it is LGPL2 or later. So LGPL3 applies. So the anti tivoization clause applies.
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.
Sure. But it won't be your usual Linux distro.
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.
The most fortunate part of Bell Labs' situation, however, was that in being attached to a monopoly it could partake in long-term thinking... Without competition nipping at its heels, Bell Labs engineers had the luxury of working out difficult ideas over decades.
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.
Installer level disabling of the installation of systemd, please.
If you're a Debian derivative user, it's called Devuan.
* 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.
systemd is an integral part of many Linux systems. Adding the birth-date to it is the issue here. It's not the right place.
Yes, that is literally the entire ethos behind systemd.
It's crazy to expect a distro maintainer in a sane country to need to yank it out of there manually
Yes, that is literally the entire situation with systemd.
This change literally could not be more on brand for systemd.
What were you thinking making changes like that without firstly checking with the entire community?
That's systemd in a nutshell. Only people like that would willingly work on a project like that.
A Linux distro (even preinstalled) cannot be closed source and/or unmodifiable by the end user, the GPL3 made sure of 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.
Slavery and many other such things were once legal.
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.
The hate really should be directed at the politicians who pushed for these age gate laws
Collaborators can get it.
For the true paranoid, if you need to sandbox, you're doing it wrong.
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.
The laws in several countries are going to require it. My preferred way is for the OS to offer a flag of "This user is of legal age in this region based on information provided to the administrator of this computer." I'll leave it up to the people with compilers to comply or not with their local laws.
My proposal is stuff the flags in a sysctl user.$UID.age var. and then let the browser send info off to other sites just like it does with language selection. That way a pam module (or systemd) can set an over/under age of majority for the region and then let the browser send a "yes/no" flag. The pam module or sysd can calulate that based on a birthday or a +18 flag so you may have to log in to reset it but the birthdate is never sent to the browser let alone to the end web sites.
This gives schools a way to control content. It allows parents to control content. It allows home router vendors to claim to control content. It allows web sites to stop annoying users about being above 16,18 or 21 depending on what they are pushing. The politicians will look at it and say the industry is working with them while patting themselves on the back.
The other solution is let the politician's owners come up with a solution and that will be an expensive id solution that tracks everyone through the web with no way to opt out.
"Apple has never offered a product that justified a large chassis. It used to be lots of slots, hard drives and other storage that justified it. Macs have never been about that"
I see you don't remember the 68k Macs OR the PPC Macs. Apple offered machines with lots of slots ever since the Macintosh II line. HTH.
Too much latency for RAM.
You mean running them on an external GPU? That doesn't take much bandwidth unless you're constantly loading new models.
They gave the Chinese government access to Chinese user's data years ago. They don't seem to have an issue with governments gaining warrantless access to their systems.
Chinese law doesn't require a warrant for such access and it may be done in secrecy (i.e. without informing the user) if necessary to perform duties. The problem with Apple in China isn't that they aren't following the law, it's that they are and the law is openly fascist.
Check his posting history and it's very clear that he is not.
If he is not a trollbot, he is so frothy as to be indistinguishable from one. Every comment is the same.
Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
