$ npm install faker@6.6.6

LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY

Article complémentaire FR: https://www.01net.com/actualites/au-bout-du-rouleau-un-developpeur-sabote-ses-logiciels-open-source-2053434.html

This person should be funded in a level that is appropriate for how critical log4j2 is used in the ecosystem. There is no excuse for this. This person's spare time passion project is responsible for half of the internet working the way it should.

TL;DR: If you want me to make you useful software, pay me. If you use software made by others in their spare time and find it useful, pay them. This should not be a controversial opinion. This should not be a new thing. This should already be the state of the world and it is amazingly horrible for us to have the people that make the things that make our software work at all starve and beg for donations.

Get off Big Tech tools. Use these instead.

Below are my recommendations for genuinely good, helpful, non-toxic tools. We need alternatives to Big Tech platforms that continually show a shocking lack of respect for users, communities, even democratic society.

My highlights / quotes:

This creates an obvious congestion. Most people try to address it in the wrong way: using pragmatism. Let’s close the issue after two weeks of no original poster replies, after we ask some question. Close all the issues that are not very well specified. And other “inbox zero” solutions. The reality is that to process community feedbacks very well you have to take the time needed
So what happens? That you start to prioritize more and more what to look at and what not. And you feel you are a piece of shit at ignoring so many things and people, and also the contributor believes you don’t care about what others have to give you. It’s a complex situation.

Sometimes I just stop looking at issues and PRs for weeks, because I’m coding or designing: that is the work I really love and enjoy. However this in turn creates ways more pressure on me, psychologically. To do what I love and I can do well I’ve to feel like shit.

the sum of the productivity of me working just when I want is greater than the productivity I’ve when I’m forced to work every day in a steady way.

Really nice read, that gave me some food for thought and includes a nice summary of the Open Source vs Free Software history.

Some hand-picked quotes:

Fuzzy, contentious, and complex ideas have been stripped of their subversive connotations and replaced by cleaner, shinier, and emptier alternatives; long-running debates about politics, rights, and freedoms have been recast in the seemingly natural language of economics, innovation, and efficiency.

Stallman’s may not have been the best software on offer, but some sacrifice of technological efficiency was a price worth paying for emancipation.

Any move to subject the fruits of developers’ labor to public regulation, even if its goal was to promote a greater uptake of open source software, must be opposed, since it would taint the reputation of open source as technologically and economically superior to proprietary software.

As O’Reilly put it in 2010, “the art of promoting openness is not to make it a moral crusade, but rather to highlight the competitive advantages of openness.”

It seems that anyone who wanted to claim that a revolution was under way in their own field did so simply by invoking the idea of Web 2.0 in their work: Development 2.0, Nursing 2.0, Humanities 2.0, Protest 2.0, Music 2.0, Research 2.0, Library 2.0, Disasters 2.0, Road Safety 2.0, Identity 2.0, Stress Management 2.0, Archeology 2.0, Crime 2.0, Pornography 2.0, Love 2.0, Wittgenstein 2.0. What unites most of these papers is a shared background assumption that, thanks to the coming of Web 2.0, we are living through unique historical circumstances. Except that there was no coming of Web 2.0—it was just a way to sell a technology conference to a public badly burned by the dotcom crash.

Some words—like “law”—are particularly susceptible to crazy talk, as they mean so many different things: from scientific “laws” to moral “laws” to “laws” of the market to administrative “laws,” the same word captures many different social relations. “Open,” “networks,” and “information” function much like “law” in our own Internet discourse today.

O’Reilly admitted that he was the one to edit the Wikipedia page for the book. O’Reilly is perfectly positioned to control our technology discourse: as a publisher, he can churn out whatever books he needs to promote his favorite memes—and, once those have been codified in book form, they can be easily admitted into Wikipedia, where they quickly morph into facts. What’s not to like about “collective intelligence”?

As long as this “open data” was liquid and reusable, others could build on it. Neither the political process that led to the release of the data nor its content was considered relevant to openness. Thus, data about how many gum-chewers Singapore sends to prison would be “open” as long as the Singaporean government shared it in suitable formats. Why it shared such data was irrelevant.

