cross-post of my comment elsewhere:

I immediately knew this was going to be from Microsoft users, and yeah… of course, it is.

Binaries distributed under this EULA do not meet the free software definition or open source definition.

However, unlike most attempts to dilute the concept of open source, since the EULA is explicitly scoped to binaries and says it is meant to be applied to projects with source code that is released under an OSI-approved license, I think the source code of projects using this do still meet the open source definition (as long as the code is actually under such a license). Anyone/everyone should still be free to fork any project using this, and to distribute free binaries which are not under this EULA.

This EULA obviously cannot be applied to projects using a copyleft license, unless all contributors to it have dual-licensed their contributions to allow (at least) the entity that is distributing non-free binaries under this EULA to do so.

I think it is extremely short-sighted to tell non-paying “consumers” of an open source project that their bug reports are not welcome. People who pay for support obviously get to heavily influence which bugs get priority, but to tell non-paying users that they shouldn’t even report bugs is implicitly communicating that 2nd and 3rd party collaboration on fixing bugs is not expected or desired.

A lot of Microsoft-oriented developers still don’t understand the free software movement, and have been trying to twist it into something they can comprehend since it started four decades ago. This is the latest iteration of that; at least this time they aren’t suggesting that people license their source code under non-free licenses.

if you’ve never used ed(1) technically it’s illegal for you to say “it’s a UNIX system, i know this”

https://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds/english.ogg (from back when many english speakers were still insistent that the i in Linux should be pronounced “eye”)

this meme has some truth in it, in that these six vegetables are all brassica oleracea. but, the factoid in the center of the meme is misleading: brassica oleracea can be many things but (despite brassicaceae being “the mustard and cabbage family”) brassica oleracea is not typically called “wild mustard plant”.

edit: toned down my refutation; i guess maybe it is sometimes 👀 but i think not really

IMHO free speach is let people write what they think, moderate misinformation only when there already is no clarification from others so that it’s clear to everyone that a message is misinformation.

imho “free speach” is a typo, and one often made by people with the funny idea that free speech means any form of content moderation is a violation of their rights 😏

I don’t see any misinformation on the deleted messages, if you can see in the ones that I’ve screenshotted, please tell me which one.

look again; two of the comments in your screenshots (and many more that i deleted) are explicitly claiming that futo makes open source software:

and, the rest of them are discussing and/or promoting futo, which, again, is a commercial product which many people incorrectly believe to be open source due to its maker’s now-recanted false statements to that effect, and therefore offtopic (“spam” would also be a fair label for some of it) in a community about open source.

also, note that i did not even delete 100% of the comments about futo in that thread! i left enough that any good-faith reader should be able to see why further discussion of futo is offtopic there, and, i even linked to this thread you started, to give anyone who wanted to discuss it further a place to do so.

if you still believe that deletion of (most, and not even all in the thread) offtopic/spam comments is a free speech issue… ok, i don’t know what else to tell you. all the best to you too.

But over that, I think that deleting those messages is censorship. I still believe in free speech and I can’t see any hate or misinformation in those messages.

I believe in free speech too, and I think moderated spaces for discussion help enable it. (Think about this…)

Nobody claimed there was hate in any of messages in that thread; you observing that there wasn’t is knocking down a straw man, and using the word censorship here is just hyperbole.

There are however unambiguously factually incorrect assertions in some of the offtopic messages I removed from that thread.

Oh, no, I was talking purely about the second post, about FUTO itself

Oh. Well, that post I sort of figured I should just delete altogether (because it is also offtopic there, and bad publicity is still benefiting futo) but I left it locked in hopes that it would discourage more of the same.

removing the comments to leave only the remnant of it that is “truth” is often not the best way to handle it

i totally agree that it is often preferable to allow misinformed comments to remain so that they can be refuted.

in the case of futo, though, i feel like there are often actually some bad-faith actors who just want to keep the discussion going, and will continue to repeat their misinformed arguments in the face of any and all evidence.

and, in this particular case, it is even a thread in the Open Source community so any discussion of Futo is inherently offtopic. (and all of which is also effectively promotion for them; again see succès de scandale.)

The way the conversation looks right now is just confusing

the thread as it is now has lots of comments about open source keyboards, and a link to this thread for anyone who wants more information about all the deleted comments than they can find in the modlog. if you think it would be better if that thread was still mostly people arguing about Futo… well… i’m glad you’re not a mod there.

Rossmann’s billionaire patron is Eron Jokipii (aka Eron Wolf). As you can see here he comes off as a bit of a bumbling rube; it’s possible that he sincerely doesn’t understand the harm in what he is doing since he’s one of those people who became unfathomably rich by selling a company to Yahoo in the late 90s and has probably been surrounded ever since by yes men who can’t afford to contradict him.

nice.

(although that is just the subset of my posts and comments which are visible on your instance; on mine i have more than twice as many…)

That was me. I’m tired of FUTO fans derailing discussions about FLOSS with advocacy for their obviously-not-open-source software and insisting that it is open source.

Every time Futo comes up, someone will insist it is open source, others will correct them, and soon more than 50% of a thread that is supposed to be about open source is people arguing about them.

I’m pretty sure that Futo’s (now recanted) position that they were open source (despite the term having a clear definition which is very internationally recognized and which Futo’s license obviously does not meet) was an intentional marketing gimmick - “there is no such thing as bad publicity” and every time a bunch of people are arguing about them there is a chance they’ll get more customers (some of whom might even believe it is open source).

