Yes, but any librarian you might ask for the directory, is going to ask you what you are looking for.

edited it

For hardware it is relativly simple, as paying for that is normal. Raspberry Pi is a private company, but produces open source hardware. Probably the way to go, is to force all companies to do so. Right to repair is imho a good starting point.

For software the key seems to be large government or private customers. They do have a lot of money and the system not running costs them a lot. Hiring experts themself is also not always posdible. So buying in service from companies developing open source is an option.

For R&D a lot of that is done by universities and research institutions likr NASA today. That seems to me to be a good solution.

Just to expand on this. Grand Paris, which is Petite Couronne and some other municipalities bordering it, is about as large in areas as Berlin, but with nearly twice the population for example. So we are not talking about some rural or suburban part of the France.

Also it is a general French problem of not adjusting city boundaries for ages. Large French cities rarely have a border with a municipality, which is actually rural.

MIT license is still open source, so Ubuntu based operating systems can still be open source. The problem is that this makes it less needed that they have to be. However most current projects will probably stay proper open source projects and likely continue to use a better license.

It uses Bing in the backend though.

Norway only has a population of 5.5million. The area is relativly big though.

That’s just awesome.

They are also the main developers of the Mastodon software. It is not just hosting the service. The software needs to be able to compete with Bluesky and right now it quite simply does not. The only way to get the quality needed is to have some full time lead developers. Also they need some proper admins to run the websites. Mastodon social is at 250,000 active users right now, but it is also fairly likely to grow fast with what Elon is up to with Twitter. Just to compare Twitter used to have 7500 employees, with a 1000 today.

There are ways around it, like link shorteners and so forth, but the main point is that Meta is afraid.

Thanks. Know I actually get, why one of the modernist developments feels so much better then a new urbanism one I have been to.

Voyager is already cross platform for iOS, Android and web. It is also open source: https://github.com/aeharding/voyager

The keyword is probably world government. Also institutions like the EU are pretty intressting. That has been copied in Africa, Eurasia and South America.

You can however Switch to some open source software without having to go full Linux. Introducing Libre Office, Firefox, Thunderbird and so forth can be done in Windows. Software Not working one Linux is often a big problem for switching.

In the US it starts in 1985, which is about a decade after the Vietnam war, which obviously hit men a lot worse then women.

For Germany it was a similar thing. Conscription to fight in the potential war within Germany. So a decent chance of having to fight and die.

This is why we can’t fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint. Because it requires 100% of the population taking it upon themselves to do the right thing and many individuals: -don’t care -don’t have the option

No, it just requires everybody who is not living in a sustainable fashion to change their lifestyle. Prending otherwise like you do is just not helpful. People will not be able to drive a combustion engine car, fly on a jet, take diesel ship cruises, eat even close to as much beef and a lot of other things, which are going to change their lifes. Without changing that, you just can not solve the climate crisis.

People like you, who only want to lobby governments to take action, ignore that this is going to create a counter movement. That already happened a few times. Yellow west and farmer protests come to mind. This is very easily capable of stoping climate action in total and has lead to some truely nasty parties gaining in power. This idea of being able to ignore those effects, is just plain and simply dumb. We need to convince most people to take climate change seriously enough to be willing to change their lifes. Otherwise your climate idea of just lobbying works once and is very quickly reversed.

Keep in mind a society is made up of individuals. That means no society will be willing to take climate action, when the individuals in the society are not willing to do so.

The top 10% globally emit almost half of global emissions That group is also the one, which can afford the alternatives, like for example EVs.

You also ignore that actually living the change, is what builts up the alternatives. Lets take EVs as an example. Economies of scale bring down prices and more EVs means more reason to expand charging infrastructure. We can in fact see both of those in action. That kind of stuff also works socially. The more EVs are around, the more normal they become. It also lowers oil sales, which hurt oil companies, which makes them weaker.

Aligning you politics and your lifestyle, also makes you more effective politically. Somebody who rudes their bike in everyday life as trandport, will call for very different things, then somebody who only drives everywhere. That can just be knowing the worst parts in the cycling network. Also again, it makes it more believable, when you lobby for something, which makes your life better.

So I will continue to try to live a life, which aligns with my values, and not pretend I gave up all my agency to Wallstreet.

What I am trying to say, is that to fight climate change lifestyle changes are required. To get those changes done in a demicratic fashion, you need to convince a majority of people to actually make those changes. Part of that is making them without the actual law, to show that it is possible.

Just take you as an example. You want I presume a combustionengine ban. However that ban would cause you massive problems, as you can not get to work or buy food without a car. I would say that, if true, those would be amazing arguments against such a ban. For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.

Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

Remeber the US president refusing to wear a mask in public? Johnsons parties during covid? There was a lot of that bs.

So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.

That is the plan. How else are you going to get to zero, but to change the everybodies carbon footprint.

Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.

To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.

I have both been able to work and get food without using a car.