I cannot see who made that comment. Pretty sure it is not the dev who is getting crucified. I am not sure it is even anybody that contributed to SerenityOS or Ladybird.
I certainly do not see anybody from the project endorsing that language.
I mean, I read the comment on Lemmy. Should I now go around saying not to use Lemmy and using that quote as evidence for why?
What are we reacting to here? The single comment from the actual dev saying that the project wanted to avoid politics? Or the actual hateful comment from some bystander?
Ladybird has split from SerenityOS and from that community. Hopefully the bystander has been left behind.
As for the actual project founder, if all he has ever said is that one statement, I am impressed with his level of restraint given how some have vilified him for it.
Constantly? Or once?
And was the “hateful shit” a single request to keep politics out of the project and stay technical?
And was the request to be more gender neutral granted?
I mean, I have not drilled into it. But I keep reading these complaints on Lemmy and the only link I have seen features a single response from him. It feels like a lot of manufactured controversy.
using the Linux / BSD situation as a benchmark ignores a lot of history. I would argue that the BSD lawsuit was the deciding factor.
the Linux project is not representative of a typical GPL code base. It rejected GPL3 and features a rather significant exception clause that deviates from GPL2.
Clang vs GCC is probably a better metric for the role of the license in viability and popularity. Or maybe Postgres vs MySQL.
Why has nothing GPL replaced Xorg or Mesa or now Wayland?
Why hasn’t the MIT or Apache license held Rust back from being so popular? Why would Ubuntu be moving away from GNU Coreutils (GPL) to uutils (MIT)? How did Pipewire (MiT) replace PulseAiudio (LGPL)? How did Docker or Kubernetes win (both Apache)? Actually, what non-Red Hat GPL software has dominated a category in the past 10 years?
If the GPL is the obvious reason for the popularity of Linux, why would RedoxOS choose MIT?
This is not an anti-GPL rant.
My point is that choosing the GPL (or not) does not correlate as obviously with project success as you make it sound. It is an opinion that would require a lot more evidence.
I won’t give you that. Ladybird is already quite a bit more capable than that. The JavaScript engine is not nearly fast enough but more and more real websites just work.
It is a debatable point which would be easier:
1 - get Ladybird to the point it is competitive
2 - establish a viable and popular alternative dev and governance infrastructure capable of stewarding and evolving Firefox
The fact that people want to try option one is far from crazy.
And a lot of other places
I am going back to /.
Not even a fork. New code.
People underestimate the issues that stale packages cause as well as the fragility that comes from the ways people introduce either newer packages or packages missing from the repos.
With Arch, everything is super up-to-date and you pretty much never install from outside the repos. It makes the system extremely robust and reliable (what I want from “stable”).
Finally pacman (and yay) are awesome and I trust them to do updates of thousands of packages at once. With Debian and Ubuntu, I lived in fear of those kind of updates uninstalling essential parts of my system. I had Fedora botch more than one upgrade release to release.
So, I also find Arch the most “stable” system I have used (though Chimera is looking awesome so far as well).
In the Linux world though, the word “stable” has come to mean “static” and unchanging as in RHEL and Debian. Arch is not “stable” by that definition.
I did have an issue with Arch in the past couple years. A kernel update cause the WiFi on one laptop to stop working on the latest kernel. I also have an LTS kernel install so rebooting into that brought me back up in a minute. When I checked a few days later, the problem had been fixed in the current kernel as well.
Most of it is historical momentum. Regardless of relative quality, far more people try Fedora and so far more people stick with it.
As for Tumbleweed specifically, many people do not like rolling distros. I do.
Recognition but not love. They will have no money.
Does Sea of Thieves work on Linux? I thought it had kernel anti-cheat.
It depends on how much time you have on your hands.
Oracle Linux is a Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone. Almost everything in an Oracle cert would apply to RHEL.
If that is useful knowledge for you, consider doing it. Then be sure to okay with RHEL to apply what you learned. Knowing RHEL is much more commercially useful than knowing Oracle Linux. RHEL is probably still the most important distro to be familiar with commercially. Oracle Linux, Rocky, Alma, and other are RHEL clones and many places use those.
If these skills are not useful for your job, or if you do not have the time to waste studying it, then do something more valuable.
The skills are useful. I will let others chime in with opinions on how valuable the certification itself is. Maybe not much.
Same boat. As a user, I greatly prefer everything to come from the repos. However, as a distributor, Flatpak makes so much more sense.
The only Flatpak I have installed is pgAdmin. I looked at the build on Flathub with the idea of porting the package myself but got scared off. It was a maze of Python dependencies running in Electron. That seems like exactly the kind of thing that may be better off in its own sandbox.
Let me try to clarify what you are saying.
You are saying that the AUR “has every FOSS and some proprietary software”. Yep. That is why I add an Arch Distrobox to every system regardless of the host distro.
But what do you mean by “except Manjaro”? Most Manjaro fans will say that Manjaro also supports the AUR. They are correct that you can certainly enable it and start installing packages from there.
I assume you are warning that, because Manjaro maintains its own base repos and has different package versions in it than Arch does, that Manjaro is incompatible with the AUR and that using the AUR with Manjaro will cause problems. If that is what you are saying, I agree with you.
Glad it is working well for you. What does that have to do with this post?
It just has to always be the first question in a big report or forum question. Have they verified their issue with the Flatpak version?
I prefer packages from the AUR myself but I do not expect the software authors to support me. Distros need to support their own packages but the AUR is not part of the Arch distro. Arch does not support the AUR. The only support I should expect would be from the package author (the AUR package) and they likely do not have the ability.
I think the right way to understand Flatpak is that it is essentially its own Linux distro without a kernel. You have to be running that version if you expect support. People think of Flatpak as a “sandbox” which it is. But it is also like running an app in a Docker container or Distrobox where you have to pick a distro to run in the container. With Flatpak, you are running on the “freedesktop” distro. It is not the same environment as the rest of your system (right down to the filesystem layout and C library).
Fedora for PPC
It is not difficult. Not everybody agrees that it a desirable thing to do.