Because writing in Rust prevent having any type of bugs, right? That's not the case, which is why Debian has so far, refused the proposal to replace core-utils who are a C wonder, and who have been so for over 4 decades.

Oh... How will Hubble do, since it runs a 486 DX 4 ? :)

That's what a Dell salesman told me when I complained that BIOS takes forever. But... as a sysadmin, part of my job is to setup servers. So I do waste a large amount of my time waiting for servers to boot up, even though later on they never do need to (re)boot. I wish coreboot gained adoption on the server space. But no, we keep getting stupid Dell and HPe slow boot. And don't even get me started on AMI BIOS: these are a no-go for us.

It's not. People contributing to distros do not do so as "a [...] reaction by those with the talent to create the alternatives they prefer". They do so for various reasons, but I'm guessing, the one you're saying is only for a very tiny minority. Mostly, people that contribute are already users of the distro, and just want to make it better. It's as simple as that.

Excuse-me ? The IPCC was formed in 1988, not in the 70s...

well, apt and apt-get are from the same source package, and even binary. The only thing that differs, is the command line interface and params input, but it's really one single software behind.

https://mobian.org/ phosh, kde-plasma...

Iceweasel was renamed back as Firefox about maybe 10 years ago? When Mozilla decided that finally, Debian was not infringing its trademark by shipping a patched version of Firefox, with patches not prepared by Mozilla.

Also, yes, Firefox in Debian is patched to use the "ca-certificates" package CA store. The funny bit is that this ca-certificate is built using the certificates from ... Firefox ! Though I have no idea if the ca-certificate package is affected by this CA expiration. Anyways, if this is the case, the ca-certificate (not Firefox) will be updated, I guess.

For Debian users for example, the CA store is *not* in the browser...

People saying what you wrote say it because they don't understand what IaaS is. I've been maintaining OpenStack since 2011 in Debian, and I'm telling you, it's not just "flowchart/diagramming symbol", it's a real thing that makes it possible to do stuff. What's truth, is that companies setup their own cloud, and move from one cloud (they rent) to another (they own). And that's why OpenStack is so relevant these days. And that's the nicety of it. So it's all but stupid ...

How about mandating only free software based cloud services, like those based on OpenStack? That way, no controvercy: the big 3 are out ... :)

You aren't getting the point of a connected drive. The point is that it is hosted in a data center, so you can actually share the data easily, over internet. Also, I believe they use OpenStack Swift as a backend (just like many others), so then your data are stored 3 times in a distributed system. That's a way safer than RAID-1 or ZFS. Sure, you may use Swift at home too. But would you run 3 servers ? The cost of electricity makes it then in the advantage of the cloud provider offer, than is having hundreds of servers shared between many customers.

FIY, at my $job, we are now standardizing on 16x 22TB HDD servers, and push 6 servers at a time on our clusters, because 6 availability zone, and 3 regions (2 data centers) to make it safer. That's very different approach from a small NAS...

Even with half the price, this is still more expensive than the offer from Infomaniak (if you calculate with a correct change rate). With the bonus than data will be hosted in Switzerland (far away from 3 letters agencies). Why is this "shadow drive" making the headline in Slashdot then ?

Please don't do like Devuan people do: do not pretend Devuan is a "fork". It's just one of the 140+ Debian derivative, not at all a fork...

Should we be happy that Systemd is 1.7 Million lines? Of course not. Its size is one of its design problem: it's too big, and doing too many things.