O’Reilly deploys the highly ambiguous concept of openness to confuse “transparency as accountability” (what Obama called for in his directive) with “transparency as innovation” (what O’Reilly himself wants).

If Participation 1.0 was about the use of public reason to push for political reforms, with groups of concerned citizens coalescing around some vague notion of the shared public good, Participation 2.0 is about atomized individuals finding or contributing the right data to solve some problem without creating any disturbances in the system itself.

In 2011, Cameron’s government released a white paper on “Open Public Services” that uses the word “open” in a peculiar way: it argues that, save for national security and the judiciary, all public services must become open to competition from the market.

Raymond writes in The Cathedral and the Bazaa [...] that “one may call [Linux hackers] motivation ‘altruistic’, but this ignores the fact that altruism is itself a form of ego satisfaction for the altruist.” If it sounds like Ayn Rand, that’s because Raymond explicitly draws on her crazy talk.

Emmanuel Macron l’a affirmé dès son élection : il veut faire de la France une “startup nation”. Il démontre régulièrement son soutien à la “FrenchTech”, censée représenter la quintessence de l’innovation et de l’entreprenariat. Mais derrière cette ambition, la réalité est bien différente. La France peine à se dégager de l’emprise des GAFAM, comme l’ont cruellement rappelé les déboires de Qwant, le moteur de recherche qui devait supplanter Google. Et l’échec patent de l’application StopCovid en est une énième illustration. Pourquoi la France peine-t-elle à innover et à recouvrir son indépendance numérique ? Comment résister face aux plateformes, sans pour autant exploiter une main d’oeuvre uberisée, et en respectant la vie privée des utilisateurs ?

Pour en parler, nous avons reçu Jean-Baptiste Kempf, l’éditeur du logiciel français le plus utilisé au monde. Il s’agit du lecteur de vidéos VLC, le fameux logiciel au cône de chantier . Open-source, maintenu par la communauté, il est porté par une structure associative. On est bien loin des “jeunes qui veulent devenir milliardaires” dont rêve le Président Macron. Pourtant, le logiciel, né d’un projet étudiant, a dépassé les 3 milliards de téléchargements.

Jean-Baptiste Kempf juge sévèrement, mais non sans humour, l’incompétence des politiques dès lors qu’il s’agit d’innovation. Personnage atypique, on peine à la mettre dans une case. Mais ce qui est certain, c’est que son expérience remet en cause le récit du capitalisme comme moteur de l’innovation.

Interesting overview of French policy, initiatives & organizations fostering the usage of free/libre/open-source software :
Adullact, CNLL, Etalab, Mutualisation Interministérielle, Direction Interministérielle de la Transformation Publique, Socle Interministériel de Logiciels Libres...
The CNIL seems to be missing in this landscape though.

Source: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/knowledge-centre

Bonjour !

Je rassemble ici des liens vers des sites web que j'apprécie et souhaite partager : articles, documentaires, jeux, sites de référence...
Shaarli est un logiciel libre & open-source qui peut servir d'alternative décentralisée à Facebook / Twitter.
Il me sert aussi à retrouver facilement des liens à partir de tags thématiques.
Songez à laisser un commentaire pour échanger sur des sujets qui vous intéressent !

-Lucas - (blog ludochaordic)

Hi !

Here I collect links to websites I like and want to share : articles, documentaries, games, reference websites...
Shaarli is a free & open-source software that can serve as a decentralized alternative to Facebook / Twitter.
It also helps me to easily retrieve links based on tags.
Think about leaving a comment on links you would like to exchange about !

-Lucas - (blog ludochaordic)

FreeBoardGames.org is a free and open-source board game platform. Enjoy free high-quality games on any device that can access the web. Study how the games are made, change them, and contribute back to the community!

• Take 6 ! (6 Nimmt ! / 6 qui prend !)
• Secret Codes (CodeNames)
• Cornerus (Blokus)

...and many more

Vous trouverez ici les notices de fabrication des objets conçus et réalisés par Entropie.
C'est une invitation à entrer de plain-pied dans le monde du libre pour découvrir comment l'entraide, la collaboration, le partage et l'effort collectif changent déjà la société. Chaque notice est conçue pour accroître au maximum l'autonomie de celui ou celle qui s'en sert.

