We have to SAVE LINUX from BAD LEGISLATION!

💸💸 Help me contribute to KDE and do these videos: 💸💸
Paypal: paypal.me/nicc...
Patreon: / niccolove
Liberapay: liberapay.com/...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/nicc...
Text version of this video: blog.nicco.lov...
Stay in the loop: t.me/veggeroblog
My website is nicco.love and if you want to contact me, my telegram handle is [at] veggero.

[@docopoper]

I'm glad to hear the EU is open to discussion. I appreciate that they just want better security online. They just don't seem well equipped to understand FOSS, or even the concept of libraries tbh. If they drop it I will be quite impressed.

[@rkdeshdeepak4131]

They don't want better securities, those commies wan't more control.

[@bleack8701]

They have a habit of saying that they're open for discussion. Usually they end up doing whatever they had decided to do regardless of what conversations have been had

[@MamRadVlaky]

"I'm glad to hear the EU is open to discussion. " - LOL

[@urgyenrigdzin3775]

Most politicians in any countries are clueless about general technology, let alone FOSS or the concept of libraries. Remember what one of them asked to Tiktok CEO about wifi in the US?

[@Iron936]

I hope you are being sarcastic when you say some so stupid. There is nothing but the malice of tyrants here.

[@ShaunakDe]

The cookie warning regulation is a perfect example of how the EU isnt technically suited to regulate software or the internet yet. They need to improve their processes. Its too old world to be effective.

[@ssokolow]

Technically, it *could* work. They just didn't anticipate how concerted an effort corporations would make to bury the fact that they only need cookie consent if they're sharing your cookies with someone else like an ad network or Google Analytics.

[@Korodarn]

Nobody is suited to regulate the entirety of anything as large as software or the internet. It's the height of hubris for anyone to think that should be their business. Influence - fine, but "regulate" - absolutely not. Rules should be left to arise organically as a means of conflict avoidance - but rules created by legislation or bureaucratic agencies can only ever increase conflict.

[@Korodarn]

@@ssokolow It can't even work technically. They don' t and will never have the power to enforce such a thing. The most they could do is annoy everyone with stupid popups that people don't read, just like the TOS that people don't read. Real rules, including "TOS" arise from actual boundaries set. KZbin can say that they don't allow ad-block, but until they are willing to actually ban people from the site that is not the TOS. It's the same here, a state that makes up ethereal rules and demands others follow them is only going to get the level of compliance necessary to avoid their ire - and that only to the degree that the cost they can impose is high enough to want to avoid it. And that is because they cannot create real rules, because there is nothing organic about bureaucratic regulation.

[@ssokolow]

@@Korodarn I dunno. Regulation with million-dollar-plus fines did a pretty good job of removing our status as the number-two source of spam here in Canada.

[@EmmanuelGoldsteinUK]

Of all things that need regulating, I'd say that the OS vendors should have no right to force/do deals with hardware manufacturers to only allow their OS to be preinstalled. Be it, laptops, phones or other hardware form factors. If this was stopped, I don't think companies such as Microsoft & Google would have such a monopoly over the operating systems market share in mobile phones & laptop computers etc...

[@Ness_and_Sonic]

The problem is there's some proprietary stuff on Windows that would prevent people from using Linux. Example, some of the earlier versions of Easy Anti Cheat don't work on Linux and some games such as Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 haven't upgraded to the latest version. As such, it might not be possible to play various games on Linux for this reason, so Windows would still have a reason to exist in the gaming section.

[@EmmanuelGoldsteinUK]

@@Ness_and_Sonic I never said it shouldn't, I just simply suggested that hardware manufacturers should be allowed to install multiple OS's on a single machine and not be forced to release a separate version of a product in order to have one that boots a different OS.

[@Ness_and_Sonic]

@@EmmanuelGoldsteinUK There probably are ways to do it, but it probably has its fair share of draw backs. I think Linux Distros do include a way to select which OS you want to boot into, but I'm not sure about how compatible it is with Windows file system, so accessing files on one OS' drive/partition might be a bit harder with the other one when it's booted up.

[@EmmanuelGoldsteinUK]

@@Ness_and_Sonic I had no issues when I used to dual boot both Windows and Linux side by side. My point is that it simply isn't a good thing to allow Microsoft to ban companies like Dell/HP from putting both Windows & Linux on a production machine at point of sale.

