▲ 150 ▼ I dumped 11 popular Google apps on my Android phone for these open-source alternatives. (www.androidauthority.com) submitted 3 days ago by InterestingUsername@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml 44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) Unfortunately Obsidian is proprietary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 child) True, but the alternatives all either suck or are coded with AI permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 0 points 1 day ago* IMO insisting that free software options be "no-AI" while accepting proprietary stuff is backwards. In the proprietary world it's the norm that as the end-user you aren't entitled to know how the software is built, because that's considered a secret. Your favorite proprietary developers could be using "AI" and you're not supposed to know about it. In the proprietary world as long as it looks good and does what you want it to do it doesn't matter how it's implemented. If you're insisting on being free of "AI" then as a consequence you have to insist on at least source-availability. As far as I know Obsidian isn't even that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 child) True, but the alternatives all either suck or are coded with AI permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 0 points 1 day ago* IMO insisting that free software options be "no-AI" while accepting proprietary stuff is backwards. In the proprietary world it's the norm that as the end-user you aren't entitled to know how the software is built, because that's considered a secret. Your favorite proprietary developers could be using "AI" and you're not supposed to know about it. In the proprietary world as long as it looks good and does what you want it to do it doesn't matter how it's implemented. If you're insisting on being free of "AI" then as a consequence you have to insist on at least source-availability. As far as I know Obsidian isn't even that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 0 points 1 day ago* IMO insisting that free software options be "no-AI" while accepting proprietary stuff is backwards. In the proprietary world it's the norm that as the end-user you aren't entitled to know how the software is built, because that's considered a secret. Your favorite proprietary developers could be using "AI" and you're not supposed to know about it. In the proprietary world as long as it looks good and does what you want it to do it doesn't matter how it's implemented. If you're insisting on being free of "AI" then as a consequence you have to insist on at least source-availability. As far as I know Obsidian isn't even that. permalink fedilink source parent