De magnifiques plans de meubles en bois à construire soi même !

A curated list of free/open source repositories to help with COVID19

So far:

• https://github.com/opencovid19-fr/dashboard - https://veille-coronavirus.fr
• https://github.com/co-demos/covid-viz - https://covid-initiatives.netlify.com
• https://gitlab.com/fevermap/fevermap/ - https://fevermap.net
• https://github.com/alexisthual/symptoms-tracker - https://symptoms-tracker.now.sh
• https://github.com/bstarynk/helpcovid
• https://github.com/tgalopin/enpremiereligne.fr - https://enpremiereligne.fr

It is not an abstract resource that can be depleted when overused. It is not magically maintained if left alone. It is based on the work of people, and we should not erase those people.

FOSS IS FREE AS IN TOILET

Nobody believes that a free toilet will be magically cleaned up and maintained, somebody has to do it, and that person would better get paid for it. Sharing a toilet means that you flush, clean up after yourself, and always leave some paper, it’s basic manners. And yet, like toilets, as FOSS gets used by more and more people, it gets more likely that you will see obnoxious people that shit all over your commons and then complain about it. And nobody will want to take care of it.

Plateforme de sondage libre:

• Créez autant de sondages que vous le désirez.
• Concevez des sondages adaptés à vos besoins grâce aux nombreux modes de scrutins supportés (Condorcet, Borda, Vote alternatif, Combs, Jugement majoritaire...)

Docs: http://doc.pollen.cl
Source code: https://gitlab.nuiton.org/chorem/pollen

Les éditeurs « classiques » [d'articles scientifiques] ont auss réagi par rapport au libre accès. Toutes sortes « d’exceptions » ont été mises en place. Par exemple pour la revue Artificial Intelligence In Medicine (édité par Elsevier) où j’ai publié :

1. les auteurs peuvent payer pour avoir leur article en libre accès (N. B. : hors de prix, mais certains projets de recherche, notamment européen, exigent que ce soit le cas) ;
2. un lien est fourni aux auteurs qui permet de télécharger gratuitement l’article pendant 50 jours, et ce lien peut être diffusé à volonté ;
3. après six mois d’embargo, une « version auteur » (même contenu que le vrai article, mais sans la mise en forme de l’éditeur) peut être mise à disposition librement sur des serveurs comme HAL (Hyper‐Archives en Ligne) ;
4. les auteurs ont le droit de mettre une « version auteur » sur leur site personnel dès la parution de l’article, sous licence Creative Commons Attribution Non‐Commercial No Derivatives ».

En commentaire, de chouettes visualisations d'ontologies OWL en ligne : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

Si l’on reprend la description officielle : « La FLOSSCon ( Free/Libre/OpenSource Software Conference ) est un événement libre et non commercial organisé par l’association FLOSSITA ( FLOSS in the Alps ) pour des communautés et des utilisateurs de solutions logicielles libres et Open Source et ceux qui veulent les découvrir.

Le numérique est partout présent dans nos vies : pour communiquer, s'informer, se former, travailler, faire ses courses, se divertir… Or, c'est une véritable chance pour toutes les personnes pour lesquelles le monde physique peut constituer autant d'obstacles lorsqu'on est en situation de handicap.

Mais pour que le numérique soit à la hauteur de la promesse de Liberté qu'il porte, encore faut-il qu'il soit accessible et respecte les droits d'accès, de modification et de partage de ses utilisateurs.

Liberté 0 est une association à but non lucratif qui entend défendre une vision inclusive du logiciel libre, liberté et accessibilité devant aller de pair pour une Liberté réelle et un accès égal à cette Liberté pour toutes et tous.

En résumé:

• attention aux backups
• plein de trous de sécus
• les problématiques de l’auto-hébergement : manques de compétences et les manques de disponibilité
• vive les CHATONS

Reco: avec LetsEncrypt, "protèges ton service d’administration par un certificat auto-signé"