[@Ness_and_Sonic]

@@EmmanuelGoldsteinUK I agree with you on that. I've had some issues with accessing files on my Windows drive from Linux and vice versa, but this was quite some time ago. Truth is I'd like to see Dell, Syber, and others offer Linux distro options on their sites. With Ventoy's existence, it should be possible to create USB drives that can have multiple OSes. I'm just pointing out things that would make switching from Windows to Linux harder than it needs to be when I talk about gaming. I'm glad Valve's taking measures to throw some bricks into windows with SteamOS and the Steam Deck, though.

[@adwaitagnome]

even large corporations have a vested interest in free and open source software, yet short sighted profit chasing has lead to them to consider FOSS an enemy even though hurting FOSS will hurt these large corporations in the long run.

[@Korodarn]

Profit-chasing is short sighted because of central banking and its pumping money into the system introducing boom/bust cycles (as well as other state-granted largess). If you are truly profit-chasing over the long term, there is really nothing short-sighted about it.

[@FrederikSchumacher]

The more this goes on the more suspect everything about this becomes. The legislators are jumping an awful amount of hoops to avoid putting down the phrases "open-source excluded", "non-profit excluded" etc. There's already a clear definition of "non-profit organization", yet in the previous drafts they used cumbersome and leaky alternative definitions with peculiar phrasing. This seems like non-aligned (in the sense of cyber security) interest groups are hitching piggy-back rides for their own purposes: almost every year some for-profit-companies offering some stale stagnant software/service are obsoleted by some almost-good-enough-foss project, these companies would benefit from imprecise wording and dubious phrasing in the definition of "open-source non-profit". A shame that the EU legislation seems to also have adopted the German "Neuland" mindset. A shame that the EU parliament also seems massively disconnected from affected and involved citizens relying exclusively on personalities and institutions (each with their own agendas). All of this could be done and over with, with "non-profit open-source organizations and individuals excluded" and the omission of those bullshit redefinitions of "non-profit". In more informal words: way to shit the bed, EU.

[@Avantarius]

If 80% of the software is open source then probably there is an easy way to get the EU to drop the law for open source projects: just give them a taste of what it would be like if all those projects disappeared by having major open source projects go dark and suspend all downloads for one week. The resulting crapstorm should make it clear this law is not a viable solution.

[@prscrystalized3706]

Yes, withdraw them for a period. I will wager the EU is using a bunch of FOSS software just to penny pinch.

[@furdiburd]

OK guys. linux servers will shutdown. oh? eu website run on linux and the banking sector? well that sucks :)

[@Kyller3030]

@@furdiburd linux devs are not the same people as the server hosting guys

[@furdiburd]

@@Kyller3030 yes but if we shut down linux servers then servers are shutted down no matter made it. and btw most server hosting run on linux

[@Ness_and_Sonic]

Or at least geoblock access from the EU for a bit to raise awareness. I don't think it's right for countries that aren't part of the EU to be impacted.

[@phoenix-tt]

Thanks for your take on this topic. It's refreshing to know that OSS orgs are pushing back against this legislation.

[@user-mb5fn3eb7n]

Nicco: Do you remember? Me: 21st night of September?

[@niccoloveslinux]

average Nicco enjoyer

[@collared]

people who don't understand computers shouldn't be making laws about computers

[@MamRadVlaky]

no one should

[@goathead3329]

Or vacts

[@DamjanDimitrioski]

Certified for evil bureaucrats :D.

[@arshkhanlm3086]

Proprietary and Closed Source = Corporate Greed Free and Open Source = Freedom

[@DudeSoWin]

They are going to lock all the Literate up like the slave artisans of olde. How long until a modern day Archimedes goes nuclear?

[@Beryesa.]

And your friend -Steve- Red Hat.

[@roberttranceedm]

Closed source doesn't automatically mean corporate greed, it isn't always a product of a large entity. There are closed source software options from small and mid sized developing companies as well. Just because they don't want to give out the fruits of their long labour, doesn't mean they are bad and greedy. People need to stop being so entitled and freeloaders.

[@akam9919]

@@roberttranceedm I agree. The issue is not "closed-source". It's bad laws that make opensource either impossible or cumbersome or force developers to do stupid things that offer literally zero benefit to anyone but allow dictators and beaurocrats to just control the population.

[@NorthernChimp]

@@roberttranceedm Yes, but closed-source also implies a trust-me-bro security model.

[@fabienmargerie6815]

Thanks bro, FOSS is everything and everywhere.

[@deviljelly3]

You pronounced his name correctly, he used to he my boss :)

[@POINTS2]

We need to support FOSS and keep corporations in check. Hopefully, the EU can do this correctly.

[@LightMCXx]

IF corporations being check than Corp won't make excess money for government remember governments always have high priority rich over little guys.

