Big part, for sure.

It’s incredible that this is such a big point of debate. This kind of thing is really ignoring the material reality of racism in favor of the minutiae. Let’s have some 40 acres and a mule, then we can start talking about race conditions.

All the PPA maintainers went to Arch.

I think you already got a good answer but let me throw in another:

Fedora’s dnf provides some good history and update reversion tools. You can use:

dnf history list

to get a list of all actions taken on the system since install. Use “dnf history info 5” to get info on the 5th transaction. (Get the transaction ID numbers from “dnf history list”.)

Then to revert a change use either:

dnf history rollback or dnf history undo

Using undo reverses a single transaction, so if you have one where you did something like “dnf install tmux” and then ran undo on it then that would be equivalent to running “dnf remove tmux” in terms of what it does on your system.

Rollback does what you might think: it basically goes through all the updates between the most recent and the one specified and it reverses each of them, theoretically restoring the system to the state it was in at that time.

I say “theoretically” because this isn’t a perfect system. For example, if you have an update where you removed some software that had some customizations done to it and then went through a rollback it’ll put that software back but may be missing configurations you applied to it, so potentially it could cause some issues if those were important. This gets into a lot of complicated stuff and tbh it is a powerful but imperfect system. Something like Atomic gives you more of a guarantee that a rollback will work because the whole system state is defined by the installer, not just the packages.

There’s one more note: Fedora removes old versions of packages from its repos so you’ll need to add their historical archives repo to do certain things. I forget how to do that off the top of my head.

This may not be what you want exactly but it’s a powerful tool that’s good to be aware of.

See this for more info.

dnf remove @gnome-desktop dnf autoremove

For the curious.

Note that the autoremove might not do anything here. Removing @gnome-desktop removes the whole package group and should get everything in it.

I imagine something like Fedora with an RT kernel and CPU partitioning could be as reliable as an old Amiga. CPU partitioning would let you reserve one or more cores for specific applications such as music production software. Now, the software in question may not be up to the task but that’s a different problem.

They used to be good, almost as good as the Windows drivers. Lately, though, they’ve been kinda trash and the AMD open driver is pretty alright now. (Performance isn’t as good but other than that it’s good.)

Doesn’t KDE basically have color management with 6 or 6.1 or something?

Ubuntu previously was excepting Gnome point releases from major testing on the grounds that Gnome’s point releases are all big fixes and thus don’t require Ubuntu’s major testing process. Gnome shipped a new major feature in a point release and so Ubuntu said “oops, guess we gotta test their point releases after all”. Practically, it means Gnome point releases take longer to get into Ubuntu than they previously did (but are more tested for bugs).

There’s a real opportunity here and we can either take it and run or we can let it pass us by.

They’re definitely going to back down. I’m guessing they’re going to back down a little (maybe create an opt out for the enterprise customers?) and then claim victory, but we’ll see.

You should really be using a pre commit hook to catch secrets. Admittedly it may not have caught this, but manual review is (clearly) not always sufficient.

Basically what it’s doing is booting to an alternate OS configuration to do the install. It’s way easier to just reboot again rather than tear down the installer environment and go into a normal one. That’s basically a reboot in all but name. It’s annoying to have to enter your encryption passphrase twice, though.

I feel like a lot of Linux behaviors tell me most Linux people don’t encrypt their data, which tbh should not only be the default but should be difficult to opt out of. Apple actually does this one right. Encryption is just the way it works.

Pretty sure you can configure “open as root” in some file managers. Also you can configure a gksudo (or similar) setup.

Really though, that makes me think. The file manager should detect you’re opening something you don’t have write access to and ask if you want to authenticate as root to open it.

XFS. It fills the same role as ext4 but it’s less likely to lose your data and that’s probably the most important part of a file system. Not that ext4 is bad or anything, but XFS is good. The only downside to XFS is you can’t shrink the filesystem size.

There’s a high likelihood it was Russian or Chinese work tbh. That’s a pretty reasonable take.

Ruby: No, it has been redefined as the number 5 so buckle your seatbelts, kiddos, cuz shit’s about to get wild!

When you want a standard to take hold you gotta do it the hard way. You can’t just cowboy it like you can with the fake version. (Not meaning to disparage the fake version, mind you.)

Eric S Raymond (ESR) is the originator of the philosophy you’re espousing. He’s a Right-Libertarian who has made a lot of contributions to and arguments about FOSS, but in this case i think he’s pretty much wrong. He was a big proponent of the BSD license and opponent of the GPL because, in his view, the GPL interfered with economic activity while BSD was more compatible with it.

ESR’s belief was that open source software was not threatened by capitalism and that it would thrive even if large companies used it, while the other side of the argument was that it would languish if all of the large users were corporations who did not (voluntarily) contribute back. In contrast, with GPL (and similar mandatory open licenses): the corporations would be required to contribute back and thus whether the usage was corporate or not the project would benefit and grow either way.

That was a while ago, though. I think we can see, now, that while the BSDs are great (and have many of their own technological advantages over Linux based OSes) and they are being used by corporations, that has not resulted in the kind of explosive growth we’ve seen with GPL software. Gross tech bros love to use both BSD-style and GPL-style code, but with GPL they’re required to contribute back. That attracts developers, too, who don’t want to see their work end up as the foundation of some new Apple product with nothing else to show for it.

So we now can pretty much call it, i think, barring new developments: the Communist (and Left-Libertarian and Anarchist) approach “won” and the Right-Libertarian approach didn’t actually pan out. GPLed software is running servers and all kinds of things even though, technically speaking, BSD was probably a better choice up until recently (until modern containerization, probably) and still has a lot going for it. The Right-Libertarian philosophy on this is a dead end.

Whenever people talk about how difficult Linux is to install i ask them if they’ve installed Windows lately. They all say “yes”. I do not believe a word of it, though. If they had done so–or more likely, tried to do so–there’s no way they’d have that opinion. I’m sure they’ve gone into their OEM’s recovery menu and hit “reinstall” or whatever, but that’s a very different process.