@tusharhero @sysedit Sadly the way to put images into text is not semantic, and more like HTML or Markdown / Org-Mode. Which sucks.

You have to specify an image that "is just right" for each output format.

@amszmidt I looked at the info pages for the lilypond tutorial and I only saw alt text where images should be. That made me question my sanity again and I took a look at the source of info mode. That convinced me that 100% there must be image support. I tried to look at the lilypond info pages in /usr/share/info/ and thats where I saw a bunch of images for gnutls. So I scrolled through the info page for gnutls and found my first image. Thank you.

@sysedit @fsf@hostux.social Mismanagement by the FSF for not providing adequate infrastructure for the #GNU project.

There was some vague promises to “fix” things, over the course of ten years… we was promised a new forge, new hardware, but what we got was worse; @FSF employees micromanaging the GNU project and harassing hackers. @iank

@JMarkOckerbloom @mike @acdha That is why @FSF and the GNU project exists.n

@sysedit @viz or a better example, #GNU #Lilypond.

Images in info has been a thing for some 20 years.

@bamboombibbitybop @sysedit big issue with org mode is semantics, making Org-mode unsuitable to write comprehensive manuals in, you cannot mark something as a “variable” or “key binding” in its

@sysedit It's really down to what you are reading documentation on.

Bigger projects related to GNU Emacs will usually use Info, and that's my preferred way.

However, some things don't give you much of a choice and you're down to some README file in Markdown, or web pages.

But my documentation preference list in Emacs would start with Info, go through man and end up with markdown (whatever that is these days).

What is chaos?

How is chaos formed?

How can chaos materialize from order?

#HailEris #Discordia

@eruwero Yes, which is not what you wrote about. Maybe learn to read. *plonk*

@eruwero > because it requires to also use the GPL for them

No, it doesn't. You can use any compatible license (e.g., Expat license).

And Freedom 3 isn't about what terms a work is distributed. It is about the ability to distribute .. at all.

The AGPL also doesn't say how you can run a program.

> because there [AGPL] you're required to provide the source code even if you just run the software on a server)

Not true.

@xgranade@wandering.shop

Watching my 18-year-old #cat age is a lesson in gentleness. This morning he ate, walked away, came back, and asked to be fed again - his food still there. I picked it up, set it down, and suddenly it made sense to him again. He's still there, just navigating the world a little differently now. If you've loved an old animal, I'd love to hear your stories. #caturday #CatsOfMastodon

A deep dive into ASCII rendering

https://alexharri.com/blog/ascii-rendering

Most amazing thing I've seen in a while. A celebration of life.

This post by Bruce Schneier contains so many thoughtful soundbites:

> The question is not simply whether copyright law applies to AI. It is why the law appears to operate so differently depending on who is doing the extracting and for what purpose.

> Like the early internet, AI is often described as a democratizing force. But also like the internet, AI’s current trajectory suggests something closer to consolidation.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/01/ai-and-the-corporate-capture-of-knowledge.html

@xgranade Maybe learn to write before you start to bitch?

@dave

@xgranade > I'm pointing out that the GPL correctly recognizes that users can be subjugated when a copy is made

Users _CANNOT_ be subjugated if they use the #GNU GPL.

That is the whole point of the GPL.

@dave

@dave >MIT is the perfect FSF license, it achieves freedom zero in a way that GPL and other copyleft licenses intentionally can't.

The "MIT" license, and the GPL achieve the exact same thing when it comes to freedom zero.

But the MIT license, or rather Expat license. Is not a perfect license for what the Free software movement is trying to achieve.

It is a fundamentally weak license, and is not adequate in promoting what computers users should be able to do with their computers.

@xgranade

@xgranade > Similarly, GPLv3 adds to that that you do not have the freedom to make and sell a device that includes creative labor made with the intent of preserving and protecting freedom zero, namely the so-called "TiVo clause."

This is false.

@xgranade > Under the GPL series of licenses, there is a freedom I do not have, namely the freedom to subjugate others.

To call an abusive action a freedom is absurd.

@dave

@xgranade "makes the argument that what the FSF terms "freedom zero," the freedom to do whatever the fuck you want with your computer"

That is not what freedom zero is.

@dave The GNU GPL archives freedom zero just as well as the "MIT license". You can run a GNU GPL program for any reason.

The "MIT license" is one of the worst licenses for users, since they can be subjugated when a copy is made; which is the whole point of the GNU project, and the FSF

@xgranade