Yeah, I think it would be far more likely that they would offer publishers a slightly reduced fee. "Instead of charging you 30%, we'll charge 25% if you make it work on Linux".

And for the ones who have families, moving the family is the wife's job ... and she can move or quit ;)

Thanks, I think that was the first "real" laptop we had in the house - before that it was a "luggable" ;). I'll have to ask my dad if he remembers the model number.

That laptop looks really familiar, but I can't quite place it. You mind sharing the model?

The ACP has collected funds and did not connect a single customer.

"Sure". If you replace a previous program called the "Emergency Broadband Program" and define all the connections of that program as not being "new connections". Then when you're done with that also play statistical jujitsu to "correct" for all the connections that should be expected over the time period. After that you can totally say that you connected nobody with a straight face. </sarcasm>

The soundtrack for the old LucasArts game Outlaws was _amazing_ ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... ). I was so impressed by the way that they did that as a mixed mode CD that I filed it away as a "cool trick" that I remember to this day.

You may remember that they do retire longterm kernels earlier than they would like to due to limited resources.

These days they actually transfer things over to a different team run by the Civil Infrastructure Program and they supply back-ported fixes for the "Super" LTS kernels. So, sure K-H only has so much support for LTS (and he would like to support them longer) - but there's also SLTS kernels if you want something to last for 10 years.

You are mistaken, there used to be consequences for price gouging and they have learned those consequent no longer exist. They are going to intentionally run as efficiently as possible and jack up prices whenever the system (intentionally) breaks down.

Normally if you do this the code for the config package is in a shared repository, just like how people share their Ansible scripts in an organization. Debian config packages (high level of dpkg-divert) don't need the file installed from the other package in order to divert them, so there is no increase in dependency complexity. (You can install a config package that diverts the ssh config file even if ssh is not installed, when ssh gets installed later its config file will be automatically diverted.)

The only place I have found it to make a difference between DEB and RPM is that RPM does not support "diverting" files. This is really important in some contexts, since it allows a new package in the system to replace the config files of another package without breaking that package. For example, let's say you are operating a controlled environment where you want specific SSH settings for all your systems. You can install openssh-server and use Ansible to edit the config files on everything (blech), you can rebuild the openssh-server package to have your config file (which you will need to change every time the package gets updated), _or_ you can create your own package that adds a diversion for the ssh config file. With a diversion you don't have to muck around with the ssh package or maintain a bunch of Ansible crap for all of your systems. You also have the added benefit of being able to detect local changes to the config files with "debsums" (either if you have made edits or if you have allowed people sudo).

A very specific movie called Sneakers.

Did you read a different article?:

One open-source group, called NTPsec, whose current technical lead is Eric S. Raymond, cut out vast swaths of N.T.P.’s code, reasoning that fewer lines meant fewer vulnerabilities; ...

If my TV didn't make signing in/out of Netflix profiles a giant pain in the ass then I might have more faith in this. Effectively, we only ever use one profile on the TV _ever_ because of this.

Even then, hidden behind headings you must expand, are "legitimate interests" about advertising content, market research, and other things not necessary to serve the web page. To avoid these, you must find them and click on them. The "legitimate" excuse here appears to be that they are entitled to use any means possible to turn a buck. That's pretty dark morals, isn't it?

Not only do many of these websites make you click on the individual "types" of cookies to turn them off, they don't actually tell you that you're accepting/denying that item. Instead, they have one color to mean accept and another color to mean deny. Give them a few months and they'll make one of those colors green and the other blue, or one of them red and the other orange, or make red mean accept instead of deny.

Seems like the risk they're describing here would be that you steal the celeb's DNA from a dressing room, do your own DNA fingerprinting, and then print a bunch of DNA that matches the fingerprint. You can do all of that with currently available commercial equipment, you don't need anything that doesn't already exist.