Idk. I think using ai to learn Linux as you switch to it is fair ground. In the end they’re free from Microsoft. It’s a win. Just make sure they have data backups.

Yah. And a CPU to match. Either Epic or Xeon.

Yes but you’ll need special hardware. Enterprise systems use registered “RDIMM” modules that won’t work in consumer systems. Even if your system supports ECC that is just UDIMM aka consumer grade with error correction.

This all being said I would bet you could find some cheap Epic or Xeon chips + an appropriate board if/when they crash comes.

I don’t think it matters.

They are certainly a member of the community.

Choosing MIT over GPL is a political decision that empowers corporations at the expense of the community.

Yah companies can (and sometimes do) choose to give back to the community with MIT projects.

GPL/AGPL/LGPL/MPL 2.0 ensure that they do give back when they take.

I just don’t trust companies enough to use MIT.

Companies are allowed to participate in the community. They are wallowed to use community code. Companies donating servers and resources is actually a good thing. This includes Valve. The “greediness” you talk about isn’t a factor.

Also factually none of those projects you listed were started by IBM. Half of them were started by GNU foundation. The other half were started by Redhat before it was acquired by IBM.

The way Redhat made money was by taking community code and packaging it with support guarantees for other companies. Redhat took that money and hired people to further improve that community code they were packaging. I was at Redhat at the time.

Regarding freeBSD you are forgetting the literal largest user of BSD in the world. Netflix voluntarily gives back code to the community but they aren’t forced to.

Sony is the largest user of FreeBSD in the world. They take the code. Use it improve it and give nothing back. From the PS3 forward all of their devices are based on FreeBSD.

Microsoft also is a large user of FreeBSD in a way. When they couldn’t add a proper networking stack to Windows without everything crashing all the time they’re turned to FreeBSD. Microsoft ripped out the networking code and glued it into Windows 2000. From there we got XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, and now 11. All with community code taken and used to fight community coded operating systems.

I guess it all comes down to how you see companies. If you believe that companies will always act in the interest of the community even at the expense of competitiveness I can see how one might see MIT or BSD licenses as adequate.

GPL, LGPL, and MPL on the other hand force companies to give back when they take.

I don’t trust companies enough to use MIT. I choose GPL, LGPL, and MPL.

If a company intended to give back to the community there is no reason why they would not use GPL, LGPL, or MPL. They intend to tie back anyways. Right? MIT just lets them keep their taking but not giving options open.

I know I do.

GPL forces mega corps to give back when they use community code.

MIT just lets companies take community code without giving anything back.

GPL code is code for the community by the community. Meta crops can use the code too but they have to give back.

Choosing MIT over GPL, LGPL, or MPL (all community oriented) in my book is pretty close to corporate bootlicking.

Good move I think. :)

It might be my lemmy client but when I go to that link I just see a basic steam next fest post with a Linux picking section from a different user.

What am I missing?

If you don’t mind me asking, why did you choose Zorin? How do you hear about Zorin?

That’s not actually true. Technology connections made a few videos about it.

Beta bs VHS: https://youtu.be/hWl9Wux7iVY

The broadcasting Beta format was basically a whole different format compared to that you could get at home. Completely unrelated.

Studio Beta https://youtu.be/hGVVAQVdEOs

From the article you cited. Did you read it?

Unlike traditional AI-assisted coding or pair programming, the human developer avoids micromanaging the code, accepts AI-suggested completions liberally, and focuses more on iterative experimentation than code correctness or structure. Karpathy described it as “fully giving in to the vibes, embracing exponentials, and forgetting that the code even exists.”

Exactly this. The people who designed secure boot and TPMs were not idiots. You can’t trick a properly set up TPM configured with secure boot in any realistic setup.

It won’t refuse to boot. It’s just that any automatic metric based decryption won’t work.

If you are using a TPM to automatically unlock luks and also manually removed the password backup before hand you could lose your data forever. That is true.

But if you kept the password based decryption stuff you could still manually unlock stuff. Just like secure boot was never there.

The difference would be that there could be no secure attestation that the kernel count trust/use without secure boot.

Like secure boot is really cool on Linux if you learn about it. Like sbctl alone is great for verifying backups and stuff.

I recommend reading through the arch wiki if you want to learn more. It covers a lot of stuff. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface/Secure_Boot

It won’t brick your system forever??? You just turn it off in your bios. Then you have no secure boot. Just like it was never there.

If you don’t care about boot chain attacks it isn’t bad at all.

If you do care about boot chain attacks it’s bad because it allows someone to replace things like the efi binaries, grub, or your kernel with backdoor-ed versions and there would be no way to detect this from the running system.

Secure boot checks for this stuff. You can read more here:

https://access.redhat.com/articles/5254641

You can but then you don’t have secure boot.

You can if you want to. But I don’t think that is best practice. The idea of quadlets is the bring Linux norms to containers. You contain and manage all permissions for that container in that user.

I personally have completely separated users and selinux mls contexts for each container group (formerly docker compose file) and I manage them thusly. It’s more annoying but it substantially more secure.

This being said I think you can do it as root. I think this might work but I am not certain sudo systemctl --user -M theuser@ status myunit.service

Are you placing your service files in ~/.config/containers/systemd of the home dir of the user you want them to run as?

Here is a link: https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-run-podman-containers-under-systemd-with-quadlet

Not true. I run them rootless on my server as we speak. :)

I mean it could be Mutex, or Rwlock or anything atomic. It’s just when I have to put stuff into an Arc<> to pass around I know trouble is coming.