I have literally never seen anyone who uses Arch make any claims whatsoever about the AUR being a safe or secure place to get packages. It's a standard disclaimer to install packages from there at your own risk. Which is fine: Arch is not at all designed to be newbie friendly to begin with, so having an extended package universe that is "install at your own risk" is fine: you should use Arch iff you're very well aware of the risks of something like the AUR.

That's a pretty bad case of BDS you seem to have there. You should see a doctor about that. You know you have a problem when you start every sentence with "But Biden..."

"The bribe has to be big enough, or you just have to stroke his ego properly.."

The bribe has to be big enough, AND you just have to stroke his ego properly.

Nothing provokes rage from Trump like saying anything negative about him.

Did they take into account that most countries drive on the right? If you're walking the perimeter of a room counterclockwise, it might be because you are staying on the right.

You said "Open Source development." Which in the grand scheme of things is pretty small.

I dont use GPL if I can avoid it, even if it means I have to pay. My software is all OSS as in OPEN for anyone to use, via BSD or MIT licenses, and none of it will ever be GPL or any of the derivatives that are designed to intentionally make software have 0 monetary value.

I dont prevent GPL software from using my code, but GPL prevents me from using theirs.

GPL isnt about freedom, its about ensuring no one can make money

I think the possible adverse impacts to society would not be outweighed by something that small.

Thats not actually the point of OSS. And RMS is not god and does not define it

The point of OSS is to not get fucked by the vendor. The point is not getting locked out of your shit because the vendor was taken over by some shitbag company like Broadcom and completely changes the rules and then holds your existing use of it hostage because they can. Or refuses to spend their time dealing with your scenario for your business. Or a thousand other reasons that have 0 to do with paying for it.

GPL nutjobs have this silly fantasy about never paying for it, but they have corrupted the actual meaning for that purpose, not what was intended.

The GPL virus has always been problematic for business, which is why the smart ones use MIT/Apache/BSD software in their products and why ACTUAL OPEN SOURCE advocates dont use GPL for their stuff, its more restrictive than pretty much any source license Ive ever seen.

Open source means the source is available for you to use under clear guidelines that apply to EVERYONE equally ... transfer of money for it has exactly dick to do with it.

GPL is just a fetish for those who refuse to understand how the real world works. Which is why no one can name a successful company that ONLY uses GPL software. Every one you want to name sells proprietary software to make money while piggy backing on GPL software. I challenge you to name one that doesnt.

Yes, Linus and Linux are successful ... but you notice they didn't follow that nutjob shit in GPL 3?

If you want Open, GPL ain't it, its restrictive as shit. Microsoft has licenses that arent nearly as restrictive... for a fee. Microsoft will hand you the windows source code - for a fee, under terms that meet the OSS definition but not in a way that let's you sell/steal/copy theft it.

GPL itself isnt evil, its goals are honorable. But 99.9999% of GPL nutjobs only like it cause they can use it without compensation. For them it has nothing to do with 'open' and everything to do with being cheap assholes who dont think people should be compensated for their work. They cant use it themselves, someone else has to make the binaries they goon over, or build system for them.

GPL is almost always used as a weapon.

FUCK YOU

Ehh, I liked Universe a lot, and I never could get into the main Stargate series.

Actually, *this* is capitalism. Deere tried to assert control over their machines in a way farmers didn't like. So somebody else is providing machines that don't include that control, and people who like that feature are buying his instead. Capitalism in its purest form.

How about the phone companies stop allowing spoofing of numbers you dont own as already required by law?

Its not even a little bit hard, the infrastructure is in place, SOME phone companies block from numbers not registered to the caller already, but plenty claim exceptions because it'll interrupt legit traffic ...

GOOD.

If you bring your own number and cant prove ownership, fuck off. In the US we already have databases for this that every phone company uses for call routing and number portability between carriers. We KNOW where its anchored, if you arent calling from there, you need to register additionally and this should NOT be done by easy to use APIs that spammed can exploit.

If you legit need to spoof a from number from a different carrier (plenty of legit reasons), it needs to be registered with a 1 month waiting period before allowed and $10/number fee paid before use, monthly.

Watch how quick that shit ends. Call centers can still use different inbound and outbound carriers - but they gotta wait a month and pay for it. That would utterly destroy almost every illegitimate spoof and do basically nothing against legit ones.

And no call center needs large swaths of numbers to fake, so cost us minimal.

Did...you just imply that Israel wants to conquer the Ukraine?

Wow. Just...wow.

And if he's trying to "pare" it, a small, sharp knife would probably work better.

I was just reading this comment on another social site:

"Any statement that starts with "No one would be stupid enough to..." is false."