of one restaurant in town that is cashless. They're completely fucking proud of it, how futuristic it is. And, honestly proud of how it keeps certain people out.

Know what's super futuristic? Technology that doesn't enable discrimination.

victorhck

2019-11-10 11:45:09

Publishers Should be Making E-Book Licensing Better, Not Worse

eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/publ…

#hash(0x187a550) #hash(0x187a628)

Macmillan, one of the “Big Five” publishers, is imposing new limits on libraries’ access to ebooks—and libraries and their users are fighting back.

Starting last week, the publisher is imposing a two-month embargo period on library ebooks. When Macmillan releases a new book, library systems will be able to purchase only one digital copy for the first eight weeks after it’s published. Macmillan is offering this initial copy for half-price ($30), but that has not taken away the sting for librarians who will need to answer to frustrated users. In large library systems in particular, readers are likely to experience even longer hold queues for new Macmillan e-book releases. For example, under the new Macmillan embargo, the 27 branches of the San Francisco Public Library system, serving a city of nearly 900,000 people, will have to share one single copy right when the demand for the new title is the greatest.

The harms to libraries and their patrons during these two months go far beyond wait times. E-books are a critical resource for library users with vision impairment, dyslexia, and other physical or learning needs. An embargo on new e-books disproportionately harms these readers who rely on digital formats, and violates the principles of equitable access at the core of library services.

After the two-month embargo period ends, libraries will be welcome to purchase additional copies of the e-book under normal terms, which aren’t great to begin with: typically, a $60 price tag for an e-book that can only be lent out to one user at a time for two years or 52 lends, whichever comes first. After that, the library has to license another e-book. On top of that, libraries tend to have different agreements with each of their publishers and vendors, all of which are subject to change.

This is a significant mark-up over what a consumer might expect to pay for a new e-book, and a falsely restrictive model compared to libraries’ rights for physical books. When a library purchases a physical book, the purchase is covered by first sale doctrine, which means the library can lend it out freely, repair it, give it away, or resell it. But libraries don’t have any of those protections when it comes to e-books.

So why is Macmillan imposing additional burdens? In a July memo, CEO John Sargent says the publisher’s move is motivated by “growing fears that library lending was cannibalizing sales” of new e-books and a need to “protect the value of your books during their first format publication,” but fails to present any evidence to back up his claims. (He also ignores existing, consistent evidence to the contrary.)

In response, libraries across the country have boycotted, or at least strongly denounced, Macmillan e-book purchases. In another extraordinary step, the American Library Association has invited library users to sign onto a petition against the new embargo. The campaign, called #eBooksForAll, had over 160,000 signatures before the embargo started last week. Since then, the signature count has climbed to nearly 200,000.

All of this does not mean that Macmillan has it wrong on e-books across the board; for example, Macmillan publishes Tor Books, the only DRM-free imprint in the Big Five.

But of all the Big Five publishers to change e-book terms in the past year, Macmillan’s e-book embargo for libraries is by far the most contentious. The other four—Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster—are surely watching the backlash. We urge readers, and authors who like to be read, to sign the ALA’s petition and let Macmillan know that the embargo is a mistake.

Debian

2019-10-28 16:12:20

Debian Donates to Support @[url=https://floss.social/users/gnome]GNOME[/url] Patent Defense bits.debian.org/2019/10/debian…

Harald Eilertsen

2019-10-14 18:35:11

Klaus wrote the following post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 18:23:17 +0200

The-Open-Book
joeycastillo/The-Open-Book

THE PREMISE: As a society, we need an open source device for reading. Books are among the most important documents of our culture, yet the most popular and widespread devices we have for reading — the Kobo, the Nook, the Kindle and even the iPad — are closed devices, operating as small moving parts in a set of giant closed platforms whose owners' interests are not always aligned with readers'.

The Open Book aims to be a simple device that anyone with a soldering iron can build for themselves. The Open Book should be comprehensible: the reader should be able to look at it and understand, at least in broad strokes, how it works. It should be extensible, so that a reader with different needs can write code and add accessories that make the book work for them. It should be global, supporting readers of books in all the languages of the world. Most of all, it should be open, so that anyone can take this design as a starting point and use it to build a better book.

dave

2019-10-09 17:06:50

damn good take on the rms situation

wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/…

anarcat

2019-10-06 22:00:13

Calibre replacement considerations anarc.at/software/desktop/cali…

Software Freedom Conservancy

2019-10-02 21:30:43

Two companies have begun a fight regarding GPL compliance, yet neither complies with GPL's most basic provisions. sfconservancy.org/blog/2019/oc… #gplcompliance

JackieLibre :copyleft:

2019-09-16 16:08:24

I was working on #3dprinted #enclosure for @olimex #Lime2

The SATA port does not fit as neatly as it could and the board is actually attached to the box with just one screw, but it works. 🙂

If anyone would like to print their own box or even better improve it, move the holes for ports and screws by a few milliliters, so they will fit more tightly, let me know and I will upload the #STL and #OpenSCAD files on GitLab, FramaGit or somewhere.

