If our governments can't update an HTML page same way they update a twitter status then we are all doomed and should just nuke ourselves to get it over with.
I'm not a professional musician but making patches is something I never knew was fun until I tried it and it immediately became my favorite musical activity. Sitting down with my Minilogue XD and spending and evening just making an ephemeral 16 step sequence is a really great recreation activity that I'd recommend for anyone.
As I'm a software engineer I try to avoid software tools for recreation but it's getting harder and harder and vcv-rack is even on nix package manager. I think I might have to break my rule just this once - thanks!
As a counter curse I recommend strudel.cc back at you :)
I think it’s one of the best pieces of software in existence and I don’t say that lightly. In a perfect world we’d have a magic of box of every modular component to build and rebuild to tinker with the physical controls but in lieu of magic vcv rack plus a midi controller is the next best thing
Strudel is very cool. Possibilities are endless with music tools
I'd say "meh" to VCVRack. Just like you, I got into music production to get away from the computer so I avoid software when I can, I basically only have hardware for production, so I can use my hands and not stare at screens, only do mastering in a DAW.
Like you, many people along the years been telling me that I'll love modular synths, and I should try it out VCVRack to get a taste. So I did, maybe once or twice a year. It never felt fun for me, even one bit. Never sure why.
Then at some point I borrow my friend's modular setup as he was going to play in places where he couldn't bring it, and I finally understood what's so fun about it. The hardware is what makes it fun and relaxing for me, not the concepts themselves, and seemingly for me, they don't translate into the digital realm.
I guess the point is: I'm kind of similar to you and I couldn't get into VCVRack but actual real modular synths are fun as hell. Maybe it's the same for you, so don't lose hope if VCVRack ends up not feeling fun :)
I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source. This is, at best, source available but as there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever it's entirely a bad faith performance to trick people, deceive regulators and stain the entire open source movement.
I sincerely hope that the main stream media does not fall for this and calls it out. It's not rocket science. It's really really simple - this is not good for anyone.
> there is no way to confirm that this code even runs anywhere ever
I'm confused what this has to do with "open source" or how it affects public perception.
I agree with you that it's totally possible to lie about what is actually running in production and that sharing some code doesn't mean it's that code, but how is this a new problem?
So in the end are we going by the OSI's definition of Open Source, or not? Can we make up our mind please?
Every time anyone posts here even a slightly modified Open Source license (e.g. a MIT license with an extra restriction that prevents megacorporations from using it but doesn't affect anyone else) people come out of the woodwork with their pitchforks screaming "this is not Open Source!", and insist that the Open Source Definition decides what is Open Source or not, and not to call anything which doesn't meet that definition "Open Source".
And yet here we are with a repository licensed under an actually Open Source license, and suddenly this is the most upvoted comment, and now people don't actually care about the Open Source Definition after all?
Either we go by the OSI's definition, in which case this is open source, regardless of what you think the motivations are for opening up this code, or we go by the "vibes" of whether it feels open source, in which case a modified MIT license which prohibits companies with a trillion+ market cap from using it is also open source.
You’re discussing licenses, their concern is about calling a thing that cannot function without the associated proprietary back-end “open source” for marketing.
If you want to make the argument only about the license, then you should make sure you are consistent by referencing “open source license” every single time instead. Their point is that companies use releases like this to claim they “open source” simply by releasing some useless code under an open source license.
I think if you simply replace “license” with the word “software” in those same OSI tenants, you’ll suddenly find that this “open source” project doesn’t come close to being the “open source” most people believe in. They don’t just expect the definition to stop with the license if you’re going to call something “open source” instead of “has an open source license”. OSI only provides a definition of “Open Source” with respect to licenses.
So while you may consider only a singular definition by an American organization, founded by corporations, designed to focus on clarifying and promoting the licensing aspect of open source, as the end-all be-all all-encompassing definition for the words “open source”, others argue that there are more things in software than just a license and they hope the media won’t be fooled into reporting about X offering “open source” access.
No, I'm just arguing against the blatant double standard I frequently see here on HN.
Personally I agree with you; to me this isn't open source in spirit. But I also think that a modified MIT license with an anti-megacorporation use restriction is still open source in spirit, regardless of what the Open Source Definition says.
Why is the "this is not open source even though it's OSI approved" comment here the most upvoted, while I frequently see the "this is open source even though it's not OSI approved" opinions heavily argued against and downvoted to hell?
My point is: either pick one or the other. Either the OSI is the authority on what is open source, or not. You can't have it both ways and argue either way depending on whether it's convenient to you. (And by "you" I don't mean you specifically, but people here in general.)
Freedom 1 is dubiously fulfilled. I can modify it, sure, but I can't modify it when the program runs on my data for me.
Freedom 0 isn't fulfilled. I don't have the necessary input data to run the program myself.
(Of course the free software definition wasn't written for today's world, and the clarification below goes somewhat against my argument for Freedom 0. Feel free to pick this apart.)
That's a fair point, but I don't think anyone was stating it's free software. It doesn't need to meet the four freedoms to be open source, just the open source definition.
This is open source. You're thinking of trusted execution, audits, licenses with disclosure requirements, or signed affidavits which is a totally different thing than open source. Otherwise you could claim that just about anything isn't open source just because you're not sure what is happening on someone else's computer.
ok. This is open source of _what_? Without tying the code to a real life object the intent is absolutely meaningless. Here's the open source code for hackernews:
What does that give us? We can't run this to host our own hackernews as it's clearly not runnable. We can't really learn anything from this as it doesn't not represent any real reality. Maybe it's a fun reading exercise but that's about it.
Open source means that I can take source and run it to ensure it's trusted. Ascii characters being visible on my screen is just a nice byproduct of this goal.
(unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not)
This design style has been adopted beyond Thinkpad line and one my favorite examples is this Shonibi by Tex mechanical keyboard[1] which even has a trackpoint!
Agree but the flaking culture is too normalized right now, at least in the west. Nothing is more demotivating than majority of people just not coming and doing it in such a non-chalant manner. It's really not fun to put all that work and people don't take the invitation seriously to the point where they jusut ghost the event.
This annoys me: at least say you're not going to make it. I don't expect you always to be free or even want to attend, but how hard is it to say 'Thanks but I can't come.'?
> I do admire that they dared to do something different and took a big gamble on it.
Why? Do you want your other tools to be _different_ for no reason at all? Do you want your drill come with sharp corners you can't touch just because it'll look different?
You're right and AFAIK it wasn't primarily developed for weight-loss either. Still, there's something not quite right with the way this band-aid would be required at non-trivial scale in the first place. I guess there really is a level of commerce that is too excessive.
Toxic community is mostly a meme myth. I have like 30k points and whatever admins were doing was well deserved as 90% of the questions were utterly impossible to help with. Most people wanted free help and couldn't even bother to put in 5 minutes of work.
reply