Yes it’s being deprecated on Lemmy c/piracy, and we would ideally like our members to help out with keeping the Community Edition up-to-date with any breaking changes. TBH the rentry version is very Reddit-focused and there is no direct community involvement with it from the Lemmy side, which is one of the reasons for the change.

It’s usually recommended to completely uninstall any previous versions of Adobe software beforehand, and as a precaution you can/should also use the Creative Cloud Cleaner Tool to remove all traces that may be left behind. After that, perform a reboot and then reinstall the m0nkrus package. I haven’t installed that particular collection myself, so it’s possible it’s an error, but m0nkrus’ à la carte apps usually work without any major issues.

I’d also recommend reading this wiki for some alternative activation methods and tips in case you can’t get it working.

We appreciate it matey, glad to have you in the community.

I’ve just requested for the moderator (@sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com) to update the links in the sidebar and pinned megathread post.

We haven’t done any css theming on the wiki yet, it’s just using the vanilla django-wiki defaults. Perhaps in the future though :)

Check out the new community wiki which is all hosted here. Members of our instance can also make / suggest edits to it.

I’m going to leave this thread here for transparency, but for anyone reading this, I’m banning this user for trolling. I’ve asked twice for any evidence and they won’t provide any.

In fact I am an admin, and I already messaged you on Sunday to ask for evidence to back up this report and you didn’t provide any. If you could provide even a single link to CSAM posted on one of our communities, I would be happy to investigate further. But if you keep making these serious claims backed up with zero evidence then I’m just going to have to assume you are trolling. Also FYI our instance has automatic scanning and blocking of image uploads for CSAM.

WTF are you talking about? db0 runs the fediseer project which helps other instances actively block such content.

You make some good points, but whether it exactly meets every criteria of open source software as per that definition or not, I really can’t bring myself to care that much either way. I get that it’s important to you, and that’s fine, but not everyone cares that much about it. People can read and vet the source code, the intention of the project seems good, and the intention of the authors in deviating slightly from pure open source principles seems to be to protect their users from scammy clones, which also seems fine with me. TBH we’re not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community, and if this app helps people to avoid surveillance capitalism and puts even the slightest dent in Google’s massive profits then I’m all for it. Anyways, have a good one.

This whole discussion is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It depends completely on how you define open source, and there is no single universally agreed upon definition. Per this article, there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though I’m anticipating you wouldn’t agree? For this particular app, there are some restrictions in place aimed to protect users from malicious forks. IMO this is a good thing. I can’t understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.

Many software buyers – even new developers – misunderstand the term “open source” to mean the software is available to use, copy, modify, and distribute as desired. This misunderstanding may arise from confusing open source with public domain or shareware, both of which are free to use and modify without specific permissions or licensing.

The truth is that, for the most part, open-source software is covered by one of several types of open source licenses and is not necessarily free of charge either.

In contrast to proprietary software where vendors typically make it impossible to access, copy or modify the source code, open source code permits the use, reuse, sharing, modification, and distribution of the code in other programs or applications. But just as with proprietary software licensing, open source software is subject to various legal terms and restrictions, depending on the type of open source license in force.

Why are you even slightly surprised that a piracy community would be advocating for pirating content? You gonna go to a furries community next and complain about all the fur?

Aw shucks

I think because people may have added additional filters manually that might trigger the ad block detection, but that’s just a guess. The guide was written by the uBlock Origin developers so I assume they have a reason for that step. But you can try without that step, it might well still work, especially in stock configuration.

Definitely, and note that (for me anyway) I didn’t have to disable any of my other extensions. I think they are referring mainly to adblocking extensions in that step.

I’m struggling to see how this post relates to the !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com community tbh.

I’d maybe be willing to pay $12-15 per annum for no user tracking. But that price per month is a joke. They just want to deter people from paying by offering an inflated price, so they can turn around in a few months and argue there is no demand for it.

⭐

“If he would ask me what should you do for fitness, I would just say, ‘Run around yourself three times. You’re going to be in great shape.’”

Stack of cards ^^

Deck of cards ^^