what addition warnings were issued in tor browser?

to be fair, I understand the frustration and i myself hate linux sometimes too. i just wish they’d communicate they’re asking for help

glad to help

main ssd with debian stable: a single partition for the system + swap

secondary harddrive: an opensuse, a debian testing, and a freebsd partition + shared data partition

no

debian bc i want a rock solid system that i don’t have to worry about maintaining and i don’t give a fuck about the most recent versions of stuff

to the unavoidable “it’s been 15 years” comments: 15-year-old x11 was a piece of shit. the difference is that we had no alternative so we had to put up with it

update: it seems someone is mad at matrix’s ceo for some reason and wants him to step down. this is the username of the last throwaway account that did this on matrix:

on matrix, they @ everyone in the room so as much people as possible see the content. it happened on some foss-related rooms i’m in (like emacs, debian, and kde). over here, i saw it appearing in a kde community

i’d usually agree, but in this case, it feels like a cost-cutting measure. webdevs are cheaper and more available, so it’s cheaper for them to just rewrite the installer in electron than pay more expensive desktop developers to maintain their existing installer

seems like yet another electron app that only runs locally. i’m guessing that hiring traditional desktop ui developers is getting harder and more expensive over time, so they don’t bother anymore and just hire webdevs instead

in today’s round of “lib or anarkiddie”…

(anyway, not sure what the comic has to do with the meme unless you think it’s criticizing marxism)

thanks for the tip about src/* skipping hidden files. i fixed that, excluded unnecessary massive files i found through baobab and copied the remaning files. everything worked and i’m now runnning debian testing

rsync has a ton of options. any specific setup you’d recommend me?

EDIT: seems like rsync -av src/* dst is working for me

you (and everyone else who thinks the gpl is just about contributing back) are missing the point. the main goal of the gpl licenses (including the lgpl) is user freedom. they ensure that you can modify any piece of gpl software anywhere it’s used. if you use a propietary system that includes gpl/lgpl software, you should be able to modify the gpl parts to do whatever you want. say for some reason you’re using a system that includes ai slop in its shell, but the shell is a gpl application. you could just grab a fork of the shell stripped of ai functionality and replace the system’s shell with it

that’s impossible with permissive licenses. with permissive licenses, you could be using a system with 80% open source software and be completely unaware of it, unable to change it as you see fit. from the pov of the user, “permissive” licenses are restrictive; copyleft licenses are freer bc its restrictions are there to forbid the developer from locking down free software for the users

of course companies are going to prefer permissive licenses. they want to take advantage of using free labor enable by open source while keeping the freedom to lock down said open source software in their systems. so, when given the option, they will always prefer to contribute back to software with permissive licenses

and that’s the whole problem here: you giving them the option by creating a copyfree alternative to an important piece of copyleft software. do you think companies would ever comtribute to linux if any bsd was a viable alternative to linux? but the kernel community at large decided to stick to the gpl, so the companies have no choice

it’s true that copyfree software isn’t any less free than copyleft software, and i’m not even completely against using permissive licenses. my issue is creating an mit alternative to gpl software

yeah, unfortunately most people in the foss community are the apolitical/free thinker types who hate the fsf bc it is “too political/evangelist” and don’t want to understand how user freedom is affected by permissive licenses

they have a different view on what freedom means

chill, man. i’ve never said this is consciously (or at all) his reasoning for not choosing the gpl. what i mean is that, collectively, this is what’s pushing the development, sponsoring, and adoption of more and more tooling with permissive licenses

sure, but it didn’t get much attention until gcc switched to gpl v3 from gpl v2 and apple decided to jump ship to it

my point is that competitors to gpl software are always advertised through their technical merits (valid or not), but the point behind their development is getting rid of gpl-licensed software

not sure how it would be more difficult to make money using gpl tools