I used a lot over the last 25 years of Linux, started with Debian, Suse Linux, then some years with Gentoo (i learned so much in that time, I can recommend it), and now I am using Arch.
Arch gives me lots of the freedoms and possibilites that I am used to from Gentoo but without the constant pain of compilation. I have Arch on my Desktop, all my servers, my NAS
The login is a great Option for people like me who have a youtube account, in my case with premium even, but prefere the features and design of this app over the official one.
In this case privacy, in regards of my music taste and hearing patterns, is something I don’t care about much.
It was a game for the C64 and I was 12, but I am not sure what game it was. Such a long time ago.
What you want was very performant and easy doable with X11 (by its nature as a client/server architecture), but not with wayland. The additional Software layers on top of wayland will destroy performance and introduce all kind of issues.
Thats the price we have to pay for the shiny new things
The landlord has valid rights too, fighting policeman is definitively the wrong solution to this problem. The proper way would be in implementing a wellfare system that helps this (mostly old/sick) people when they can’t pay their bills. Fighting policemen for evicted people would be like only putting a bandaid over a punctured arthery. It may help for a, very short, time but in the end leads to nowhere.
But this is a tangent and topic that is very interessting to discuss but i fear is way to offtopic for this place
I would fight the law itself, not single persons.
So you say that opinion and subjective classification of good or bad is the only valid measurement?
That is the issue with double standard, everyone has their own subjective viewpoint of good or bad, of morality, of which laws to ignore and which to follow. And a lot of really bad things are done all the time in the name of good and moral reasons!
Why make any law at all if only personal, subjectiv morallity matters?
I can’t wait for the first videos from people who turned that Ai slime into an mysognostic, racist, pile of blue shit!
When the Ai companys acted after this maxime, ignore laws until getting sued, there was a huge outrage but here everyone wants the same from open source companies and developers.
It seems that double Standards are fine after all.
Yes!, and german words can even get bigger!
Germany has a similar law already active
§12 Jugendmedienschutzstaatsvertrag
(1) Anbieter von Betriebssystemen, die von Kindern und Jugendlichen üblicherweise genutzt werden im Sinne des § 16 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 6, stellen sicher, dass ihre Betriebssysteme über eine den nachfolgenden Absätzen entsprechende Jugendschutzvorrichtung verfügen. Passt ein Dritter die vom Anbieter des Betriebssystems bereitgestellte Jugendschutzvorrichtung an, besteht die Pflicht aus Satz 1 insoweit bei diesem Dritten.
(3) In der Jugendschutzvorrichtung muss eine Altersangabe eingestellt werden können
But yes, neither such laws nor the implementation into systemd is in any way positive and should be fought
I am not spreading fud, I only added something to a list. The fact that we have such a law is not known by many, even most germans are not aware of it, that is why I talk about it. It is only possible to Protest and fight against something if it is known, and I try to spread this knowledge. This is a way to fight against it, or at least the preparation.
I am very sorry that my posts gave the impression that I am not against such laws, because I for sure am!
And Yes, i should have said that I fear that more countries created such laws, my pessimistic world view got me when I wrote my first post.
§12 Jugendmedienschutzstaatsvertrag: https://www.landesrecht-bw.de/bsbw/document/jlr-JMedienSchStVtrGBWV10StVtr-P12
(1) Anbieter von Betriebssystemen, die von Kindern und Jugendlichen üblicherweise genutzt werden im Sinne des § 16 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 6, stellen sicher, dass ihre Betriebssysteme über eine den nachfolgenden Absätzen entsprechende Jugendschutzvorrichtung verfügen. Passt ein Dritter die vom Anbieter des Betriebssystems bereitgestellte Jugendschutzvorrichtung an, besteht die Pflicht aus Satz 1 insoweit bei diesem Dritten.
(3) In der Jugendschutzvorrichtung muss eine Altersangabe eingestellt werden können.
Germany has effectivly the same law, active since december 2025, and I am sure more countries will intruduce such laws soon. Linux Distributions have to be compliant with this laws, if we like it or not.
There could be some fineprint in the contract that gives FromSoft a right to veto or something in that regard. Or it could just be respecting wishes, as others said. We can’t know and it doesn’t really matter either.
You can’t just download the software from the device and compare checksums, because the software downloaded would have to be signed and that would change the checksum. Oh and you could not be sure that the software downloaded even is the software the runs at all and not only a decoy supplied by the interface used to download the software from the car. All you could compare would the signed binary blob you downloaded from the car with the signed binary blob you downloaded from the homepage. Even if both of them would be identical you could not validate that they are identical to a binary build from the source code.
And I never said I want untested software on the streets, I have said nothing at all about my stance regarding the regulation and certification of car electronics, because my arguments have nothing to do at all with my personal positions on that matter.
All I said is that you can’t have an true and fully open source EV, not in Germany or most likely all of Europe anyway, because you would as good as never get such a car certified and street legal. Not without huge limitations on the “open source” part of the open source EV. And such limitations would render any ideas of open source for an EV moot, there is no benefit for having an open source car when the hardware is under lockdown by the manufacturer/law.
I am making a argument about the plausibility and rationale of an open source EV, is it reasonable to invest time, thoughts and effort into something like that or not. And I say that it is not, not at all. It would only create a situation where a community of programmers makes a huge invest in time and work to create something that in the end only the companies benefit from.
We are not really on different sides of the argument, not with the car part at least. We maybe have different definitions of open source, at least it seems so.
What good would be an open source community EV (that is what the title speaks of) if there is no way for a single person or the community itself to modify and install the code on the EV? You would have no way of knowing that the version running in the car is identical to the source code provided, so having the code would be moot from a security and privacy standpoint.
Yes, you could put everything concerning street legality into a closed and signed hardware black box, more or less how it is done with the mobile communication hardware in smartphones, but street legality touches so many systems and functions that most of the cars software would be closed. So we are back where we are now.
For most persons who think about open source they have in mind that they are able to freely install the open source software on their devices, and yes I know that this is not part of the open source definition as written for example in https://opensource.org/osd but IMHO it should be added to it.
This is the same like for closed source. A new software release must be tested and have regression tests that homologation relevant parts are not changed and if they are changed, that they do not violate regulations.
Yes, but with closed software you only have to have those tests and certification done once per version of the software. All installed instances of this version are the same, because only the manufacturer can make changes and sign the software to be installable.
This is completely different with open source software that can be changed and installed without limitations by every end user/owner of the car. Now the certification has to be done by every single person every time they install a new version to make sure that no forbidden changes were done to the code or the configurations.
Open Source Software that can be installed freely and unrestricted on a car turns every car into a DIY system, even if it was manufactured by a company
Going down further that road, there are very specific regulations that cover software updates in particular. There needs to be a software update Management process behind it that makes sure software is only distributed to vehicles that it is designed for.
Yes, but such a process would be so tight that it more or less produces the same closed system that we have at the moment. One possibility I see would be that the boot loader of the EV is locked and only updates signed by the company can be installed to the car, with the option to send in your changed open source version to have it checked and signed. But this would not be very open source and not really that much more secure then what we have today because you can never be sure that the version you send in for verification and signing is the same that you get back.
But if you have better Idea the would be true to the open source idea and be compatible with the strong regulations, I would love to read that.
I really liked Starfield and had lots of fun with it and the first Dlc.
Looking forward to playing the new one two, but not that soon. I started a highly modded Morrowind playthrough a few days ago and that will take ages to play.