[@MamRadVlaky]

"Hopefully, the EU can do this correctly" - LOL

[@ridcully]

I’ve been using that “damn… we’re in a tight spot” line for years…. I can see it works a lot better with a picture 😂

[@2trains182]

If you were a prison guard, would you want weaker inmates, and more control over them, or stronger inmates, and less control over them?

[@goteer10]

I would leave my job, honestly

[@swagmuffin9000]

I would want healthy inmates as strong or weak as they want to be. There are people in jail that are pretty strong. I would also want them to get an education and job so they stay busy, i imagine being locked up only contributes to rebellion. There are security controls that can help with incidents. Also, these are people that actually broke the law (assuming not wrongly imprisoned). Software helps every law abiding citizen, including people trying to secure their and other's computers/networks. If not for open source, over 90% of the internet would go away, and would even affect proprietary companies/products.

[@2trains182]

@@swagmuffin9000 oh yeah same here. And I love Linux. The only PC with windows in my house, is my work laptop. I was meaning that to be thought of in the mindset of the typical, anti-human, power-hungry, tyrant-type person, that we typically see, leading many of these big multinational entities, and our countries governments.

[@nivkaha]

I disagree about the Ericsson quote interpretation at 4:43 , (and I'm not otherwise informed about this case, I didn't read the full letter, I couldn't find it, nor am I a lawyer). My interpretation of the quoted snippet is quite the opposite: To me it sounds like they're saying "Hey, these regulations on competitors cooperating don't have any carveout for open source. Please change them to clear it up that cooperation for open source is ok". I've worked in big enough companies to know that if something like this is ambiguously worded the company lawyers won't let you take chances so I can see a lawyer at Ericson saying that without specific text makes it clear that there's no risk in cooperating for open source it would be a problem. Otherwise every time an engineer from Nokia chats with an engineer from Ericsson about a kernel commit (for instance) they'd have to check with legal. At least that's what I would have understood from the quoted snippet.

[@wezzelinator]

Solution: define Open Source Non Profit. Why they don't use that wording smells of big money.

[@SpacePoodle]

Thank you for your great and important contributions. Keep up the good work!

[@send2gl]

Your English is actually very good and you pronounced Phipps correctly.

[@temari2860]

Not sure whether I should be asking Nicco or the editor but I'll keep asking to stop putting random unfunny facebook memes that look like they were put just by the first google image result as "[word said in the video] meme". They're pulling the video quality down which is otherwise really good.

[@DudeSoWin]

This is why the Admins of old actively beat their users. Weakness is disgusting. Live by the supply chain and die by it, you don't get any more Tradeitional than that. Freedom of Code.

[@samm9196]

To be honest I've reached a point where I thing a lot of regulation is just useless and should not exist or come to existence in the fist place. You just need real liabilty of the manufacturer/service provider. And if you're just using Open Souce software, that's excluding this liability and without a contract granting you manufacturer liability, then sorry, you're on you're own. That's how the world works... Of course there are things where regulation is necessary. But I don't think most of software is. Most software products won't be able to kill someone, and even for critical systems, like for example software controlling the electrical grid, just putting a CE certification on the software stack of the servers won't solve anything... Also I think we've already reached a point where there is so much regulation, that no company or project is and can follow everything. It also leads to a situation where people just follow the regulation/certification guidelines without thinking about it and missing the big vulnerability in their product. I would rather like to see developers working on the security of their software on their own terms then going though a checklist...

[@zxuiji]

14:19, lack of mouse wheel based screen zoom, cinnamon can do it, XFCE can do it, yet other desktop managers like GNOME, GTK or whatever it was (can never remember), until they do f**k their desktops

[@Redhotsmasher]

I thought another issue with the CRA is that it basically outlaws publishing software with bugs as I understood it?

[@MNbenMN]

Bureaucrat: "Why add bugs to your software!? That's malicious!" Developer: "You don't understand. Bugs are not added intentionally, they are unintended behaviours, contrary to the intensed design." Bureaucrat: ""You mean you aren't paying enough attention to what you are providing to the public to know how it is going to behave?! Negligence!!" Developer: "We are not negligent. We put a lot of effort into testing, but we cannot control for all potential environments software may be used in or predict future use cases, and sometimes, it's just a mistake that results in a bug." Bureaucrat: "No! You are not allowed to make mistakes! THat'S ILleGaL!!1! Yeah, I decided that's illegal now." Developer: SMH *pushes merge request to disable shared support library essential to Bureaucrat's bank account, phone, and email*

[@DanieleBaz]

If it's the EU asking for it, can't be anything good. Those people always come up with bad ideas masking for good ones. Control is what they aim.

