Because the license has other strengths as well.

What are it’s strengths?

So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.

The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.

If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.

And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.

I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.

Think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?

Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.

No. I’m talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.

Anyway, I’m interested as to why you don’t think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.

Because it isn’t a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can’t make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.

But what if you forget? Why risk it when you don’t have to? There is no shame in not remembering and needing to write it down. If you always remember than that’s good for you but a lot of people don’t.

Why don’t you think the MIT license is bad?

Headscale is great but requires port forwarding which, aside from having its own iasues, is something op wants to avoid.

Cheap domains are basically free though so it doesn’t count!

Ok you’ve convinced my now, I do hope we can get YouTube videos away from YouTube.

I really like this idea, and I suppose it could also be built to include videos from other video hosting cites as well in the future.

Do you think this could become popular enough it to be useful? Public BitTorrent trackers for other media are barely seeded as it is and they have been active for decades. Why would people want to seed media they can watch for free on youtube? (to be clear I understand why but it’s difficult to get enough others to understand something like this.)

Another issue is if it does get popular enough to become useful I could imagine this being a major target from YouTube, or do I misunderstand the copyright laws? Actually considering the db is just one massive torrent.csv file I guess you can’t really sensor that. Although I’m not sure if a copyright troll issue could arise.

Also that 38 MiB csv file is insane.

Hi All!

We appreciate your valuable feedback! We’re always looking for ways to make Acrobat better, and we appreciate the time and effort you have taken to share your feedback with us.

We acknowledge that the new Acrobat represents a notable change, however we hope that as you get familiar with the new interface, you are able to be more productive & get more out of Acrobat. With the new interface, we aim to:

Provide a simplified viewing experience that helps reduce clutter & optimise it for most used PDF actions that are relevant while viewing a document.

Easily allow users to discover PDF tools they need by ensuring tools are intuitively grouped and a click away,
    For example, all tools that allow content, page & file level edits can be found under one action-based verb called “Edit”; tools that allow converting files to & from PDFs can be found under “Convert”; tools that allow filling & signing documents or requesting signatures from others under “Sign”.
Most importantly, the new interface enables users to effortlessly move between different PDF tools to complete their document related tasks.

For example, someone viewing comments in a PDF should also be able to easily edit the text of it without interrupting their workflow.

A user can seamlessly perform page level edits such as reordering, inserting, extracting, rotating or deleting pages while editing content and/or commenting on the file.

We would also like to highlight that we have exhaustively tested these changes with users over the past 12 months, keenly monitoring user behaviour & addressing top user issues before gradually rolling out the new interface to the Acrobat user base.

A point to note is that as we made these changes in the interface, we have ensured all tools & features that are currently supported, retain their familiar functionalities and workflows as they did in the previous version. We are proactively addressing any gaps or issues reported by users related to any break in current workflows.

We will follow up on this response with a detailed article explaining the changes, a guide to help familiarise you to the new interface, along with regular updates on upcoming changes.

Thank you once again for your feedback and do look forward to our upcoming releases!

~Anand Sri.

This reply is so out of place and I love it!

This is what I was most excited for. There is just one vague mention of it in the KDE changelog and it still says “coming soon” on the plasma Bigscreen website I think they just need a bit more time to polish it up and make some documentation.

Wait I don’t mean to put any shade on these developers but don’t we already have Linux and wine, why would you try to copy windows?

Nah I’ll keep my 100 mb and ego thank you very much!

it is bloat. also were is your package for (insert any very obscure program). I guess your going to have to rely on appimages or building from source for this one!

I feel like there are so many people here who have never used BSD and are just vibe commenting.

I’m kinda annoyed by people who just put down my personal opinion about the state of gaming on Linux or anything by using their own experience.

I agree most of my games run fine on Linux, but I would like to try out valorant but it doesn’t work. The force feedback for the steering wheel I use with beamng requires a lot of extra setup which I haven’t gotten around to (on windows it just works). I don’t play many games but these are just some of my experiences.

I don’t believe so, they’re open source as well and you can do some research around it. I’ve used them with no issues. windows activation scripts