One can be forgiven for thinking the author means to imply that all commercial software is non-free. It is a further disappointment that anyone has to ask.
Open source was right to get rid of the intentional and unintentionally anti-commercial motifs that only got in the way of paid open source development.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Commer...
We know that the FSF is aware of the problem. The trouble can only be if we expect more success from repeating the same tactics for the next forty years. I would blame no one for expecting the FSF to stay the course and to achieve similar effects. I would also not blame them for choosing a different path for themselves and recommending so to others.
Do they mean to imply this? It can also be read as a clarification about the mentioned software, not all commercial software in general. Could just be poor wording.
> Open source was right to get rid of the intentional and unintentionally anti-commercial motifs that only got in the way of paid open source development.
Open source did succeed in avoiding the problem present in English language, but in doing so, shifted focus away from freedom and onto different confusing motifs. A rare word like 'libre' arguably does an even better job while staying true to the original ideas behind the term 'free'.
I don't feel strong disagreement with the four freedoms, but the biggest reason I've gone fully _OSS and intentionally avoid "free/libre" is because I don't want to endorse the FSF tactics and because I want to encourage others to demand more radical innovations instead of forty more years of the same.
What I find most disappointing when I talk to the FSF is that if I bring up social finance and technically enabled social decisions that can make social finance a lot more effective, it is rather as if I have spoken some alien language. I believe the non-programmer needs a lever to choose the development model used by programs they rely on. To the FSF insiders, such thinking is so orthogonal as to generate no reaction. If I say "a billion users are important," they refute the necessity. They are content to be monastic, conveniently propped up by donations for saying nice things. I find such abandonment inexcusable, and I get fired up talking about it.
You can see unifont in the experimental web version here: https://cad.apps.dgramop.xyz/
But I love the idea that even if your bronze age CAD guy wrote all the solid names in Linear A, no problem!
I mean that's pretty close no?
"This page contains the latest release of GNU Unifont, with glyphs for every printable code point in the Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP). The BMP occupies the first 65,536 code points of the Unicode space, denoted as U+0000..U+FFFF."
This is suitable as a last resort font, which should display any character for which no match was found in the other available fonts.
This is normally preferable to a last resort font that just displays the number of a character not available in your preferred fonts.
Unifont seems to have about the same glyph coverage as my system default CJK font (unfortunately I don't know what it is).
Another example would be emoji, which would probably now be considered "basic" by most people but have always been in a supplemental plane.
aidenn0•1h ago
Elfener•1h ago
I love fonts...
adrian_b•36m ago
There you can set what fonts should be used by Firefox to display each script/language, including Chinese, Japanese and other CJK variants.
If you do not configure this, then it is indeed unpredictable which fonts will be used by Firefox to render the Web pages, unless it can match exactly a font requested by the page.