• zingo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 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
      5 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
      ·
      5 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
        ·
        5 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
        ·
        5 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.