You can still merge the whole upstream branch manually with a local clone, and git will stop on each conflict for you to resolve them. Then when it’s done you can push the merged branch to your fork.
I play guitar, watch USMLR and NHL, occasionally brew beer, enjoy live music and travel, and practice sarcasm.
Mastodon - @[email protected]
Pixelfed - @[email protected]
kbin - @[email protected]
You can still merge the whole upstream branch manually with a local clone, and git will stop on each conflict for you to resolve them. Then when it’s done you can push the merged branch to your fork.
I’ve run ChromeOS Flex on an old Surface Pro 3 and it was pretty good. However Flex doesn’t support the Linux containers or Android apps. I was tempted to try Fedora on it, but ended up trading it in as that battery wasn’t that reliable anymore. I think the Surface line is best option in the 2-in-1 space anymore. When I was looking at options last fall no other vendor really had anything under 13", which is just ridiculous to ever use as s tablet.
It’s ridiculous that this would be an economical business plan.
Slackware. 3.x. I was studying computer science and wanted to have a similar system at home as in the lab.
yeah cpu fan/cooler does sound more likely.
I haven’t used Linux on desktop in ages but back in the.day we would do something like run gears to see if the animation was smooth and check the frame rate. Maybe use lsmod to check for the GPU’s kernel module.
Based on your update, are the AMD drivers loaded and working? Maybe it’s using CPU for rendering instead of GPU.
Fair point, but I would equate that with syncing the authorized_keys file rather than thinking about how to sync the keys.
I suggest you don’t sync SSH keys. That’s just increasing the blast radius of any one of those machines being compromised.
Well, you can build and run from source using Chromium. But that doesn’t have all the features of ChromeOS, just like AOSP vs what you get on a Pixel phone.
I can’t imagine that Google have changed the kernel architecture. I just meant to differentiate that it’s their own distribution rather than another Debian derivative or something.
The bit about modifying the Linux code is to say you can’t run a a built-from-source version of the kernel or DE, like you could do with Fedora or Ubuntu or Arch or distro.
The bit about “now more than ever” is because by separating the browser and OS (Lacros) it’s no longer the browser-based OS we’ve always known it to be. Now it’s Google Linux with Chrome browser (Linux And Chrome OS).
As long as you have a Crostini-capable ChromeOS device, you can run flatpacks. This is actually the preferred way to run Firefox (via the Linux Flatpack).
I wouldn’t agree with that. I find jmespath syntax far more intuitive than jq, and it would appear to be easier to embed as basically every CLI utility I use that natively supports a JSON query to filter its output uses jmespath syntax rather than jq. It’s just not so readily available as a standalone solution as jq. But regarding PowerShell, I can pipe JSON command output to convertfrom-json
and I get a data structure back. I find that having a data structure for more complex nested loops is easier to deal with than having to call jq repeatedly in every layer of my loops. At that point I’d rather use Python on Linux, but I can do it natively in PowerShell.
The object nature in PowerShell is pretty powerful though. Piping JSON in PowerShell is, IMO, quite nicer than having to put ~~new ~~ jq commands as very other stage of the pipe in Linux.
edit: just noticed autocorrect changed ‘jq’ to ‘new’ in my original post.
Agreed, but there’s more to it than just “we need to pay for support contract.” There’s also “we want a contract that indemnifies us against a FOSS reciprocal license claim against the product we sell.” That is something that really contributed to RHEL’s dominant position.
had the same thought, not sure if Alpine is built with LLVM though.
fair
edit: I do support Linux distribution vendors having the option to do freemium if that’s how they feel they can best deliver, just not the way that RedHat is now trying to do it. And I support people trying to do it in a way that is completely gratis to the users.
That depends on which “we” you talk about. Personally, yes, I have moved everything that I had away from RHEL-derivatives towards Debian after the CentOS debacle 2 years ago, and I would recommend anyone else to do the same.
So we’re in “violent” agreement.
it’s also a matter of principle: “we”, as in the community as a whole, can’t let this stand.