[@randommarkonfilms3979]

FOSS is so important. I hope they make all the right decisions

[@LetsFixITJoe]

The DSA is also there !!! as people dont cae about their privacy at all anymore who cares about Linux unless the 5% worldwide who use it on private biasis? thats the problem - linux did not gain significant market domination in the last 30 years...still most are running WIndows and this is for a good reason.....GUX on Linux is still a mess.....if linux just would be as safe and comfotable to use like windows is....(after a rework on it ) ... All Digital Data are in danger now !! and people still dont know how to find "developer mode" on their mobiles....that the problem - people dont care about ..they just repeat " i dont have anything to hide ".....with that kind of culture you dont lead a revolution !

[@naderz4064]

I switched to linux a month after getting a steam deck, this was over a year ago and after over 20 years of windows, kde on the steam deck is what gave me the courage to swap, looking back lol I like kde more than the desktop I wanted it to be like, ty to you, the kde team, and valve this was the best year I have ever had in tinkering. I have swapped my parent's comps, little brothe swapped to just a steam deck and both my sons do their homeschooling and gaming on their desktop linux pcs lol I'm still a total noob but linux has come so far I can use it for everything I did in windows and only 1 private server game I play on required the terminal for a simple copy paste mono install after that lutris took it from there

[@be12]

Make the certification optional so clients can decide and it doesn't become a bureaucratic nightmare.

[@sandeepnaik6437]

Very True...

[@Bluelightzero]

Stop taking photos during your video. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[@niccoloveslinux]

Sorry, what do you mean "taking photos during your video"?

[@Bluelightzero]

@@niccoloveslinux The sound effect of a camera shutter you keep playing.

[@niccoloveslinux]

@@Bluelightzero aaaah lol yeah too loud

[@testtest8399]

Having a certification for those things is fine. Requiring that certification for software that governements and people employed directly by the state/EU/whatever use is also fine. Banning the product from being used in whole of EU because of this is stupid. Obviously it's not only bad for open source projects, but also for smaller comercial software solutions that just don't have the money to do the certification. EU has some very good ideas that are well implemented, some ideas that are badly implemented and some that are plain terrible and however they are implemented is bad. Sometimes they just have a brain fart and best you can hope is people there or people in general can vote against those brain farts in those cases. Am i saying CRA is bad? No, just depends on what they want to do with it. Honestly GDPR is in my opinion one of those ideas that sounded good in theory, but isn't regulated properly and all in all is close to useless.

[@prscrystalized3706]

For the love of God....We don't need these bureauomorons telling any independent developers or groups what they should do. They don't even understand the technologies they have the temerity to decide to regulate. How do you even regulate something entirely voluntary?

[@ericdegooijer8174]

Bedankt

[@pazzoeo]

dall'Italia che si può fare ?

[@fab23social]

In che senso?

[@OcteractSG]

Thanks for making this video. Yes, English law and politics are hard. Even as a native speaker, I get mild headaches reading that kind of stuff.

[@brunoais]

Isn't EU on track for agenda 2030? Because from what I can gather, the agenda 2030 includes ending with open-source because that would lead to ownership.

[@1pcfred]

I'd be OK with outlawing Gnome.

[@Korodarn]

Almost all legislation (excepting counter-legislation or repeal) is bad legislation. Rules should arise naturally from the repetition of attempts to fairly resolve disputes in a way that is designed to prevent violence. The real problem here is that these three things "the state", "antitrust" and "intellectual 'property'" law are solutions in search of a problem They don't truly solve much (this is because as Thomas Sowell said - there are no solutions - only trade-offs) , they merely expand the scope of problems to be resolved. Big tech (particularly the most nefarious parts) is largely a creation of the state. States, as they gain more power, largely move in one of 2 directions, but both arrive at totalitarianism if left unrestrained (the 2 directions being socialism, or corporatism.) Restraining states becomes more difficult as states grow in size. States are fundamentally nothing more than a territorial monopoly over "legitimate" aggression. They are not wholly different than the mob or any criminal cartel that protects its turf with armed thugs. The reason they appear different is that they are "smarter" than these other organizations. To rob and oppress other people and feel good about it, it's necessary to feel like you are doing neither. So the most important party to deceive if you are within the state (or desire to join it) is yourself. Once you are able to engage in this self-deception, teaching yourself that you are necessary to restrain all forms of bad behavior, or even potential bad behavior, is quite simple. The smartest people are the best at engaging in this form of self-deception, and in convincing others of it in turn. All of the parties involved in politics are ultimately engaged in this same process in slightly different directions. A small number really do want to restrain the state in particular areas, but if they last for very long, they are almost always also full of people who realize that the long term interest of the organization is not to fix the problem, but to merely mitigate it or to act as a controlled opposition. This way they can keep getting the funding from their donors. There are, on occasion, political means to restrict the state or limit it. This is easier to do the smaller the state is, and the less parties need to engage in constantly lobbying it for their slice of the pie. But the more parties need the state, the more parties cannot imagine it ceasing to provide that slice. They cannot oppose it, because it is what gives them what is most important to them.