Hisham

2019-09-29 14:24:24

we live in an age of surveillance, tracking, targeted ads and the whole dystopia

and sites STILL show me temperature in Fahrenheit!

come on people, use all this data for something useful for once! I know you know who I am!

Fitheach

2019-09-26 14:20:31

Bye, bye, HuffPost.
I can't be bothered reading your stuff if I have to jump through hoops first.

Rey, glow fox :ohgod_ohfuck:

2019-09-26 01:18:20

the report button for terrible puns is labeled 🔁

debacle

2019-09-21 23:46:27

Strategies for sustainable phones

On the Tinkerphones mailing list, Paul Boddie expressed some interesting thoughs about (lack of) sustainability of modern mobile phones. Things got worse lately, it seems.

It's a longer text, but we are on Diaspora, not Twitter. Our attention span is not limited to 280 characters. So here is the complete text.

Hello again,

Recently, having found myself needing to buy a fairly cheap Android smartphone
to keep communicating with the rest of the world, I found myself reviewing
what the options really were for buying something that would be (amongst other
things)...

• Viable for a reasonable amount of time: the featurephone I retired lasted
  15 years but was wearing out and obviously couldn't do smartphone things.
• Designed not to become obsolete purely because of cynical corporate
  decisions: for example, having a removable battery instead of something
  sealed in that may either spontaneously decide that it wants to burst out
  of the phone or that will eventually fail to hold a decent amount of
  charge, making the whole device useless.
• Running Free Software under my control as an end-user.

Obviously, the phone I ended up getting doesn't fully satisfy (3) even though
the manufacturer does provide something claiming to be the source code. It
does satisfy (2), being something of a rarity now. Time will tell how
successful it will satisfy (1).

Being aware of various initiatives, it was therefore interesting to read the
following review of Fairphone 3:

"Fairphone 3 review: the most ethical and repairable phone you can buy"
theguardian.com/technology/201…

I dislike the tone of technology reviews, especially when they talk of "last
year's" technology. They start to sound like fashion industry gossip ("last
season's collection") with largely the same implied level of regard for the
planet, workers' rights, and so on, unless carefully worded and qualified.

Fairphone have clearly refined their process of getting products to market
that satisfy their ethical goals, and they appear to be improving with regard
to software support, but even with their resources it appears difficult to
convince others that their premium (£200 according to the article) is worth
paying or that their longevity goals can be realised. Will the phone still be
usable in five years?

Coincidentally, another article approaches this latter problem from a
different angle:

"To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution"
theguardian.com/technology/201…

Although it is perhaps not a central observation of the article, one reason
why something like the Fairphone might not be usable in five years is down to
the ongoing escalation of end-user hardware requirements by software and
services. This is rather like the way Microsoft and Intel worked in concert to
make people upgrade their computers every few years, but now things like
"bloat" in Web and online services are factors, too.

Making a top-end device can mitigate obsolescence to an extent, but this
raises some worthwhile questions about where less well-resourced efforts for
making genuinely open phones might be best directed. Smaller initiatives
cannot hope to be using the latest chipsets because these are all exclusive
things for the largest companies. And sadly, "consumers" are programmed to
obsess about specifications and how new the technology is.

I wonder, and think that others have also wondered before, whether it isn't
worth concentrating on making more modest devices instead of supposedly
competitive smartphones where openness is the differentiator. I recall
discussions of the Fernvale kit, the Zerophone, and maybe Nikolaus considered
a featurephone design at one point.

One aspect that will always detract from considerations of featurephones is
that their capabilities are maybe limited and do not appeal to all kinds of
users. That some Web sites or services may be too demanding, for instance, and
that the hardware just cannot deal with modern things.

It certainly seems to be the case that there are systemic issues involved
here: the people writing software and deploying platforms need to stop and
consider their effect on the end-user, on device longevity, and on the planet.
But there must still be a core region of functionality that could
satisfactorily be addressed by a featurephone design (or something relegated
to that category by whatever it is that passes for a "proper" smartphone these
days).

Anyway, I think I have now written enough on this topic, but I hope that it is
worthwhile to air these thoughts in the hope that they help to inform any
future directions of the efforts undertaken in this community.

Paul

#tinkerphones #letuxos #sustainability #openhardware #freesoftware #fairphone #smartphone #featurephone