Permissive licensing can create what is effectively “software tivoization” (the restriction or dirty interpretation of distribution and modification rights of software by the inclusion of differently-licensed components).

The Bitwarden case is a good example of how much damage can be done to a brand with merely the perception of restrictive licensing. obviously, bitwarden has clarified the mess, but not before it was being called ‘proprietary’ by the whole oss community.

So I don’t think op is referring to direct corporate takeover, but damage caused by corporate abuse of a fork.

“Italian”?

I build software manually about twice a year, and I’ll be honest, I can’t really say I’ve had that experience in many years. Whether I’m using debuild to generate a deb package or a simple make/make install, the stdout feedback points exactly to the issue 99% of the time.

Sorry you had that happen, must be frustrating.

• Debian is a dependency hell, otherwise fine.

I agree on the older packages (I don’t need cutting edge), but what do mean about “dependency hell”?

Side note, I laughed a bit at this, I haven’t heard the term “dependency hell” since the old rpm Redhat days before yum.

I’m also on not-quite-supported hardware (surface pro 6) and I feel your pain. We have a special kernel for most of the functionality, but neither camera.

At this point, I’m grateful for a commodity x86_64 tablet with most everything else working perfectly, so it’s a small price.

Bet >90% of Americans don’t know this.

Considering that pcmr (PC Master Race) is now an acceptable term on reddit and now elsewhere, I’d say you were right.

Saving for later, pretty cool.

If you can get it working, pretty bad.

X11 tablet interfaces do exist, but they all use mouse emulation, which is a pretty poor experience.

I can speak to the xfce experience on a surface pro 6.

Glad I was able to help, because samba has a lot of knobs and switches.

When I was first learning samba in 2003, I got overwhelmed pretty fast until my colleague told me the best way to handle samba is to start with a working and simple global directive, then one simple share, and layer security on top of that.

You are being prompted because the nobody/nogroup user/group has no password, no shell, and no permissions.

That tutorial is wrong. Couple of problems immediately:

• “valid users” specifies “all the users in this group are allowed access”. It is incompatible with “force user/group” directive
• you should be using the “guest user=” directive, which sets the identity of any public access. Your permissions should match this user.
• nobody/nogroup are special user and group that (usually) have no access to any file. They exist for processes to run with minimal provileges, or for a fallback default if UID/gid map are invalid. Using this user/group combo for this samba share implies that you will either alter them so that they now DO have privileges to access files, or that you intend samba to never access any files. Create a guest user, set permissions and umask in the directory.

Thanks for the context. I did read the articles on this, but you’ve summed up the positives well.

Unfortunately, these articles also point out that putting uutils into the wild of 25.10 will doubtless reveal some hitherto unknown breakages and rough patches.

Which I agree with. No one is forcing anyone to use 25.10, but there is no better way to smoke test sw than pushing it to prod.

I’m a Debian user, so I have the luxury of waiting to see the outcome of these efforts for now.

Supposedly there are many not-very-well-tested changes in 25.10, be aware of that if you upgrade or try this out.

If you just want to do pedestrian activities like gaming and desktop stuff, you’re fine with the average nvidia driver install tutorial, and it’s pretty trivial.

If you want more niche or advanced features like HDR tuning in Wayland or using cuda applications, you may want to consider that amd drivers are actually open and allow you to get into those kinds of tunables.

That said, there are still features and performance kept away from the user with nvidia, despite their never-ending promises of making drivers open, and nvidia has been rewarded for being not open on Linux, which a lot of us don’t like. I personally am one of those and my stance with nvidia is partly one of principle.

The developer of bcachefs, Kent Overstreet, has repeatedly failed to abide by the expectations of kernel release schedules, particularly the rc (release candidate) stage, which is supposed to freeze new features until next release.

Kent has open-air arguments with Linus Torvalds about not being able to develop the way he wants to, Linus Torvalds does not like wasting time discussing it with Kent.

IMO, Kent created this situation himself. He’ll be happier developing outside upstream anyway.

It should be noted that while some folks have commented that bcachefs was not ready for upstream, several kernel devs have a lot of respect for the technical quality of Kent’s work, so I think the argument of whether bcachefs is good or not good is separate from Kent’s behaviour as a kernel contributor.

They don’t really compete on the same features, but I get what you mean.

Do bind mounts not allow you to manipulate the same data in one directory from multiple containers? That’s what I do, no fussing with hard links.

The Solaris version of vi, hardened against escape to shell and with no quality of life improvements. Builds character.

I also recommend giving up electricity and motor vehicles, real men calculate subnet masks by hand.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator