since I want to go from Linux Mint Debian Edition single boot, to LMDE + CachyOS/Fedora/endeavour. I'm doing this post to ask some questions:

Splitting a partition through GParted is relatively straightforward.

Boot into a GParted iSO with a thumb-drive, determine which partition you want to modify which is quite easy if you know the size of it, once you figured that out you should be able to shrink “Free” space to make room for your new partition which will house your new distro.

Debian is very resilient, I’ve swapped my SSD, GPU, Motherboard, CPU and RAM without having to reinstall the operating system, all it needed was to remove the old packages/drivers to then install the new packages/drivers.

Edit: I recommend all beginners to learn a tiny bit of BASH, whenever you distro hop like this BASH is what your “terminal” or “console” will typically use for shell commands, the main thing that differs between Arch, Fedora and Debian is package management (apt, yum, pacman, etc) and how software is installed.

If you need advice or suggestions feel free to shoot me a DM!

I laughed so much at this. Best thing I’ve seen all day.

Honestly, anyone distributing compiled code from GitHub should at a minimum set up a basic GitHub page with a link to it at the top of the readme... Probably wouldn't be very hard to set up a CI workflow to automatically update the page with the latest releases and a link to the relevant release page for details.

It doesn't explicitly, but because all subsequent forks and software that makes use of GPL licensed code must also adhere to the GPL license, the original developer more naturally becomes the sole maintainer unless you can build a community of like-minded developers. Free and open source software doesn't have much incentive for maintenance outside of those passionate about it.

With an MIT license, attribution is sufficient and a business that finds value in that code may repackage, redistribute or sell that code without making their whole product strictly open source. In this way, you end up with larger business investment in your works because there's an inherent value in keeping it maintained that has a direct return.

I find that the performance itself isn't drastic outside of code compilation and video editing, but the responsiveness and smoothness is incredible. To me the 1000Hz tickrate is the biggest improvement, feels like the first time you upgraded your old 60Hz monitor.

I'm surprised though, to find out it's only PR #1349. With the repository public for all these years, I expect more idiots than 1349. 😏

I used to select MIT primarily to keep my name associated with the code. The idea being if companies picked up my projects and used them in their products, it would be a good thing to have on my resume, and could land me a job.

I'm at a very difficult point in my career now, and the days of this xkcd are probably coming to an end. Nobody wants to use libraries anymore, they just vibe-code their own.

Now I'm reconsidering publishing my personal project source code at all, because I've rarely got contributions, and lets be real, a non-commercial license won't stop the code being stolen anyway.

I'm good at figuring things out. I don't know how to get code on GitHub even though I've lazily tried multiple times.

I get frustrated because I'm looking for something that I feel should be easily found (code on GitHub). Instead I'm given a puzzle I have to navigate through. I thought getting the code off GitHub was going to be the easiest part of my project. Nope.

Everyone wants your data so apps and websites are intentionally designed to keep people moving through them. I'm not saying that is what GitHub is doing here but it's the reason I have little curiosity to explore apps and websites anymore. It's flawed by design. Not because the opportunity to improve the end user experience hasn't occurred yet.

It was Ikey Doherty's of Solus and Intel Clear linux fame passion project; was, because he basically left yet another project behind. Now it's being carried over by solus contributors and other interested parties who are working on making it a stable base for power users and distribution makers to use of.

It's basically build atop of a declative Nix/Guix-like package manager if it was made for a more sensibly readable config language like kdl, essentially toml but good, and it only deals in packages, not configs, simplifying it a lot, thus, you can just use as if it was a normal imperative package manager (it isn't) and just:

sudo moss pkg add whatever

And it'll declaratively update the config file to add the package to it, which you can just copy to another machine to replicate the current system's state, all without having to edit a config file in a language that requires some knowledge In functional programming, nor a degree in compsci to create a package for the distro. "System model" they call it.

As far I know, solus is intending to eventually use it as base. They pretty notoriously banned AI to their distro codebase a while back, definitely not slop.

I forget how to find releases or download the code (instead of forking the project) just about every time I use github. He's got a point but god damn he also seems insufferable.

Ah, those python codes with requirements.txt containing libraries in versions that aren't available anymore, and the code won't run with the newer ones...

One more thing, and this could be a dealbreaker for some of you, the project is AI-assisted.

Maybe you should have gotten an AI to summarise the summary for you /s

Are people just not exploring websites anymore? Surely my household can't be the only one where if you don't know how to use a website or find something on it, we actively explore it. (Dodgy sites notwithstanding, I mean safe and legit sites). Am I strange that if I can't work out how to use something, I look for a manual. And barring that, I try different things, trouble shoot using logic, etc. to work it out for myself.... I'm not a programmer but I can't say as I had a great deal of difficulty working out how to use Github (as a consumer) for myself...

A user is not owed "ease of use"

I already covered this in the comment you just replied to.

At the end of the day, GitHub is a developer platform

This was also covered several comments up. If you don't have anything new to present, I'll bid you good day.

I think there is some pride and value in setting things up in a way that reduces friction.

I myself am of a similar opinion tho. Someone maintaining a thing as a hobby doesn't owe me shit. If it's too tedious to figure out, I'll move to another solution. It's really nice, when I get the option of a consumable bundle. But if they can't, don't like or simply don't care for ease of consumption — tough luck for me I guess.

tl;dr

Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth

Over on programming.dev, in this comment, you posted a chatbot's analysis of the flake. You then deleted it, perhaps after reading it and realizing that it was inane and uninsightful. At the same time, you're over here getting into a fight over the word "clanker", which you used to refer to the very same chatbots whose output you uncritically posted.

I understand that you have some inner turmoil, and that your behavior is merely an external facet of your emotional processing. However, I think that it's important to understand that the chatbot never has any ideas; indeed, it cannot ideate or cogitate. As such, your fencesitting is not gaining you any actual insights. To the current example, before you deleted the chatbot-output comments, I noted that the biggest and most insightful takeaway that the chatbot found was the ability to build a NixOS configuration locally, SSH to a remote host, copy the configuration to that host, and switch that host to the new configuration without rebooting; this is a standard part of NixOS which is in the man page, the official wiki, and the unofficial wiki. I get why you deleted the original comment, but I don't get why you posted it unless you genuinely believed that it was full of "hallucinate[d] useful ideas."

So do project that are under the GPL license force you to care how it’s used and force you to support them? This is a genuine question, not an argument, btw.

Copyleft only works because of copyright.

Does this use the same config performance settings able CachyOS? I don't use Cachy anymore but when I did, the minimal performance improvement didn't just come from using the kernel. There were configurations that also helped with this.

I never tried SELinux before and I don't know all that much about NixOS but apparently it has to do with how NixOS works under the hood which makes it hard and there's no incentive to actually struggle to implement support.

A big shame because SELinux model is something I would love to have on my system as I don't want everything to have access to everything by default.

I release code under MIT when I don't care how it's used. It's as simple as that. Especially for simple projects, projects I don't really want to support, and projects like libraries.

I build using GPL when I want community involvement.

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