You linked the right definition but you are wrong. MIT is a Free Software license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies – the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.
Musl is the real reason why one would choose Void over Alpine. Glibc allocator is faster and the glibc just has better software compatibility.
Spiral Linux is just a custom installer for normal Debian with some repos added for automatic snapshots. It’s not rolling release.
It’s Arch Linux done wrong. Arch tries to give you the latest software, Void intentionally does not.
That hybernation is really easy to setup. You just need a swap partition or logical volume. This one has not been mentioned yet.
There is a lot of browsers that can show HTML websites though, not just 2. There are even new ones made like https://chawan.net/.
Gammastep, which is an wlroots alternative to redshift, supports the sunset stuff. It lacks this nice gui though.
I’m not very educated on the Fair Source stuff but the idea is that you create source available software which will after some time become Open Source. So I guess their idea is that if you use AGPL, people cannot do that. AGPL means nobody else can make Fair Source software from your work. AGPL is a good license, it just does not work with their
[new software] -> [source available] -> [FOSS after a while] -> [new software made from the now FOSS software]
loop.
I was commenting about the way its written. I know burnout is real — even in FOSS we’ve had the xz backdoor basically caused by overworked maintainer. I was just expecting something less generic. The whole article could have been the first paragraph. The rest was just generic (maybe AI generated) slop without citations (There is your logic error I guess?). I would instead expect the article to refer to the study or refer to other articles or something.
That article reads like it was written by AI. Feels like a ChatGPT bullet list just with the emojis deleted. They also didn’t really say much specific about the FOSS dev burnout, just generic explanation about what burnout is. The article cites a study but then instead of talking about things from it, it just says generic slop about how a burned out FOSS dev could feel.
It does not. It pledges source-available software as a better alternative to FOSS. So it by definition is not about FOSS devs. (I’ve only read part of the article because I oppose the opinions they share, so maybe it talks about FOSS devs in the part I have not read.)
or distrobox with podman backend. Though tbf don’t run sketchy software even without sudo. Privilege escalation is pretty easy on most distros by default and even outside of that having your files deleted by ransomware sucks too.
lol i misread that
I have not tried GTK because I cannot fathom why would anyone use a UI toolkit written in C. But even language trash talk aside, it’s probably easier for a C++ project to use a C++ GUI library instead of a C one albeit with C++ bindings. Also I’ve read somewhere that it the C++ GTK bindings are kinda sucky.
These are just my assumptions, though. Someone who has tried both GTK and Qt might give a better answer.
no it’s for people with physical disabilities
I’ll add that it’s a multiple of parts (see this video), not just one factor that gives it away. But for me the most telling one is that the text looks like the author spent a lot of time thinking about what figures of speech to use but at the same time did not use capital letters. The prompt clearly included something like “don’t use capital letters to make it look more casual”. But the LLM forgot to make the semantics look casual.
It’s also possible they just write like a bot.
Unlikely but if it were true, it would not change a thing. For me it does not matter who wrote the slop. It’s crap writing regardless and I don’t want to see that on the internet.
Btw from the video we can see the “rule of 3 pattern” which was used in this post:
what’s your absolute, non-negotiable, ‘i will personally visit the datacenter if this fails’ self-hosted application
Also I think the greeting “alright folks, let’s get real” is a gipitism.
what’s your absolute, non-negotiable, ‘i will personally visit the datacenter if this fails’ self-hosted application
Here you missed that this sentence makes no sense in a selfhosted context. What datacenter??? I honestly don’t know how can anyone doubt the elelemcy here.
It would not make sense. For me these posts are a waste of time. The community should be started by someone who actually enjoys the discussions, not by an outside “hater”.
You can just wrap the software in a binary and interact with the binary and you will likely elude the GPL terms. This is kinda grey area but it would be hard to win against it in court. (I am not a lawyer)
I mean that broadly because nobody will make proprietary Coreutils or sudo as someone already pointed out.
None. The closest you can get is the AGPLv3.
If you go further, it will no longer be open source. This is the case for the Server Side Public License (SSPL) for example. It requires the entire system configuration to be released under the same license*. This sounds “open source friendly” but it’s actually just a proprietary license because it’s not realistically possible to legally comply with it. You cannot run standard hardware without proprietary firmware, which means you cannot run SSPLed software on it legally.
*This only applies if you host the software as a service but the result is the same. It basically violates the freedom to use the work for any purpose.
The uutils author knows this. His motivation was performance. It’s easier to write fast code in Rust for him.
You are mashing two things into one.
uutils don’t have any rights to tell Canonical if and when can the software be incorporated into Ubuntu.