Don’t run it on a raspberry pi, run it on the same computer you use to access the Google search you are happy to call “free”.
Edit: Actually yes, both this and the healthcare need to be free - otherwise you’re grossly misunderstanding one of the key parts of the mission of open source. I pay for this so that whoever can’t afford it can access for exactly zero. Same for the healthcare - you might say it’s “not free” and everyone should contribute but what to you or me is nothing, could mean that grandma doesn’t get to eat. So yeah, free access needs to be a possibility. That’s the mission. I contribute to open source software and donate where I can so others who don’t have the knowledge or money can access it for free. There can’t be a price.
Exhausting. If you don’t consider anything in the world is free, why did you bother saying Lemmy isn’t free?
Plus this argument is rubbish, it’s like saying “my car isn’t free, nor is the road, nor is my petrol, so the beach isn’t free”.
Just because you have to buy clothes to go out for a walk, it doesn’t make it any less free.
What are you trying to argue here? That the term “free” shouldn’t exist because in a capitalist society everything has dependencies? (I still don’t get how that relates to my original post which was purely about doing business with corporations).
Then fine, Lemmy isn’t free, neither is the sun, or going for a walk. You win. Good day sir.
Yes I do. I’m totally the one who can’t understand that “free” is a nuanced concept and something can be free when there are costs but they are externalised.
Enlighten me, why do you think I can’t tell the difference? Is it because as a maintainer I want to provide something for free? Do you see “consumers” of free content as leeches?
Don’t run it on a raspberry pi, run it on the same computer you use to access the Google search you are happy to call “free”.
Edit: Actually yes, both this and the healthcare need to be free - otherwise you’re grossly misunderstanding one of the key parts of the mission of open source. I pay for this so that whoever can’t afford it can access for exactly zero. Same for the healthcare - you might say it’s “not free” and everyone should contribute but what to you or me is nothing, could mean that grandma doesn’t get to eat. So yeah, free access needs to be a possibility. That’s the mission. I contribute to open source software and donate where I can so others who don’t have the knowledge or money can access it for free. There can’t be a price.
My computer isn’t free, nor is my internet connection, nor is my electricity.
When did I call Google searches “free”?
Exhausting. If you don’t consider anything in the world is free, why did you bother saying Lemmy isn’t free?
Plus this argument is rubbish, it’s like saying “my car isn’t free, nor is the road, nor is my petrol, so the beach isn’t free”.
Just because you have to buy clothes to go out for a walk, it doesn’t make it any less free.
What are you trying to argue here? That the term “free” shouldn’t exist because in a capitalist society everything has dependencies? (I still don’t get how that relates to my original post which was purely about doing business with corporations).
Then fine, Lemmy isn’t free, neither is the sun, or going for a walk. You win. Good day sir.
You really only think in black and white, huh?
Sad.
Yes I do. I’m totally the one who can’t understand that “free” is a nuanced concept and something can be free when there are costs but they are externalised.
And yet you can’t fathom the difference between hosting and maintaining something, versus consuming something.
Enlighten me, why do you think I can’t tell the difference? Is it because as a maintainer I want to provide something for free? Do you see “consumers” of free content as leeches?
Because you think hosting Lemmy yourself is the same monetary cost as doing a Google search.
You’re funny. 😂 What I actually think is that your mind reading skills are terrible because I never said anything even remotely similar to that.