There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren't getting the attention this one has.
The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.
Damn, the density of bad faith in that single sentence might collapse into some sort of fallacy black hole.
Congrats
Plex is a solid meh/10 back end wise, provided you have the knowledge to run the docker container it's not that bad.
Running it standalone is potentially effort.
My main issue with plex is it's transition into enshittification as a service.
Lacks specificity, but the general sentiment is understood
Is...that not what's supposed to happen?
I don't have any other socials so I'm not too up on what the standards are.
The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.
Labels aside, the only thing that post contains is a personal opinion, a personal anecdote and then an unspecific reference to something that may or may not exist.
Calling that an argument is a very generous interpretation.
I mean, yes? That's a good summation.
The part where you get to call something "open source" by OSI standards (which I'm pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.
Don't want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn't adhere, because that's how commonly accepted standards work, socially.
Want to make an "open source 2 : electric boogaloo" licence , still no problem.
Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.
Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn't adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.
To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.
Much like the "true" ^1^ open source licences and the other, "closely related, but not quite legit" ^2^ variations.
^1^ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI
^2^ Any other set of standards that isn't compatible with ^1^
edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable
Senal
0 post score0 comment score
joined 3 years ago
You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?
Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.
Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.
Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints