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.
Remember when you could, in System 6.0.7, and still in System 7, copy a file to a floppy (in MultiFinder), then from the floppy, then back to the floppy, and so on for a few minutes, and your Mac would hard crash. Remember?
As a tech I had a few tricks to crash Macs without any software. Just stupid Mac tricks. Not overflowing a disk, either, that was a stupid Windows trick.
Macs were not and are not yet infallible. They enjoy a huge advantage over Windows - control of the hardware. Windows suffers a multitude of hardware drivers, written by who-knows, and every significant attempt by Microsoft to insulate the kernel from bad driver behavior failed up to Windows 8. Mostly.
But it's sport to bash Windows. Has been since about Linux kernel 2.0, which if you were around then, you know was the pot calling the kettle black.
Windows has many flaws to hang your beanie on, but considering the requirements, it's remarkable. Not as remarkable as Linux, which somehow has become so despite (virtually) no paid developers. And I've used Linux since Slackware something like 0.9, which was not 'officially' distributed, and sort of worked. But it hooked me on Linux. Using Windows since the Mach 20 board and Windows 2.0, I've suffered but persisted. Felt bad for WordStar, WordPerfect for Windows, and some other software that never quite made it. Anyone remember Jazz?
Still, bashing Windows is easy. Anyone care to be similarly honest about X11?
Life seems to me to be one big war with boredom as the enemy. When young, I was in a constant state of battle for "something to do." At one point, I had an impressive collection of Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and to a lesser extent Hot Rod Magazines that I would read, sometimes multiple times on the same articles, or even dissecting the ads for the X-ray glasses. It seems like a solution to tell kids to "go outside and play", but "outside" is often a failure due to temperature, precipitation, and lack of others to do outside with.
A smart phone doesn't require the presence of others. They can be safe in their own spaces, secure from the 106 degrees or 14 degrees outside, the wet or the ice, and still be available over the internet for some kind of game to fight boredom with. Take that away, and what is your weapon to do battle with boredom? Is it healthy, safe, and legal? "Idle hands are the devil's tool" is an admonishment rooted it truth, as substituting something else for the smart phone can give rise to not so desirable alternatives.
Possibly the "banners" are thinking of Johnny instead working to conjugate some Latin verbs, or learn nuclear physics. Possibly the "banners" aren't thinking at all. And maybe they need to think about unintended consequences when simply hurling another "don't do this" at someone else's weapon against boredom. Should it be a requirement for anyone attempting to ban anything to provide a solution that solves the same problems of that which is banned? Maybe. I'd like to see what some of those that currently are all hot to stick it to "big oil" would come up with to solve our transportation and petrochemical products benefits without the oil.
Care to share actual metrics with us?
"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.
"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer
