They even literally have a section of the article that says they “see Fair Software as an alternative model to the free and open source software model”, and they think it’s superior because the “developers can profit”.

Newsflash: the developers usually see fractions of those cents while most of the money goes to the management and shareholders of the company that employs them. Hmm, doesn’t seem fair to me.

Also, developers can and do profit from FOSS in many ways, but the most popular models are with commercial support, SaaS offerings, and additional functionality (like providing a web interface, clustering manager or other external piece of the puzzle to solve the problem at scale in enterprise).

Like you said so succinctly: propaganda website to make rug pullers like Elastic and Hashicorp look better.

deleted by creator

Accurate, but not bad, yes. It turns out standardized base systems and ABIs are important to an ecosystem.

Linux tried the disorganized free-for-all for two decades, and what we got was fragmented “Ubuntu admins”, “debian admins”, “redhat admins”, “suse admins”, and a whole shitload of duplicated effort in the packaging ecosystem, only for half the packages out there to be locked to Ubuntu or RHEL. So the corporate interests, and a fair number of the community efforts, centralized their problems and solutions into a small standardized suite in Mesa+Wayland+systemd+Pipewire+flatpak, etc

The result is a ton more interoperability, a truly open ecosystem where switching your distro doesn’t mean hiring different people and using different software, and a lot more stability and maturity.

And hey, if a user or distro wants to do their own thing, they can make and own their niche, same as before. Nothing lost.

It’s been kind of wild to watch over the past 15 years or so, makes me very hopeful for the next 15.

No no you don’t understand. The evil corporate overlords abused their power to force a choice on a developer, even though that choice was objectively the right choice and the developer was throwing a tantrum.

This is truly awful. We must not let evil corporations, no matter their credentials, expertise, and decades of beneficial partnership with open source, tell immature and short sighted developers how to develop.

Quad9

I use FreshRSS. Can’t say I love the interface, but with the open and standardized API, there are dozens of beautiful front ends to choose on any device.

For real? Damn it that’s going to be painful.

Never ask a man his pay, a woman her weight, or a data horder the contents of their stash.

Jk. Mostly.

I have a similar-ish set up to @Davel23 , I have a couple of cool use cases.

• I seed the last 5 arch and opensuse (a few different flavors) ISOs at all times

• I run an ArchiveBot for archive.org

• I scan nontrivial mail (the paper kind) and store it in docspell for later OCR searches, tax purposes etc.

• I help keep Sci-Hub healthy

• I host several services for de-googling, including Nextcloud, Blocky, Immich, and Searxng

• I run Navidrome, that has mostly (and hopefully will soon completely) replace Spotify for my family.

• I run Plex (hoping to move to Jellyfin sometime, but there’s inertial resistance to that) that has completely replaced Disney streaming, Netflix streaming, etc for me and my extended family.

• I host backups for my family and close friends with an S3 and WebDAV backup target

I run 4x14TB, 2x8TB, 2x4TB, all from serverpartsdeals, in a ZFS RAID10 with two 1TB cache dives, so half of the spinning rust usable at ~35TB, and right now I’m at 62% utilization. I usually expand at about 85%

No, I’m not conflating “a” with “b”. I’m using stability exactly as it’s used in physics.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/09%3A_Statics_and_Torque/9.03%3A_Stability

My point is, it’s a completely valid use of the word. And yes, so is reliable, though I think “reliable” fails to capture the essence of the system changing but maintaining it’s state, hence why we don’t study “reliable systems” in physics.

I recommend picking something else to be pedantic about.

Amazingly, for someone so eager to give a lesson in linguistics, you managed to ignore literal definitions of the words in question and entirely skip relevant information in my (quite short) reply.

Both are widely used in that context. Language is like that.

Further, the textbook definition of Stability-

the quality, state, or degree of being stable: such as

a: the strength to stand or endure : firmness

b: the property of a body that causes it when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion to develop forces or moments that restore the original condition

c: resistance to chemical change or to physical disintegration

Pay particular attention to “b”.

The state of my system is “running”. Something changes. If the system doesn’t continue to be state “running”, the system is unstable BY TEXTBOOK DEFINITION.

Both are widely used in that context. Language is like that.

I think the confusion comes from the meaning of stable. In software there are two relevant meanings:

1. Unchanging, or changing the least possible amount.

2. Not crashing / requiring intervention to keep running.

Debian, for example, focuses on #1, with the assumption that #2 will follow. And it generally does, until you have to update and the changes are truly massive and the upgrade is brittle, or you have to run software with newer requirements and your hacks to get it working are brittle.

Arch, for example, instead focuses on the second definition, by attempting to ensure that every change, while frequent, is small, with a handful of notable exceptions.

Honestly, both strategies work well. I’ve had debian systems running for 15 years and Arch systems running for 12+ years (and that limitation is really only due to the system I run Arch on, rather than their update strategy.

It really depends on the user’s needs and maintenance frequency.

these toy OSs don’t solve day to day problems the way that Windows, Mac, and Linux did when they first came to market.

Yes, this is the exact point I made in my first post. And in depth in my response.

Disingenuous how? You don’t think Linux solved a real day to day need of it’s first users?

Sure, from Torvald’s perspective, it was a project specifically to solve a small problem he had. He wanted to develop for a nix platform, but Minix wouldn’t work on his hardware, and the other *Nixs were out of reach.

And this was generally true in the market as well. Linux arrived just in time and was “good enough” to address a real gap, where Minix was limited in scope to basically just education, Hurd was in political development hell, and the other Nixs were targeted at massive servers and mainframes. Linux filled the “*Nix for the rest of us, inexpensively” niche, eventually growing in scope to displace its predecessors, despite their decades of additional professionalism and maturity.

That niche is now filled, the gap no longer exists. A “New Linux” wouldn’t displace Linux, because the original already suits the needs we have well enough. This is precisely why the BSDs and Solaris were “too little, too late”. They were in many ways better than Linux, but the problems they solve compared to Linux are tiny and highly debatable. Linux addressed a huge, day to day need of people who were motivated to help.

Yeah exactly. Toy OSs have only increased in scope, scale, and number. And the public is still completely unaware, because these toy OSs don’t solve day to day problems the way that Windows, Mac, and Linux did when they first came to market.

Newegg came under new management years ago and has gone into the “drop-shipping for random shady merchants” business.

Do not use modern Newegg.

Quora is a lawless and godless place.

Quora is trash, but this thread has a breakdown of many of Lucas’ “inspirations”, which show he was always happy to directly copy other’s art. Most of it is hilariously blatant.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Star-Wars-copied-an-old-French-comic

https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy

My favorite city builder in decades. A few notes.

Pros:

• Easy mode is relaxing and quite easy.
• Medium mode is a fun challenge at first, eventually becoming fairly chill as you advance in skill and confidence.
• Hard mode is always fairly hard, especially on harder maps.
• There are many resources to manage, but none that feel burdensome.
• The game is extremely thematic, it feels alive with charm.
• Graphics are excellent, though sometimes graphical glitches can still be encountered.
• The water. It’s so hard to explain to someone who hasn’t encountered this system before, but water is life in this game, and it’s both beautiful graphically, and extremely well simulated by physics. Learning to control the water, and see the shortest paths to end water scarcity with beaver engineering is an amazingly fun and unique aspect of the game.
• Mods are well supported and the community is vibrant.

Cons:

• Not a ton of content. They’ve been very good about adding new mechanics (badwater, extract, etc) but there’s still just 2 races of beaver and a dozen or so maps.
• No directed experience. In similar games I’ve enjoyed a campaign, challenge maps/scenarios, weekly challenges, a deeper progression system, just… Something to optionally set your goals. There’s nothing of the sort in the vanilla game. It’s fully open ended and there’s only one unlock outside of your progress though the resource tree in a map.

All in all, I highly recommend it, especially at the modest asking price. If you love city builders, charming and beautiful art, thematic settings, dynamic challenge, and solution engineering, this is a fantastic game for you.

Other games I’ve enjoyed that scratch similar itches:

• KSP
• Cities: Skylines (but Timberborn has been far more compelling)
• Factorio
• Mindustry
• Planet Zoo (Timberborn has less of a directed experience, but is otherwise completely superior)
• Gnomoria
• Banished
• Tropico series (though I view this as more casual)

Get it and have fun is my recommendation.