Or they didn’t care because they succumbed to the arguments made by the people who were protecting their own bottom line.

Too bad they don’t list caffeine on the nutrition facts. Who knows how much you get.

Social media

sequencing.com seems to say the right things about privacy. Including the possibility to delete your data (can’t be compelled to turn over data that doesn’t exist). And this post claims you can create an anonymous account.

I hear some had success with it, but then Reddit got overwhelmed and stopped responding to it.

I enjoyed asking Microsoft, I mean Bing, how to install Linux from scratch. It is actually really helpful and even expressed hope that I would “enjoy the process and learn from it.”

(i use arch, btw)

Cheering for Oracle is certainly an unexpected turn of events, but here we are. They are absolutely right that RedHatIBM’s motivations are simply to kill competition and obtain vendor lock-in by ending RHEL compatibility. RedHat is truly dead.

10 gb for var is huge. What if you run ‘journalctl --vacuum-time=1d’? If that deletes a lot, you should set up log rotation to delete your logs.

It’s when one boob is much bigger than the other.

I agree that all that can be done is sue them and lets the courts decide what the meaning of the GPL contract is.

I’m surprised at the link you gave since it is written by someone who agrees with my take, not yours and RedHat’s. And you stated clearly that RedHat absolutely is not violating the GPL, when that is actually just your opinion. The real tldr quote of that article is:

Debates continue, even today, in copyleft expert circles, whether this model itself violates GPL. There is, however, no doubt that this provision is not in the spirit of the GPL agreements.

Time for a GPL version 4: no extraneous agreements that nullify GPL terms.

My apologies if I seem too hostile. I firmly believe this is an existential issue for open source.

assuming Red Hat finds out

If RedHat is serious, they can put watermarking/stenography on the code they give you. Might not be proof in court, but enough to figure you are the leaker.

If you deny redistribution, you are violating GPL. Do you agree with that?

So the question is then, does telling someone to promise not to do something, and punishing them if they do, violate there right to it?

That is just denying redistribution with extra steps.

That’s what I am asking!

If Microsoft is using its bot to push an agenda, that is worth talking about. You won’t be able to convince everyone to not listen to bots.

All I’m saying is that there has been a conspiracy to get us to burn oil, avoid clean energy, and it just so happens that lizards like higher temperatures.

I don’t think users can block an instance. But you can uncheck “show nsfw” in your settings.