That's the opposite of how that works. It's LGPL 2 or later. That means you can follow the terms of redistribution from either license. Either. Or.

It will do the same jobs. Most of the software on which we depend predates the GPL3 and/or uses an even more permissive license without an anti-tivoization clause.

Was it the monopoly that made the difference? Or was it simply management smart enough to not only not kill the goose, but also to feed it? They had wins, they got more funding, they had more wins, repeat until they no longer got more funding and stopped getting wins. What's probably more important than why they succeeded is what happened at the end.

If you're a Debian derivative user, it's called Devuan.

Otherwise...*

* Note: Removing systemd from a systemd-based system is madness. There's a reason Devuan exists, and it is that simply changing the init system on Debian results in a lot of breakage, which best illustrates the biggest problem with systemd.

Yes, that is literally the entire ethos behind systemd.

Yes, that is literally the entire situation with systemd.

This change literally could not be more on brand for systemd.

That's systemd in a nutshell. Only people like that would willingly work on a project like that.

The Linux kernel is GPL2 and glibc is LGPL, and you can construct a complete userland without any GPL3 components. Also, you seem to be under some weird misapprehension that the federal government will follow the law, which it has never done across the board.

Amendment XIII
Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".
Section 2: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation".

Emphasis mine.

Collaborators can get it.

Everyone is doing it wrong, that's why we need to sandbox.

Even if you were perfect, you wouldn't have time to do everything yourself, so you would still want sandboxing to protect you from the efforts of others.

Mostly just in the bulk, low barriers to entry, and pervasiveness(like a lot of things social media). The case of actors actually goes back a long way; state laws regarding compensation of child actors were spurred by the case of one who was popular in the 1920s and litigated with his parents over where the money wasn't in 1939. That case doesn't provide for takedowns; but it's also the case that filmmakers are normally looking for children to play characters; rather than to do 'candid' intense documentaries of them at home; so the degree of public exposure of private life is presumably deemed to be less; with the main issue being children who were...definitely...getting a solid education while on stage finding that all the money was gone when it became their problem.

Child-blogging, by contrast, seems to reward verisimilitude (if not necessarily truth) and invasiveness, relatively pervasive in-home mining for 'content', so presumably seems better served by removal-focused options; though there has definitely been talk about covering the economic angle in line with child actors.

I don't even know what the deal is with child beauty pageants, or how something you'd assume is a salacious bit of slander about what pedophile cabals are totally doing, somewhere, is actually a thing a slice of parents are into, way, way, into. Apparently that's a third rail to someone, though, as the only jurisdiction I'm aware of with significant restrictions on them is France.

Unless quantum computing becomes cheap and comparatively widely available quite quickly after becoming viable passwords seem like they'll be a manageable problem. Nobody likes rotating them; but it's merely tedious to do and the passwords themselves are of zero interest unless they are still being accepted. If it does go from 'not possible' to 'so cheap we can just go through through in bulk' overnight that could ruin some people's days; but if there's any interval of 'nope, the fancy physics machine in the dilution refrigerator is currently booked by someone with a nation state intelligence budget' you can just rotate older credentials.

Now, if you were hoping that encryption was going to save any secrets that are interesting in and of themselves that got out in encrypted form; then you have a problem. Those can't be readily changed and will just be waiting.

I've started to see warnings in terminal when using keyed SSH, something along the lines of "vulnerable to store-now-decode-later attacks". I assume this is due to not using eliptic-curve codes in my PK generation?

The most recent crashes I've had were all due to external hardware. (usually a dock being unplugged) I haven't seen that recently though so maybe that was addressed.

I've also had issues in the past with not going to sleep / waking back up properly, but again haven't really seen that recently so maybe that too was addressed.

Pretty much 100% of my recent related issues have simply been "system's getting slow, and no my memory hasn't all leaked away, it just wants a restart", and so I DO restart it, and I get all my performance back. It's annoying, but not impactful. Not sure what's getting gummed up under the hood, I don't see anything getting logged or showing up in any monitoring tool.

I tend to push my machine pretty regularly though, and end up being coerced into rebooting about once a month.

I do a lot of photo manipulation, and I HAVE ran into a problem with Finder's QuickLook gradually getting slower after tens of thousands (yes really) of videos and images being quick-looked, but I can just kill the Finder's QuickLook process and it automatically bounces back fresh as a baby. So whatever "general slowness" issue I've been encountering after weeks of uptime could probably be fixed if I knew what needed to be bounced, but nothing is making itself obvious with high cpu time or memory use, so I just have to reboot to get it back.

A bit OT but I do find it a bit sad that windows has decided to do away with the traditional BSoD, not by making the OS more stable, but by hiding it when it happens. "Nothing to see here, everything's fine!" (NakedGun)

maybe not? Look at cache for example, there's L1, L2, and L3, each getting bigger and slower. Just because L2 is slower doesn't mean it doesn't get used.

Or look at some of the older storage techniques like hybrid drives. (such as 1tb of spinning platters, with 32gb of ssd)

Modern SSDs are even doing that. Watch the IO speed when you write a large file, see how it's fast to a point and then gets slow? that's a write buffer getting filled up.

Maybe the same technique could be used with ram, basically on the same lines as the VM files that unix systems (including Mac OS) use?

So there's plenty of precedent for adding higher latency storage, simply because the big increase in capacity is worth a little added latency. Carefully managing what you use it for greatly reduces the impact of the latency.

I suspect Windows supporters will claim Mac users are less intelligent, which would suggest they do MORE stupid things. And if stupid things correlate with crashes, Macs would crash more.

But they don't. So somebody is wrong about something, or there's more missing information.