The non-JS challenge[0] mentioned in the blog post is one based on HTTP meta refresh. The (hypothetical) WebAssembly challenge is proposed as an improvement on the existing JS proof-of-work challenge[1].
Are they locked into github (using their proprietary APIs) or just using it as a git backend (using standard git tooling)? It's not clear from the article.
Yes, Lucasfilm actually owns several trademarks on the word droid, mainly in toys, computer games, and entertainment. Interpreted broadly, these trademarks cover "smart" devices, which are generally used to interact with entertainment media.
See also the legal battle of Apple v Apple[0] (music vs computers)
They're not "being weird about it." It's explicitly not "a Linux distro" because they intend for the kernel to be just another freely interchangeable component (as is mentioned), although I suppose there might be some residual bitterness from their work constantly being called "Linux" or "a Linux distribution" as well.
This isn't unique to Guix System, either. Debian[0] refers to itself as "a free operating system (OS) for your computer" and doesn't even mention the term Linux on its home page, until you go to the about page[1], where it is mentioned (three paragraphs in!) that "Debian systems currently use the Linux kernel or the FreeBSD kernel." The term "distribution" doesn't even appear until the very end, where it is mentioned that "Debian was begun in August 1993 by Ian Murdock, as a new distribution which would be made openly, in the spirit of Linux and GNU."
Maybe, since the term "GNU distribution" is rather unorthodox, Guix System should just market itself as a free operating system, as Debian does.
> using proprietary software make you a bad person
We don't believe this. We argue that free software is important[0] because it gives users control over their technology, and proprietary software is bad because it denies users that control. We don't believe using proprietary software (whether by choice or otherwise) makes you a bad person.
If anyone is actually making this argument I would say they are doing the free software movement a disservice.
Proprietary software developers "love FOSS" when they can build their products on it. But, if users desire those same freedoms, they're suddenly fundamentalists or zealots.
Copyleft does not restrict "use," only distribution. In the case of VLC, the only people who would be restricted are people who want to make proprietary versions of it, and I can see why VideoLAN aren't too concerned about these "users."
I'm not very familiar with TunnelBear but they appear to have instructions on how to connect from GNU/Linux with OpenVPN[0], so you might not even need their proprietary Android app to use their service.
I believe TunnelBear is highlighted because it is proprietary, not because it is evil (I'm not even sure if the author considers proprietary software in general to be evil; the author uses the word in reference to proprietary Google services).
There's something to be said for having a known good source of software that you can trust. GNU/Linux of course follows the same model, where you're expected to get the majority of your software from the distro repository. So, I don't think this model is inherently antithetical to free software.
I'm a free software nerd and I run LineageOS-sans-Google on my mobile device. I get the vast majority of my software through F-Droid, which works like a GNU/Linux distribution - they build all packages from source and sign with their own key. Only time I would sideload a package is if it's not available in F-Droid (because it's proprietary - although I've since found out about Yalp and use that instead) or if I'm building it myself. It works well enough for me.
I think the objectionable part of a walled garden, at least to a free software nerd, is the walled part. I appreciate the option of being able to step outside if I feel I need to.
Free (Libre) Software is very often gratis as well, and generally breaks the "if you're not the customer..." rule. In the case of Android, there are community-maintained forks that do not include any of the Google stuff.
I don't think your pedantic coworker's criticism is unreasonable at all. APIs, HTTP or otherwise, should communicate what they actually do as best as possible. I have no idea what "blue" is supposed to mean in context, and I struggled to connect "blue" to "car."
What the article is saying, and what I think GP is saying, is that trying to model (non-CRUD) actions as "resources" in the pursuit of being "correct REST" is often a waste of time. `/nouns/8000/verb` is somewhat obvious to me (it does `verb` to `noun` 8000) despite not being "proper REST" whereas `/verb/8000` doesn't (what exactly am I `verb`'ing?), `/green/8000` would just make me scratch my head, and `/9f27410725ab8cc8854a2769c7a516b8/8000` tells me I'm wasting my time with this API and should go do something else.
As a user or developer I think being obvious and usable is more important than being "correct REST" and so I don't even use the term anymore, I just say HTTP API.
You might think it is just "pedantry" or "semantics" but consider that you are not the only one who will be using or reading these APIs, and design accordingly.
(However, if your coworker really was jumping up and screaming loudly at you because of this, this suggests he may not be as enjoyable to work with as you think)