Right. We just have a difference of opinion on how to stand against RedHat’s actions here.
First, thank you for not resorting to name calling this time.
None of the Alma Linux and Rocky Linux users hit those servers, so they’re not taking anything away from Red Hat.
Here are RedHat’s own words on users of source-rebuild distributions.
The generally accepted position that these free rebuilds are just funnels churning out RHEL experts and turning into sales just isn’t reality. I wish we lived in that world, but it’s not how it actually plays out. Instead, we’ve found a group of users, many of whom belong to large or very large IT organizations, that want the stability, lifecycle and hardware ecosystem of RHEL without having to actually support the maintainers, engineers, writers, and many more roles that create it. These users also have decided not to use one of the many other Linux distributions.
This is the perspective that is informing RedHat’s decision making on the matter. It doesn’t matter that you and I know the people using Alma and Rocky, and previously CentOS, won’t switch to paid RHEL users if those options are gone.
You conflate two things: on one hand there is A: “being able to use a Linux distribution that’s binary compatible with RHEL”, on the other hand there is B: “having a support contract and access to technical support”.
I can see how you would see my comments as conflating the two. It was not my intention to do so.
I see no issue with A, “the software”, being free, and I see no issue with B, “the support”, being not free. This is how it has been since Red Hat came into existence, yet you’re telling me here that A shouldn’t exist.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist, RedHat is saying that. I’m saying given RedHat’s actions, I wouldn’t want to be in the business of trying to fight with them to maintain a source-rebuild distribution or base my own business continuity on them being able to out-maneuver RedHat and continue to exist.
That’s a broken analogy. The existence of a free and legal alternative to RHEL doesn’t mean that Red Hat doesn’t get paid, it just means that a free alternative exists. But big businesses do love support contracts from big reliable vendors, so Red Hat does in fact get paid and their model is quite profitable.
On the other side: is Red Hat cutting a paycheck to all the contributors of the thousands and thousands of tools and utilities that go into RHEL?
It is a fact that big corporations like Canonical, RedHat, and Suse have historically paid full time developers to contribute to and maintain FOSS code. They have to have money to pay those developers. They can’t make a reliable and predictable revenue stream on just the existence of the software itself, so they sell support contracts to pay for it.
On the other side: is Red Hat cutting a paycheck to all the contributors of the thousands and thousands of tools and utilities that go into RHEL?
No, and I never claimed anything close to that. But RedHat is among many Linux distributors who employ developers full time to contribute to and maintain FOSS projects.
Come on now, it’s the other way around. The enormous amount of free software development they have received from the community is what allows them to have this profitable commercial support model in the first place.
Indeed, hence why I think RedHat is ethically in the wrong here.
Yet you provide not a single convincing argument why that should be the case. What kind of artificial bs label is “enterprise” anyway? It’s just software, and whether it has a label of “enterprise” or “consumer” is irrelevant
I gave examples of what I perceive as enterprise support, you’re free to think those things don’t matter, but maybe tell me who does those things for free. Alma Foundation isn’t some group of benevolent billionaires paying for everything out of their own pockets. If they weren’t receiving donations (be they monetary or services) or revenue, they wouldn’t be able to do what they’re doing.
the only thing that determines whether or not it’s ok for it to be free is the license of the software, and so far the license says that it can be free.
Again, I agree. All the source-rebuild distributions have the right to exist. And if they feel it’s worthwhile to pursue still , good for them and good luck.
I mean … we all agree that RedHat is in the wrong here because the actions of the source-rebuild distributions are protected under the FOSS licenses. We have different reactions and hopes, but we all agree that RedHat is doing wrong. So I don’t understand why you and Raphael are out here calling me an apologist who doesn’t understand OSS.
This feels relevant
Sometimes the mods of overlapping communities will discuss merging, usually initiated when one of them notices there is little engagement in their own. But the general consensus in the Lemmy admin/mod population is that having overlapping communities on different instances is a net benefit.