Viúva de Lamego is not a "local" artist per se but they're a leading artisanal workshop in classic and contemporary Portuguese tiles. If you have the budget, their tailor-made tiles are something else, imagination is the limit. (source: my dad does a lot of house restorations in Portugal and some require custom tiles to fill in missing/damaged areas)
Can second this. Happy customer here. Amazing experience visiting their factory. Seems like a real institution. There were in fact a bunch of artist at the factory working with them there when we visited.
I would love to help, but it's not my domain. I, unfortunately, witness the side-effects of people stealing them on my day to day. There are many shops in Lisbon that sell them, and there's even a beautiful museum here that it's definitely worth visiting (or signing up for a workshop!): https://museunacionaldoazulejo.gov.pt - it's currently closed for renovation; it should reopen later this year, but that's yet to be confirmed.
When buying - on the streets or in a shop - if it looks old, unless provenance is absolutely clear, please don't.
You will find great artista in Spain and Portugal. I can recommend you Talavera de la Reina in Toledo, Spain. It has a centuries old tradition of producing quality ceramics.
Very cool! I did something similar using Dolphin and LLVM, 16 years ago during my masters, for a course on virtual machines. I compiled the interpreter to LLVM bitcode and then used it that to build basic blocks. It was super slow, but it worked, and I had lots of fun working on it.
These folks have no lasting moat and they know it. We are still close to the November 2025 inflection point, so they had a clear advantage during these past few months. That will soon fade as open-weights models become really good, which is arguably already the case with DeepSeek V4.
I find it surprising that the word "incident" doesn't yet show up on this page. Cloudflare had at least two nasty incidents a few months ago. It certainly shook my confidence in the company's ability to run its infrastructure.
With free libre software, where freedom and liberty are about what the end user is empowered with actually, the software is mostly metonymic. Free software, free society, because there are free people in the middle of course.
Right, as I said elsewhere, maybe let's just let "open-source" have it.
"Open-source" can be "anything you can go out and grab a copy of and use" but doesn't give you much legal certainty about any of it, and reserve "free software" for the other, better thing.
But, free software lost it's way around GPLv3. From the end user's perspective, GPLv3 says that you can only use the software if it's either a cloud service, on hypothetical open firmware devices, or if you install it yourself.
AGPLv3 partially solves the issue by blocking people like Google from using it to build proprietary cloud services that take away their users' freedom. (It still doesn't solve the problem where providers use network effects to achieve the same end game.)
I don't understand this either. The GPL doesn't address end users and their use of software at all, to be technical. It only addresses what terms of copyright redistributors of GPLed software are allowed to apply in-turn to subsequent end users.
The point of the Free in free software was always to protect the users of the software, not the vendors or the redistributors. (This is why the license focuses on the redistributors -- the mechanisms of the license limit their rights in order to protect others' rights.)
The first sentence of the GNU manifesto says this, and a few sections later in the document elaborate on the point:
Note, in particular, footnote [1] which explains that its OK for distributors to ask for payment, but that it's never OK for users to have to ask for permission to use the software, and the section "Why I Must Write GNU".
Since then, software service monopolies became common, and all of the most end-user-hostile systems on earth rely heavily on the GNU system. At this point, we're paying for permission to use those services with our money, our data, our democracy, etc.
I certainly cannot give you permission to use any of the GPLed services that I have used, or that I've been paid to extend. Therefore, I say the free software movement has lost its way.
I see your point and I agree. It's just that when you say "GPLv3 says that you can only use the software if it's either a cloud service, hypothetical open firmware devices" that's a stretch and not really true. AIUI vendors can pre-install GPLv3 software as long as they let you actually then replace the software (i.e. no DRM or locked bootloader). The firmware can still be non-GPL and non-replaceable. You just can't use GPLv3 code in the non-replaceable bootloader or firmwares.
AFAIK you can use GPLv3 for non-replaceable stuff. The thing is only to allow the users to replace it IIF it's phisically possible to do so. If you make a device that boots from a ROM it's not a problem. If you sign your updates and keep your public key on a ROM and there is no way to boot anything else… there's a problem.
> From the end user's perspective, GPLv3 says that you can only use the software if it's either a cloud service, on hypothetical open firmware devices, or if you install it yourself.
The anti-tivo clause bans things like Apple pre-installing GPLv3 software on macs, but allows them to let you use exactly the same software as long as they do not give users access to the binary. AGPLv3 blocks both use cases, GPLv2 blocks neither.
On the spectrum of "things that take away user freedom", withholding the source code is bad. Withholding the source code, the binaries and physical access to the computer is obviously much worse! This latter business model is heavily subsidized by GPLv3.
