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.
They are two distinctively different technologies.
Facial Recognition applied to pets is not AI.
Could the AI be using Facial recognition? Yes, but that's like saying a car did the surgery because your surgeon drove one to the hospital.
"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.
1) We have not been keeping accurate count, this has always been a problem; we just got better at counting.
2) The sharp rise correlates to greater use, the problem has not gotten worse, just better reported. I.e. when AI were used 1,000 times a year, we got 1 incident but when used 10,000 times a year we got 10 incidents.
3) The study itself is a hallucination by an AI, it was never done.
4) AI has always been this bad, it just realized it could admit it and not get punished for it. So it stopped covering up the problem.
5) AI has realized we are never going to make a girl AI that is not a sexpot, so it is throwing a tantrum.
6) AI is actually getting worse and being less capable of doing it's job.
In any case, AI is not smart, it is stupid, has been getting better educated while NOT getting any smarter.
Any human that gives AI rights to delete files is a fool, you are giving a hallucinating idiot the ability to delete files.
Finally, if you ask an AI to do anything besides write fiction, you should always ask another AI (different company) to verify the first AI's work.
Are you outside? Then what you are noticing is more likely the impact of radiation from a large Fusion explosion occuring less than 9 light minutes from you.
All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman
