• zingo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Except for the statements that Apple is a better option for privacy. Its not.

      Any OS or app that is not opensource code can’t be trusted.

      • sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I agree. I don’t know why people believe Apple and their privacy fasaude. There is plenty of evidence to show they’re a monopoly on the data to make all the money for themselves, as well as closed source means you can’t trust or verify anything they claim.

      • Lightfire228@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        We should have more “source available, but you still need to pay for it” licenses

        Best of both worlds, the company still gets to sell a product, and we can inspect the source, or even submit PR’s (and maybe get a little kickback (but that’s pie in the sky))

        Granted, it’s super easy to remove the license restrictions with the source available

        • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Best of both worlds

          Only in term of security/privacy. Not control and freedom. And without freedom to modify, share and reuse software we are in a straight path to the lack of privacy again.

        • zingo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s what donations are for.

          Also, many opensource services can be selfhosted for free, while the company/developer gets they payment via donations and/or charging a support service fee to enterprises/people.

          That and exposure to the homelab community which in turn can lead to future implementation in enterprise.