[@logicalfundy]

Part of the problem IMO is that security is *hard*. Even the biggest corporations get it wrong sometimes. What about inexperienced and hobbyist developers? I just don't think it's practical. If it's something safety critical, like a fly by wire system for aircraft - that should be regulated, sure. But those are pretty narrowly defined systems with very limited scope. I don't see how it would work for the broader ecosystem of general purpose software. It's not like developers don't want secure software - a lot of time and effort has been put into making operating systems secure, creating sandbox environments, etc. We definitely want it. If it were easy, we'd already have it. I don't think regulations would make everything more secure, they'd just run a lot of good developers out of business.

[@timmy7201]

Which one do you choose: - Free open source "fly by wire system", looked into by hundreds of people across the globe. - Expensive proprietary and certified "fly by wire system", build by a handful of senior developers with deprecated tech knowledge up their heads. I would always opt for the former one! There is a reason why most servers worldwide run on Linux, open-source is usually a lot more stable! It has cleaner code and lacks the know it all tech illiterate boomer management ruining the whole project due to their "strong opinions"...

[@timeeternal5756]

If they can't make a software secure, then they are not good developers. CASE CLOSED.

[@timmy7201]

@@timeeternal5756 The fact that you call it 'a software', makes you sound like a boomer that doesn't even understand the difference between 'hardware' and 'software'. Making 'software' secure takes more time and money, things that management doesn't always agree with. That's one of the reasons why open-source is usually more secure than proprietary software, the lack of time-pressure.

[@logicalfundy]

@@timmy7201 I'd choose a system that has been formally verified and thoroughly vetted by experts and has redundancies to ensure the chance of problems is extremely low. Doesn't matter if it's built by "senior developers with deprecated tech knowledge." It's not an iPhone, It doesn't need to have the latest gadgetry. Linux systems are more reliable than Windows. But they still occasionally have problems. A fly by wire system needs to be 100x more reliable than Linux.

[@timmy7201]

@@logicalfundy Linux was an example of open source. A fly by wire system is usually build using RTOS or free-RTOS.

[@RandomGeometryDashStuff]

09:48 subtitles: abandoning git

[@MrYossarianuk]

I'm in the UK so no longer in the EU unfortunately ... (I voted against the idiocy that is Brexit) is there anything I can do ?

[@MamRadVlaky]

"is there anything I can do ?" - Stop being an EU cultist.

[@MrYossarianuk]

@@MamRadVlaky What an idiot comment. I'm asking is there anything people not in the EU can do to help fight an EU law.... Being in the EU is far better than not IMO, the Tories could not have passed laws outlawing striking and peaceful protest for a start

[@MamRadVlaky]

@@MrYossarianuk " I'm asking is there anything people not in the EU can do to help fight an EU law...." - nothing. EU will eventually always do whatever they want. "Being in the EU is far better than not IMO" - not really. "Tories could not have passed laws outlawing striking and peaceful protest for a start" - cool, one bureucracy beat some other bureucracy.... we don't need neither tho.

[@peterbeer8657]

It wouldn't make sense to put open source disadvantaged. With open source you can at least inspect the software you are using so you have a general idea of how secure it is. With closed source you are entirely dependent on the software provider. With open source the disadvantage is the developer needs to be willing to put in the extra time to fix security issues, but it's still necessary. With closed source the main goal is to make money, so there is no incentive to provide security guarantees unless not doing so somehow creates legal issues and risks.

[@yigitorhan7654]

Still not patched?

[@fontenbleau]

are they regulate them as cucumbers? 😅 who even elected them

[@francescodlx]

Quite simple to me: If anyone gets paid for your whatever kind of work, he has to make safe software. Infact, open source doesn't mean free/'not paid' software, a lot of companies make money with open source software, and these companies have to supply safe softwares/services. It's time for me to start learning the linux from scratch books 🤣.

[@emblemi6345]

Niccolo, your videos are great. But the current styling is getting a bit, um .., boring. At least for those who watch every one of them. I know I'm not supporting you financially because rn I earn less than you do lol. But maybe you can change the theming a bit. You know, KDE is all about kustomisation :)

[@77seban]

Fu.. EU

[@zedtrek]

You can Fu...