HumanPenguin

Only if those device makers are willing to use it. And that has always been the tightrope linux has walked.

Its very history as a x86 platform means it has needed to develop drivers where hardware providers did not care. So that code needed to run on closed hardware.

It was bloody rare in the early days that any manufacturer cared to help. And still today its a case of rare hardware that needs no non free firmware.

Free hardware is something I'll support. But it is stallman et als fight not the linux kernel developers. They started out having to deal with patented hardware before any one cared.

proprietary

Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.

So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.

EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.

Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.

So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.

As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.

The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.

GPL has extra restrictions banning patients etc. So yeah a lot of GPL 2 code written by companies that open software but not hardware. Would have legal questions about running with GPL 3

GPL 3 was created to be more restrictive to non-open hardware.

I'm not saying it's a good idea. I def would rather not have more nukes about if it can be avoided.

Just maybe not stupid. When you consider Ukraine was pretty much the home of the USSRs weapons tech, People there developed most of the nukes and the MIG aircraft. That is likely why in part Russia want it. The expertise is still very much there as we saw with Ukraine MIGs compared to Russia. They have been upgrading since the 90s.

I'd guess if any nation was able to throw this together as a MAD Like defence in time for trumps potential withdrawal. It would be these guys.

Also given how close to Moscow, They are. The tech would really only need to be 1945 level for Russia to recognise the risk of continuing.

Given the 96 deal was, Russia gets it nukes back in exchange for respecting Ukraine's borders.

Developing them may not be so stupid. Using them first, sure, stupid. As it is for any nation. But MAD was effective with Russia. While no nuke reprisal ability, clearly leads them not to give a shit about treaties they agrred to.

I think I even used Windows XP wallpapers on Linux for some time.

Well now I suddenly care.

Why the hell do you want to watch the world burn?

;)

No bodies business but the user what wallpaper they like.

I use images from the UK canal inferstructure where I spend much of my time.

If you're willing to tell me to do otherwise. My response is going to be short and rude.

Guessing. But if you did it at the hospital or with their equipment, yes.

In a home lab with your own equipment. Not so sure,

They said shell is guilty

Nope they said they had a responsibility. Not the same thing.

It basically translates to. Prior to this judgement no corperation could be held accountable for failing to meet climate targets. Now they can.

Darktable

Yeah no disagreement.

My comment was more being practical. IE the real world we live in. If it was not for conflict ( first ww2 then cold war ). Rockets and space travel would never have seen the funding needed to develop. This goes on the pretty much everything - GPS, communications, weather n and on. All of it was funded mainly due to the military.

Without that it is hard if not impossible to imagine the wealthy considering the investment in tech worthwhile. And at the end of it. Real world the desire for the rich to protect or grow their position is the cause of all the above throughout history.

Honestly, I'm not saying this is a good thing, it's fucking depressing.

But without war. I doubt the world would have moved past feudalism. There just would not be the motivation to change.

Glad he found something to do with his little mushroom.