At least for the German one, it’s essentially a rebranding of existing open source products packaged/adapted to work as a suite.
For example, for editing documents they are using Collabora online (Libreoffice-based), for chat it’s Matrix, for storage Nextcloud, email & calendar from Ox Cloud, etc.
This just applies to the French government, unless you land a public job it’s likely you’d still have to deal with that shit.
Still, it’s good news and lets hope it sets a trend.
Yes, but that’s the point. Why focus on something that does not make them criminals when there are other things that might?
Isn’t CachyOS more of a general purpose distro anyway?
I expected the OGC was mainly targeted to gaming-first distros, which in my mind are meant for an entirely different kind of devices with different interests and goals. I don’t think there should be much value in CachyOS joining it, regardless.
And specially for Microsoft, they would be shooting their own foot if they were to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the development community over the legality of the use of AI tools like Copilot, which they themselves promote and sell.
SIM card is absolutely required even for emergency services
For anyone wondering: while technically the cell towers might be able to accept emergency calls even without network authentication (which is what’s the SIM is for), there are countries/places that will still require an active SIM with the excuse of wanting to prevent hoax calls.
My understanding is that since WSL version 2 (publicly launched a few years ago I think) it comes with a wayland implementation built-in, and it uses xwayland to run X11 compatible apps. At least if you are using a compatible image.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/tutorials/gui-apps
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/wslg-architecture/
They don’t say what tech it’s behind it but according to the article, it would be decentralized.
Personally I don’t mind if it’s not federated with the fediverse, but imho, at the very least the protocol / basis should be FOSS.
The only reason for CSD is touch interfaces on small screens.
Even in this case I’d argue that on small screens most apps simply have no real decorations (not even client-side)… there’s typically not even a close button. Hamburger buttons are menus, which isn’t what’s typically considered “decoration”. One could argue that the bar at the bottom in Android with home/back/etc controls is effectively a form of SSD. Android offers system UI or gestures to send the app to the background (ie. minimize) or closing it, it does not require Apps to render their own, which is effectively what Gnome is asking with CSD.
They justify the rejection of SSD because it isn’t part of the core Wayland protocol and at the same time push client apps for the “minimize” and “maximize” buttons (along with respecting some settings) despite it also not being part of the core protocol and it being only possible through extensions. There’s a ton of tiling compositors that don’t even have any concept of minimize/maximize, so why should this be required of every client app?
It feels backwards to ask the app developers to be the ones adding the UI for whatever features the window compositor might decide to have. They might as well be asking all app developers to add a “fullscreen” button to the decoration, or a “sticky” button, or a “roll up”/“shade” button like many old school X11 WM used to have. This would lead to apps lagging behind in terms of what they have implemented support for and resulting in inconsistent UX, and at the same time limiting the flexibility and user customization of the decorations, not just in terms of visuals but also function and behavior.
What about quantum computing being able to break traditional encryption? has that been solved yet?
LLMs abstract information collected from the content through an algorithm (what they store is the result of a series of tests/analysis, not the content itself, but a set of characteristics/ideas). If that makes it derivative, then all abstractions are derivative. It’s not possible to make abstractions without collecting data derived from a source you are observing.
If derivative abstractions were already something that copyright can protect then litigants wouldn’t resort to patents, etc.
You are not gonna protect abstract ideas using copyright. Essentially, what he’s proposing implies turning this “TGPL” in some sort of viral NDA, which is a different category of contract.
It’s harder to convince someone that a content-focused license like the GPLv3 protects also abstract ideas, than creating a new form of contract/license that is designed specifically to protect abstract ideas (not just the content itself) from being spread in ways you don’t want it to spread.
Yes, but they do it in order to fill up a hole in their lives, to have a “greater purpose”, give their lives meaning. Ultimately all we do is to satisfy our desires…and the push towards caring for kids is one of the biologically hardwired desires we evolved having, the reason we do it is not really a lack of ego. Having a family is something people want for themselves, for their own happiness.
I believe it’s literally impossible for a person to not be egoistic without going crazy and/or offing oneself. Even christians who preach about self sacrifice and generosity only do it pushed by the promise of a better afterlife and their own self-interest of wanting to avoid hell and/or being closer to their god.
I don’t think we would be throwing USB-C away completelly, because it even became mandated by law in EU with the goal of trying to slow down the rate at which people generate trash by getting new cables and power bricks for every new generation of connectors.
But I agree that at the very least there should be a clear labeling mandated by consumer protection laws as well… it’s a nightmare and a scenario that opens the door for a lot of scams… this is even made worse by the fact that nowadays you can even have malicious software running inside of the connector of a cable plugged into an extremely capable port without realizing it, messing up with your device even though the only thing you wanted was to charge it.
I have something like this myself, it’s useful for knowing the power delivery of the cable/port combination, but I’m not sure if that really helps when it comes to determining the speed of the data transmission that the cable/port is capable of, or other features like displayport support, or which version of USB4 it might be supporting (I believe they have the same power delivery, even though the transfer speed is double).
This one is p2p: https://github.com/schlagmichdoch/PairDrop (or just try it in https://pairdrop.net/ )
But that also means that you need to keep the page open while the other device downloads.
Another p2p alternative is using webtorrent: https://instant.io/
Ah, I see. Sorry, the text was too long and I’m not dutch so it was hard to spot that for me too.
But I interpret that part differently. I think them saying that there’s an ambiguous section about risks does not necessarily mean that the ambiguity is in the responsibility of those who choose to not implement the detection… it could be the opposite: risks related to the detection mechanism, when a service has chosen to add it.
I think we would need to actually see the text of the proposal to see where is that vague expression used that she’s referring to.
It seems the reason companies are currently allowed to do this in the EU is because there was in 2020 a temporary derogation from certain provisions of the e-Privacy Directive.
But it was temporary, so it will expire in April 2026. With this new law the intention is to make that “voluntary detection” a permanent thing they allow service providers to do, as a norm. The providers still have the choice to not do it, so I don’t think this affects services like signal, as far as I understand.
While it’s true that Debian installation used to make use of a TUI and it did not have a nice GUI “live-CD” installation image for a long time (I think until 2019), Debian installation process included a default DE for way longer than that (2000). And before they did, the installation offered a choice between different window managers (back in the days before well established DE suites were even a thing).
They don’t customize the DE much, but neither does Archlinux which is a very popular distro nowadays (and the installer on that one is arguably even less friendly than Debian used to be).
Personally, I feel it has more to do with how other distros (like Mint, Ubuntu, Knoppix, etc.) have built on the work of Debian to make their own variants that are essentially Debian + extra stuff, making them better recommendations for the average people (if one thinks of those as Debian variants then I wouldn’t say Debian is “left out”). And for the not-so-average people, rolling release style distros (or even things like Nix/Guix) might be more interesting to experiment in.