I’ve counted 19 messages moderated

Probably more than that even; more than I want to count. The modlog is public.

and the post has been locked.

The What’s the best open source keyboard for android? post where you commented has not been locked, but most of the futo-related comments in it are deleted. Note that while your comment was not advocating for futo per se, it was (successfully) encouraging others to continue the offtopic discussion. You could have answered your question by reading the modlog.

I did lock another post in the same community (the topic of which is, again, Open Source), which was What are your thoughts on FUTO? (and I left a comment there explaining why).

I generally try to assume good faith but I’m pretty sure some Futo proponents are actually just trolling at this point.

I hope this answers your questions.

thanks!

here is a side-by-side comparison of the neural network upscaling slop (left) versus a conventional zoom in on the original (right):

and then of course there is the text:

😦

The Pi is definitely running Avahi and spamming multicast, when it attempts to resolve .local, it sends out multicast and unicast simultaneously, even with freshly flushed DNS cache.

I owe you an apology - I see now that my avahi systems are in fact also sending unicast SOA? local. when I resolve a .local name, and presumably if my recursor told them it was responsible for it instead of NXDomain then I would resolve names through it.

I was pretty sure that it doesn’t do that, but before telling you that it doesn’t I actually did a test and ran tcpdump -ni any port 53 or port 5353 while resolving some .local names. i even noticed that there was that SOA query being sent to and from localhost (to systemd-resolved) but I saw no answer to it and figured that systemd-resolved was the thing silently ignoring that TLD. But: it turns out that the system I tested on has its systemd-resolved configured for DNSOverTLS so I wasn’t seeing those SOA queries being sent on to the recursor on a different port 🤦

Sorry!

It does seem to me like a regrettable choice of the RFC authors to allow both, though, as it is easy to accidentally have a situation where the recursor and mDNS return different answers which would lead to inconsistent results when querying both in parallel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

Yes. It was even the suggested practice at one time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local

Cool, I didn’t know that. But the article also says they recommend against it now. I see the “Microsoft recommendations” section of the wikipedia article indicates they changed their mind on this several times.

On the other hand almost nothing uses mDNS.

In my experience mDNS seems ubiquitous; almost every network connected device I’ve seen in the last couple decades has it enabled by default.

Fucking bootcampers istg I’m so glad I don’t have to work with y’all and only interact when you deliver my fucking takeaway.

Huh? What are “bootcampers”? It used to refer to people running windows on intel macs (because apple’s boot loader to allow that was called BootCamp), but that wouldn’t make any sense in this context. Unless you are having your food delivered by people who run Windows on old Apple hardware? 🤔

Implementers MAY choose to look up such names concurrently via other mechanisms (e.g., Unicast DNS) and coalesce the results in some fashion

So actually the RFC does not limit whatsoever the resolution of .local domains to mDNS. Implementers, apart from Android do indeed always do look up via both unicast and multicast (if not disabled). Only android limits this to multicast-only.

I see. Sorry I missed that part of the RFC.

But, FYI, it is really not only Android that doesn’t send unicast queries for .local names; GNU/Linux distributions running avahi (eg, the distros most people use) also don’t. I don’t have a mac or iphone nearby to confirm but I would assume they are probably resolving .local exclusively via mDNS too. edit: this “Apple devices might not open your internal network’s ‘.local’ domain” support article indicates my assumption is probably correct.

Also, please don’t tell people to KYS :(

This is an excerpt of OP’s post in question:

Last android piece of garbage I buy. Is there even a single good reason it restricts .local, as is commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS to some hellish nonsense no one’s ever used called multicast DNS?

Is .local actually “commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS” or did you just see .local somewhere else (probably using mDNS) and decide to cargo cult it? I’ve never seen someone use it outside the context of zero-configuration networking.

fyi, besides Android, most Linux distros also ship with mDNS enabled by default, as do all Apple operating systems since the feature was first introduced in an update to Mac OS 9 in 2001. It’s mostly just Windows that doesn’t.

And before someone says “uhmm but m-muh RFC says so” - no. That RFC only suggests that some people MAY implement it as such, which yeah, sucks, because the RFC if it did it’s job right should forbid it altogether […]

Which RFC says that? I just checked, and RFC6762 (Multicast DNS) says:

This document specifies that the DNS top-level domain “.local.” is a special domain with special semantics, namely that any fully qualified name ending in “.local.” is link-local, and names within this domain are meaningful only on the link where they originate. This is analogous to IPv4 addresses in the 169.254/16 prefix or IPv6 addresses in the FE80::/10 prefix, which are link-local and meaningful only on the link where they originate.

Any DNS query for a name ending with “.local.” MUST be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB).

Also, as per (the immediately prior) RFC6761 (“Special-Use Domain Names”), RFC6762 explicitly adds .local to the IANA registry of special-use domain names.

HTH!

The campaign hasn’t made any progress since 2011 when Wolfram Alpha added support for it, a year after Google did. Google’s calculator still does support it, though, so you can write queries like like “1Zbit/s * 1 year in hellabytes” (3.9 hellabytes), or “mass of the earth in hellagrams” (5.9 hellagrams).

weird, i wonder why. i just checked on an ubuntu 24.04 system to confirm it is there (and it is).