read up on Secure Boot and consider turning it off if you can. makes life easier generally

Actually websites like Softonic would be neat for this kind of stuff.

Well some are not actually developers, they’re more like systems integrators who adapt a new component to a well established technology stack using the manufacturers documentation and files.

There’s also a legitimate security and safety argument to being allowed to have closed source. Haters will regurgitate what I was taught thirty years ago, that you can just diff the patch binaries, check the section that changed in a hex editor, cross that to resident memory and reverse engineer what’s going on from that point and bear in mind this was before ghidra, let alone ai, but that’s doing the jetpack backflip through the ring part of the meme as compared to the “look at source, walk across the mat, locate vulnerability, taa-daa” part.

The truth is that there is security in obscurity. If there weren’t we wouldn’t suddenly be seeing so many obscure vulnerabilities getting fixed due to ai scrutiny in the past few years.

Another reason a company might like mit is there isn’t any license wrangling work to do. Someone has to figure out what constraints in what jurisdictions the company’s product is under and what remediation is appropriate. Even if they don’t pay out a lawyer to figure all that out they had to have somebody do it and that costs money in the form of hours of compensated work.

A part no one likes to talk about is the fact that the mit license comes from mit, an institution with long running and deep ties to the intelligence apparatus of the United States and the mit license greasing the skids of adoption would make it a great way to increase uptake of compromised code. Which has never happened. Do not research this statement.

But yeah a lot of them are literally leaching off the commons. If a community doesn’t defend its well someone’s bound to come in and start charging for it.

Careful, you might anger the omarchy oligarchs

I don't see what rights were given up when protecting against tivoisation though? I don't think companies should have the right to exploit people's labor in the first place, especially if they lock-down whatever work they derive from it. I think Linux should be (A)GPLv3 and Linus is usually very wrong about many things.

But I see your point if you want to be explicit and careful about the future. But given the track record of GPL license improvements, I'm inclined to think that the "or later" suffix is actually a good move, particularly if your project has multiple contributors and you don't want to worry about asking permission later to relicense to whatever improved GPL may exist in the future.

Sounds like a shell script not a distro

Well, I admit I'm being a little facetious.

But that fact that "normie" users have zero tolerance for friction is a real problem. If you can't do anything that's not spoonfed to you, then you are prey for corporate abuse. The only people who really care about minimizing friction are the people trying to exploit "normies" for profit. Most open-source software is built to solve problems that are more important than "how can we exploit the general population a little more effectively?"

I don't think the solution here is for every single open-source project to devote a large percentage of their time and resources to eliminating friction. That would be a huge drain on teams that have more important things to do.

Rather, the solution is for users to be willing to spend a few seconds here and there to understand what they're doing and what their options are.

A user is not owed "ease of use" for every random thing on GitHub. It's appreciated, but unless something is given in return for the software, it's on the user to figure their shit out.

I'm not against helping users. If they're civil, they should be addressed. But anyone coming with anger and entitlement, like the original meme, should absolutely be shown the door.

At the end of the day, GitHub is a developer platform. And release distribution is a feature to make the developer experience better. Take it or leave it.

The main reason is that you don't know what rights you might be giving up in the future.

There was controversy when v3 was released that it closed the loop hole for companies to technically be in compliance of GPL but locked people out by using encryption keys. FOSS people, of course, said this was needed due to companies like TiVo at the time using hardware keys to prevent people from boot loading their own firmware when they were using Linux.

Torvalds supported the version but did not want to relicense Linux to force companies to stop the practice. And look were we are now: tivoisation is everywhere from Pixel to routers to tractors.

Your point that FSF is likely to make improvements of the license is valid, but you always want to make sure that you agree with the new license. They could, in future versions, say that by using the license, you transfer your rights to FSF.

Better to be explicit with the version you agree with and then relicense if needed.

Why? Genuinely interested.

What's wrong with using the "or newer" variants? I also license my stuff with copyleft licenses. I would assume that any newer variants of the GPL would be more protective over freedoms, rather than less, but maybe I haven't given this enough thought.

good of people to start discovering why GPL exists

less friction is better

I strongly but respectfully disagree.

Are you installing your secondary OS on the same drive or on a separate SSD?

Do terms like partition, file system and bootloader mean anything to you?

This isn't a discussion about "entitlement", but ease of use.

This makes sense, but am I allowed to ask "why do those corporations who will only use software until under mit license or BSD, not want to contribute back? Wouldn't that make them leeches?

yeah i mostly agree. it's not that much more work to make it available directly in the software store through flatpak. this thing of developers making their software and not even bothering to even build it on linux must end right now.

that said windows users will still get their .exe files from github. sorry, no better alternatives for them.

that's their self made problem. BSD could as well be on GPL if they're open sourcing it anyway.

if the standards are open, what is the problem with open sourcing code that implements that standard?

Yes, the filesystem is BTRFS set up with subvolumes that fit the way pacman installs packages well. If a package or a -Syu breaks something, you can simply roll back but not lose the files in your /home. In the default CachyOS config your /home also gets rolled back which caught me by surprise the first time and deleted half a day's worth of writing. So in the Limine boot menu you can select the snapshots that get made before and after each pacman command, boot into them and restore your system to that specific state but keeping your configs, documents and such. It's not a back-up or atomic filesystem, but it's definitely a way of making your OS reliable that also fits an Arch-based distro way more than the ostree concept I was working on.

Regarding the speed optimizations, the CachyOS kernel is fantastic, 1000Hz tickrate, custom scheduler and so on, it really is noticeably smoother and faster. Compiling everything in -v3, -v4 microarchitecture optimizations CAN be beneficial in some cases but mostly it caused the CachyOS team to fall deep into scope creep, they sometimes lag weeks behind in releasing updates for packages the core and extra repos already have so I decided to stick with the regular x86_64 only, just like stock Arch also does.

Cool project for the ui possibilities, but idk about my desktop being an effectively electron app

Cool! Hats off! 😊 I was running Arch for a few years before going to Artix to easily get rid of systemd - didn't have the enthusiasm to go through the hassle of replacing init and process manager... But!

I have been wondering what could be done to a clean Arch install other than installing exactly what I need and removing what I don't need. In that spirit, what are these "speed optimizations" that CachyOS bring to Pu239?

Also, what does

ostree got replaced by a perfect Limine-BTRFS-Snapper setup
mean? Is the OS filesystem BTRFS on Pu239?

I love the detail of python2 lmao.

Oh. my. god. That just triggered me and I'm a dev. WHY THE FUCK ARE RELEASES AT THE BOTTOM ON MOBILE??!

Like on the desktop it's right there in the right panel. Then I open the mobile interface for some APK and for the life of me I can't fucking find it. So I enable desktop mode and there it is. Jesus fucking Christ I hate it. It took me months to find it.

There is no reason to be aggressive, insulting and confrontational the way you are.

If you can’t make your point without resorting to personal attacks then consider not replying until you’re cooled off.

It’s pretty clear from what I said that I’m referring to the pc still running fine while multiple ssds have died.

From what I can tell the other components the op references are: the WiFi module. Unfortunately radio baseband chips were well into their implementation without any kind of heat mitigation era when this pc was manufactured. That’s another part that could likely benefit from sticking a heatsink on, lots of desktop motherboards and even some laptops have some kind of heatsink or pad coupling the radio to the chassis. Probably glue a nut to that too, straighten it right out. Radio is even more duty cycle dependent than ssds due to the nature of ip communication. It’s likely what drove thousands of devices to be designed without any way to deal with the heat from those little things. Why spend five times the cost of the chip sticking a sink on there when it’ll just automatically throttle down to protect itself was probably the engineering calculus.