[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

Dragora Linux

One of the coolest distros, ever. It's like a mix of Alpine Linux and Slackware without dangerous firmware payloads.

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

No one thinks this. Even permissively licensed BSD operating systems package GPL software and accept it as Free Software.

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago

Unless I’m missing something, here we will disagree. Secure or not, FOSS principle-respecting or not, if I’m choosing to install software by X then I’m going to get it straight from X and not involve third-party Y too.

Source code is like a recipe. Getting your food from the chef who made the recipe is fine, but getting it from another chef who... followed the same exact recipe is no different.

This is how the linux software distribution model works, distro maintainers are a CHECK on upstream.

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Why does Debian-Ubuntu not provide a simple command for this?

You aren't supposed to add repos. Ever. https://wiki.debian.org/UntrustedDebs

Apt is not built with security in mind, at all. The partial sandboxing it does do is trivial to bypass. Adding a repo is basically a RAT Trojan on your computer.

An example is signal-desktop

Yeah don't use signal. They restrict freedom 3 by making distribution difficult. Thats why they trick you into using their RAT repo.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=842943

The least bad option is the unofficial flatpak.

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago

Personally I need the desktop client because I mod it with plugins that are so useful that I can’t do without these anymore.

Discord client modifications are against the Terms of Service. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Ban security through obscurity. As well proprietary security software.

The government likes proprietary software. They are never going to ban it.

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It having an inconclusive effect on wildlife, but wildlife clearly being able to survive in the region, doesn't really detract from what I originally thought.

From the article you linked:

"No matter what the consequences of lingering radiation might be, there were massive benefits to people leaving."

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

100% renew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it's own ecological problems associated with it.

Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these "100% renewable" countries.

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 months ago

with the incredible advancements in solar and wind it’s no longer the best option.

I haven't heard of any advancement that makes solar generate energy when the sun doesn't shine and wind generate energy when the wind isn't blowing.

[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yes, but the originally free/libre licensed source code is still out there.

makes improvements and put’s those under a proprietary license

You could also make improvements and release them under a GPL license.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

cqst

joined 9 months ago