• 0 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • This is a dramatically misinformed comment. You have clearly never used Distrobox.

    1. The first bullet is the worst. This is like saying that Flatpak will break your host. It will not break the host OS. Learn what a container is.

    2. It is not tools on top of tools. It is tools in a container that you can optionally create entries for in your app menu. Apps in the container execute directly on the host kernel in the container. If you are in a shell, you are either in the container or out and the full environment will reflect that.

    3. It is not for “new users”. That said it dramatically simplifies many intermediate ones and make some advanced things possible. Once again though, there are no “stacks on stacks”.

    4. The exact opposite. Containers do not change the host. If something goes wrong in the container, you can purge it completely without impacting the host.

    In fact, one of my core uses for Distrobox is to keep my host system clean. I use Distrobox to setup dev environments, to try out new software, to work around Distro constraints, and a host of other tasks. It is great.

    There seems to be quite a fundamental misunderstanding of what a container is. Everything runs directly on the host kernel. Apps outside the container run on the host OS and do not interact with the container. Apps in the container run in the environment inside the container. The only interaction apps in the container have with the host is the kernel, the filesystem, and via servers like Wayland, Pipewire, and XDG portals.

    The entire point of a container is to create an application environment that looks exactly like an application expects regardless of system it is running on. It is clean and consistent between deployment. This is the exact opposite of what the above comment implies.

    In practice, it “feels” like apps in Distrobox are running native on the host OS but in fact everything above the kernel is running inside the container and each container is distinct from the others.

    The “example” is totally wrong. GCC is either on the host or it is not (from the host). GCC is either in the container or it is not. They do not interfere with each other. They do not even share C libraries. However, the can see the same source files.

    Distrobox is absolutely nothing like Homebrew. Homebrew is a package manager. If you are using a package manager in Distrobox, it will be the one intended to work with whatever distro you are running in Distrobox. This is a fantastic illustration of the confusion of ideas at work here.

    If you have to compare Dostrobox to something, compare it to Flatpak.



  • In practice, Finland and Poland are the greatest protection against Russia as they are very much in the way and would trigger all of NATO.

    Many European counties have very credible defence industries. From what we have seen in Ukraine, NATO (even without the US) has both a technological and tactics advantage against Russia.

    We are also seeing that warfare has changed. He who makes the most drones and cruise missiles wins.

    And Europe could massively outspend Russia, again without help from the US.

    Germany has massively stepped up their military spending. If they had to, Norway to completely fund a NATO war against Russia on their own.

    The only thing the US really brings to NATO these days is their nuclear arsenal. But again, Russia has shown that their “superiority” in this area is useless in practice. It will not help them in a war with Europe.

    The only way that Europe loses against Russia is if the US teams up with them. This used to be an insanely unlikely outcome but….










  • The GNU projects that people actually use are primarily hosted, maintained, and developed by Red Hat (IBM). They are the primary code contributors. Not just GPL, GNU specifically.

    This is just a fact.

    https://sourceware.org/ (Previously known as sources.redhat.com)

    There is more permissively licensed code in most Linux distributions than there is GPL code. Not only is that permissive code not being “stolen” by “mega corps” but the majority of it is corporately funded.

    Again, just facts. All pretty easy to verify if facts matter at all to you.

    What part did not make sense? Just that the facts do not agree with your opinion?

    The comment I responded to was stating things that sounded like facts that are not at all supported by the evidence. And if I ask for some, I am pretty sure the cherry-picked examples will be mostly companies “stealing” projects that they wrote to begin with.

    The thesis that permissive licenses result in less Open Source code is wrong. In fact, they lead to greater corporate participation and employees write more code than unsponsored individuals. That is what the evidence shows.

    Use whatever licenses you want. Not wanting companies to use code you wrote is a totally valid choice. But you should not have to misrepresent reality to convince other people to do the same.