LibreLingo is a free and open-source language learning platform positioned as an ethical alternative to Duolingo. It prioritizes user privacy, offering a completely ad-free experience and eschewing gamification in favor of a more traditional learning approach. The platform is currently in beta and supports a growing number of languages, focusing on comprehensive skill development through lessons covering vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. LibreLingo emphasizes community involvement, encouraging contributions to expand language offerings and improve existing courses. The project aims to be fully transparent and community-driven, distinguishing itself from commercial platforms through its commitment to open-source principles and user freedom.
Driven by a desire for more control, privacy, and the ability to tinker, the author chronicles their experience daily driving a Linux phone (specifically, a PinePhone Pro running Mobian). While acknowledging the rough edges and limitations compared to mainstream smartphones—like inconsistent mobile data, occasional app crashes, and a less polished user experience—they highlight the satisfying aspects of using a truly open-source device. These include running familiar Linux applications, having a terminal always at hand, and the ongoing development and improvement of the mobile Linux ecosystem, offering a glimpse into a potential future free from the constraints of traditional mobile operating systems.
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and motivations behind daily driving a Linux phone. Some commenters questioned the real-world benefits beyond ideological reasons, highlighting the lack of app support and the effort required for setup and maintenance as significant drawbacks. Others shared their own positive experiences, emphasizing the increased control, privacy, and potential for customization as key advantages. The potential for convergence, using the phone as a desktop replacement, was also a recurring theme, with some users expressing excitement about the possibility while others remained skeptical about its current viability. A few commenters pointed out the niche appeal of Linux phones, acknowledging that while it might not be suitable for the average user, it caters to a specific audience who prioritizes open source and tinkerability.
This 2010 essay argues that running a nonfree program on your server, even for personal use, compromises your freedom and contributes to a broader system of user subjugation. While seemingly a private act, hosting proprietary software empowers the software's developer to control your computing, potentially through surveillance, restrictions on usage, or even remote bricking. This reinforces the developer's power over all users, making it harder for free software alternatives to gain traction. By choosing free software, you reclaim control over your server and contribute to a freer digital world for everyone.
HN users largely agree with the article's premise that "personal" devices like "smart" TVs, phones, and even "networked" appliances primarily serve their manufacturers, not the user. Commenters point out the data collection practices of these devices, noting how they send usage data, location information, and even recordings back to corporations. Some users discuss the difficulty of mitigating this data leakage, mentioning custom firmware, self-hosting, and network segregation. Others lament the lack of consumer awareness and the acceptance of these practices as the norm. A few comments highlight the irony of "smart" devices often being less functional and convenient due to their dependence on external servers and frequent updates. The idea of truly owning one's devices versus merely licensing them is also debated. Overall, the thread reflects a shared concern about the erosion of privacy and user control in the age of connected devices.
The blog post "Right to root access" argues that users should have complete control over the devices they own, including root access. It contends that manufacturers artificially restrict user access for anti-competitive reasons, forcing users into walled gardens and limiting their ability to repair, modify, and truly own their devices. This restriction extends beyond just software to encompass firmware and hardware, hindering innovation and consumer freedom. The author believes this control should be a fundamental digital right, akin to property rights in the physical world, empowering users to fully utilize and customize their technology.
HN users largely agree with the premise that users should have root access to devices they own. Several express frustration with "walled gardens" and the increasing trend of manufacturers restricting user control. Some highlight the security and repairability benefits of root access, citing examples like jailbreaking iPhones to enable security features unavailable in the official iOS. A few more skeptical comments raise concerns about users bricking their devices and the potential for increased malware susceptibility if users lack technical expertise. Others note the conflict between right-to-repair legislation and software licensing agreements. A recurring theme is the desire for modular devices that allow component replacement and OS customization without voiding warranties.
Summary of Comments ( 212 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43829035
Hacker News commenters generally expressed enthusiasm for LibreLingo as a FOSS alternative to Duolingo, praising its offline functionality and commitment to user privacy. Several users highlighted the importance of open-source language learning tools and the potential for community contributions to improve the platform. Some questioned the app's current feature set compared to Duolingo, particularly its limited language selection, but acknowledged its early stage of development and expressed hope for future expansion. A few commenters discussed the challenges of maintaining and growing an open-source project, including funding and volunteer recruitment. Others pointed out existing alternatives like Anki and suggested potential integrations. The overall sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, with users eager to see LibreLingo mature and succeed.
The Hacker News post titled "LibreLingo – FOSS Alternative to Duolingo" sparked a discussion with several interesting comments. Many users expressed enthusiasm for a free and open-source language learning platform, viewing it as a valuable alternative to proprietary options like Duolingo. Some commenters specifically praised the project's commitment to user privacy and the absence of gamification elements, which some find distracting in other apps.
Several users discussed the challenges of creating and maintaining a high-quality language learning platform, particularly regarding the development of effective and diverse exercises. The importance of community contributions and the potential for crowdsourced content creation were highlighted. One commenter questioned the scalability of relying solely on volunteer contributions for course content, expressing concerns about the long-term viability of such a model.
The technical aspects of LibreLingo were also a topic of conversation. Users inquired about the technologies used in its development, including the programming language (Rust) and the database (PostgreSQL). The choice of a copyleft license (AGPLv3) was discussed, with some expressing concerns about its potential impact on the project's adoption, particularly by commercial entities.
Some comments focused on specific features of LibreLingo, including the offline functionality and the ability to import custom word lists. The user interface and user experience were also mentioned, with suggestions for improvements and requests for features like spaced repetition. One user praised the minimalist design, while another requested a "dark mode" option.
There was a discussion about the comparison between LibreLingo and Duolingo, with users sharing their experiences and preferences. While acknowledging Duolingo's strengths in terms of gamification and user engagement, some commenters expressed a preference for LibreLingo's focus on core language learning principles and its commitment to open-source values.
A few commenters also mentioned other open-source language learning platforms, suggesting potential collaborations and sharing resources. Overall, the comments reflect a positive reception to LibreLingo, with many users expressing interest in contributing to the project and following its development. The discussion highlighted the demand for a free, open-source, and privacy-respecting language learning platform and the potential for community-driven development in this space.