But why rewrite programs that existed for decades and have proven their stability and safety? Rewriting them to Rust won’t make them safer, it will just introduce the kind of issues original versions have got fixed long ago.

The uutils author knows this. His motivation was performance. It’s easier to write fast code in Rust for him.

The fact uutils are being shipped despite being so raw shows that this is not about better software. The whole project is about abolishing GPL. And Rust is just an excuse.

You are mashing two things into one.

1. uutils is just making Open Source software.
2. Canonical ships it despite the project being so raw.

uutils don’t have any rights to tell Canonical if and when can the software be incorporated into Ubuntu.

You linked the right definition but you are wrong. MIT is a Free Software license.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat

Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies – the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.

Musl is the real reason why one would choose Void over Alpine. Glibc allocator is faster and the glibc just has better software compatibility.

Spiral Linux is just a custom installer for normal Debian with some repos added for automatic snapshots. It’s not rolling release.

It’s Arch Linux done wrong. Arch tries to give you the latest software, Void intentionally does not.

That hybernation is really easy to setup. You just need a swap partition or logical volume. This one has not been mentioned yet.

There is a lot of browsers that can show HTML websites though, not just 2. There are even new ones made like https://chawan.net/.

I don’t recommend it because of the allocator but if you want to switch to musl, start by checking if the distro you will switch to has the software you need. Signal for example does not work. I have to use the flatpak.

Gammastep, which is an wlroots alternative to redshift, supports the sunset stuff. It lacks this nice gui though.

I’m not very educated on the Fair Source stuff but the idea is that you create source available software which will after some time become Open Source. So I guess their idea is that if you use AGPL, people cannot do that. AGPL means nobody else can make Fair Source software from your work. AGPL is a good license, it just does not work with their

[new software] -> [source available] -> [FOSS after a while] -> [new software made from the now FOSS software]

loop.

I was commenting about the way its written. I know burnout is real — even in FOSS we’ve had the xz backdoor basically caused by overworked maintainer. I was just expecting something less generic. The whole article could have been the first paragraph. The rest was just generic (maybe AI generated) slop without citations (There is your logic error I guess?). I would instead expect the article to refer to the study or refer to other articles or something.

That article reads like it was written by AI. Feels like a ChatGPT bullet list just with the emojis deleted. They also didn’t really say much specific about the FOSS dev burnout, just generic explanation about what burnout is. The article cites a study but then instead of talking about things from it, it just says generic slop about how a burned out FOSS dev could feel.

Edit: I feel like my comment contradicts itself but it’s hard to put into words exactly what’s wrong with the article but it just reads so poorly.

It does not. It pledges source-available software as a better alternative to FOSS. So it by definition is not about FOSS devs. (I’ve only read part of the article because I oppose the opinions they share, so maybe it talks about FOSS devs in the part I have not read.)

or distrobox with podman backend. Though tbf don’t run sketchy software even without sudo. Privilege escalation is pretty easy on most distros by default and even outside of that having your files deleted by ransomware sucks too.

lol i misread that

I have not tried GTK because I cannot fathom why would anyone use a UI toolkit written in C. But even language trash talk aside, it’s probably easier for a C++ project to use a C++ GUI library instead of a C one albeit with C++ bindings. Also I’ve read somewhere that it the C++ GTK bindings are kinda sucky.

These are just my assumptions, though. Someone who has tried both GTK and Qt might give a better answer.

deleted by creator

It would not make sense. For me these posts are a waste of time. The community should be started by someone who actually enjoys the discussions, not by an outside “hater”.

You can just wrap the software in a binary and interact with the binary and you will likely elude the GPL terms. This is kinda grey area but it would be hard to win against it in court. (I am not a lawyer)

I mean that broadly because nobody will make proprietary Coreutils or sudo as someone already pointed out.

None. The closest you can get is the AGPLv3.

If you go further, it will no longer be open source. This is the case for the Server Side Public License (SSPL) for example. It requires the entire system configuration to be released under the same license*. This sounds “open source friendly” but it’s actually just a proprietary license because it’s not realistically possible to legally comply with it. You cannot run standard hardware without proprietary firmware, which means you cannot run SSPLed software on it legally.

*This only applies if you host the software as a service but the result is the same. It basically violates the freedom to use the work for any purpose.