some

That's a very nuanced analysis. I've explained it this way especially to people who describe themselves as "bad at computers". Hey, give yourself a break, you've learned a lot about how to cope with windows. But this investment leads to a conservatism--- they dont want to learn coping skills o a new system. The devil you know.

I'd just add that GUI is more discoverable. When faced with a terminal, what to do? Whereas with a GUI you have a menubar, some icons etc. The GUI gives a lot more hints.

In the terminal (which I love) it is more powerful once you know how to crack the lid.

built in licensing

how's it built in?

I am not a big fan pf matrix but I think SchlidiChat was the one I used most successfully on android.

From what I have seen a main issue with Matrix is that the protocol can be implemented in bits and pieces. Which is perfectly fair but it leads to an inconsistent user experience. The default web clients you first use to try it out will be using strong encryption settings by default but then a lot of the mobile or native desktop clients don't support encryption. So it's difficult to get going finding cross platform apps that have all the desired functionality consistently between them.

In terms of the apps, I don't think comparing matrix to lemmy is exactly fair for this reason.

that's interesting... I guess a forum and a chat have a lot of similar attributes. The difference is in the presentation with forum being more static appearing. What would be the reason to deploy Matrix like that instead of using a purpose-build forum software? The most obvious would be not requiring a second account.

What's PoC?

Why is it an MIT project in the first place?

It’s not really something developers want to think about very much so they often just use the default.

Do you think it was intentional ideological decision by the Rust developers or some other contributors/interests to make permissive the default? Or a random decision that has ended up being consequential because of the popularity of Rust?

I have noticed for a long time that github promotes MIT license. It lets you use any, of course, but puts a real positive shine on MIT. My perception is that this is a purposeful intervention by MS into FLOSS to promote MIT.

I do not program. So maybe trying to understand all this is over my head. wikipedia describes

A static library or statically linked library contains functions and data that can be included in a consuming computer program at build-time such that the library does not need to be accessible in a separate file at run-time.

I thought that was the idea of binaries in general. In the Arch repos there are many packages appended with -bin. (The Arch repos also contain items of various licenses including proprietary.) Lots of FLOSS packages make a binary available by direct download from their website. Without too much detail, is there something special about Rust? Or maybe I misunderstand the concept of a binary release.

library code licensed under it must be able to be replaced.

Does this mean you need to be able to make a reproducible build? Or need to be able to swap code for something else? Wouldn't that inherently break a program?

Yes you are correct I mis-used the term. I mean copyleft. So I fixed the post. :)

soo you are saying people are tricked into it?

Over the years, forums did not really get smaller, so much as the rest of the internet just got bigger.

matrix isn't a forum. it's a chat.

pipeline to fascism