I believe FreeBSD currently doesn’t allow LLM’s either, at least for now due to licensing concerns (I get the vibe they’d be open to it if it was deemed ‘safe’ from a licensing standpoint, so if the court ever made a decisions that makes them feel safe, they’d probably open it up to it).

Realistically though, both BSD and Haiku would be a pretty drastic downgrade in overall usability from reduced software and hardware support compared to Linux, and at least at this point, that’s a bit too big of a sacrifice to make :(

I plan to start probing other DE’s who have yet to make a public stance on LLMs in hope of finding at least a few that can be considered a safe haven.

KDE unfortunately is also accepting AI/LLM code contributions, as is LXQt, and Gnome.

This news has made me realize it’s not going to be trivial to avoid AI slop FLOSS projects, we’re likely going to need to collectively collate a list of known anti-AI projects, and probe projects that haven’t taken a public stance to find out what’s safe and what’s not.

An unfortunate update; a user from the other thread on this went and asked LXQt developers their stance on LLMs, and they responded they accept AI contributions, and will not ban the practice. :(

This comment in a different thread from someone who used to work for them gives some great background as to why.

The other day I tried installing Star Wars Dark Forces 2 from disk, complete with a ‘windows 95/98 compatible’ blurb on it. Heroic launcher got the installer running without issue and within a few minutes it was playing.

I ended up using the Openjkdf2 engine instead for some nice quality of life improvements, but it was still quite something to see Linux run a piece of software from 1997 so effortlessly.

Thanks for sharing your experience, LXQt is definitely looking the most promising :)

They absolutely do put on government backdoors, but most people aren’t going to be personally targeted by that, but they are likely to get hit with non-fed malware, like keyloggers to steal accounts, botnets, identity theft, etc.

Not that it justifies it, fuck Microsoft, but you get what I mean?

Corporate devs who use a non-self hosted LLM for developing their closed source apps are sending that code to the LLM’s servers, where it can be used as further training data (and considering how many of the corporate AI’s have purposefully trained their AI on pirated copyrighted content (like… A lot of them are doing that), it follows that they would train their AI on user prompts as well).

Unknowingly using potentially copyrighted code from an LLM in a FLOSS project opens us up to being attacked via being sued for infringement, which most small devs can’t afford to fight, especially in the US’s current extremely pro-corporate courts.

It’s putting a target on your back for down the road when it becomes profitable for patent trolls to use AI to try to scan for copyrighted code on public code bases.

Big tech companies could do the same to squash an open source competitor.

I am in no way disagreeing that Windows 11 is a shit show, and wildly less secure than Linux, but realistically as bad as it is, it’s still going to have less open and known vulnerabilities than Windows 7.

Wow.

I’m astonished (though maybe I shouldn’t be?) that the dev gives such self-centered answers. Like how can they not know how bad that’ll come off?

But here I am, with a Claude Max 5x subscription for the past year and a half. I’m not comfortable with it, but the utility is just too great for me to take a principled stance here. I like it, and I want it, so I’m using it. Maybe that’s morally questionable, or worse. But, as I said: here I am.

All of his answers are complete cop-out sidesteps, but that line in particular, I mean… Fuck, dude.

I previously held quite positive feelings about Xfce finally getting the last piece of the puzzle to switch to wayland, but uh, yeah. Not anymore.

I’m curious if the Xfce developers that decided to hire Brian knew he’d be so heavily using LLM’s to develop xfwl4, if that would’ve given them pause or not. It would appear that he got the money first, then decided to disclose all of his LLM use.

Xfce was always known as the stable, conservative, slow, reliable DE. I just can’t see its userbase being too happy about this announcement. I’m certainly not. I use it on a very weak laptop with Debian 13, but I think I may switch to a different lightweight DE when Debian 14 comes around, perhaps LXQt or a window manager.

I agree with everything you’re saying here besides security. Windows 10 and 11 have received hundreds if not thousands of additional security patches that 7 never will receive, which would be crucial to using the internet safely today.

However, 11 (and to a lesser extent 10) has horrific privacy invasive features built in, so it’s very much a trade-off there, making Linux the only option to have both security and privacy.

But Codeberg just doesn’t want cryptocurrency scams, and Anubis isn’t a currency, it has no ability to pump and dump like cryptocurrencies can. Proof-of-work to weed out bots has little similarity in practical usage with proof-of-work to waste electricity for a digital number that is more often a scam than not.

Anubis isn’t a currency, though.

I felt the same way about the dialog when I tried the demo. I love the art style, but the dialog was just a bit too out of place for me.

However, the author mentioned in a reddit thread I found that his skills improved quite a bit over the 12 years he spent making it, though ultimately decided not to re-do the art and dialog from the start of the game as it would’ve taken too long, so I’m guessing it might start feeling less out of place as the game progresses? That’s definitely not ideal though, as first impressions count for a lot :\

People can look up how various grocery store brands fund the republicans here: https://shophowyouvote.com/

There’s at least Mageia still carrying the Mandrake/Mandriva torch without that baggage :)

I recently learned that OpenMandriva’s president (warning, lunduke link as evidence) has declared the project “non-woke” and “anti-DEI”, which has resulted in it attracting a hard right community. IMO, a good reason to avoid it.

Ultimately worker coops by their design limit the amount of excess money that can be siphoned off and concentrated to CEO’s and shareholders, so capital holders would likely refuse to invest in co-ops in fear that were they to become the standard way of organizing businesses, they would get a smaller and smaller piece of the pie globally, as more wealth is distributed to the workers themselves instead.

The current system of capitalism is inherently designed to oppose all forms of more equal distribution of power and wealth.

If co-ops were to become successful in spite of that, the capital owners would likely attempt a military coup to literally fight back against it, just as they attempted during the Business Plot in response to FDR’s economic reforms.

The capital holders hold a tremendous amount of the power to influence the globe to their will due to their concentrated wealth, which is only possible to accumulate due to the accepted exploitation of labor. They will do everything in their power to prevent the loss of that power, even if it means sub-optimal profits.

I didn’t say there would be no conflict, but significantly less.

If everyone is an owner, there is no incentive to withhold labor and strike, as they can simply come to a consensus with the other co-owners instead. The only reason unions exist and strike is because of an imbalance of power between the capital owners and the workers that generate the capital, so the unions must leverage their labor as a bargaining chip to try to get a slightly more fair deal. That dynamic is not present in a worker owned co-operative, since everyone is an owner and has the same incentive to increase profit, since it benefits all instead of the few.

This would make everyone pay attention because people don’t really care about anything but long term growth independent of the company’s operating system.

All traditional companies have an incentive to fight the formation of unions, even if they do generate more profits, as CEO’s and shareholders do not wish to split up those profits to the workers any more than is absolutely necessary to retain those workers to begin with.

CEO’s and Shareholders are virtually all extremely self interested, often times combined with dark triad traits which both encouraged and enabled them to reach those positions to begin with.

They do not act rationally purely in interest of profit, as if that was the case, then they would’ve already adopted lower working hours, work from home, better benefits, and given partial ownership of the company to the workers voluntarily. Instead, history has shown time and time again that they would much rather let an entire company be destroyed rather than give up power to workers.

You will not have any success whatsoever of convincing existing corporations to embrace unions by proving an example.

A co op would be so different from existing systems that I fear people would think hey that’s neat but we can’t replicate it unless we started over.

There are plenty of examples of worker owned cooperatives, even huge successful ones like Mondragon, which is a multi bullion dollar coop that employs 70,000 workers.

Virtually no existing corporation nor its shareholders would want to become a co-op, because it would mean the inability to exploit and profit from their labor force. Just as they do not wish for unions to impede on their ability to exploit their labor force.