Windows 10's demise nears, but Linux is forever https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/windows_10_demise_linux/ by @sjvn
Want to keep your old computer running? Can't stand #Windows 11? Then, it's time to give serious thought to switching to desktop #Linux.
@bonkmaykr Apparently, the different names stem from the fact that many different companies, all of the sudden, came with the idea of having removable flash storage that is accessed by USB and they all had different names for it, some of them being trademark. "Flash Drive" somehow ended up being the dominant name even though the term could technically be used for any flash-memory-based storage.
@Alex I agree because you might as well call SSDs "flash drives".
Also it turns out that "jump drive" is trademarked by Lexar which is why the term is rarely used these days.
@gabriel Given that it is all running on Meta's servers, I would say no. You could make the case if the software Meta was running was licensed under the AGPL, but the regular GPL doesn't consider network use as distribution.
Does this count as a GPL violation?
(Preventing people from sharing/accessing the source code?)
RE: https://cyberpunk.lol/users/FediPact/statuses/113906932147208715
@wowaname @druid I think a lot of people get individualism wrong. They conflate it with Ayn Rand's Objectivism in which that you should only act within your self-interest (so donating to a charity that doesn't benefit you would be considered morally wrong). In reality very few individualists consider themselves to be Objectivists. Ayn Rand had a lot of great influence on modern libertarianism, but her talking points as is, are considered obsolete.
@vokainen099 Don't do anything stupid and blame me.
@vokainen099 That's what I meant, and I think there are already models like that for GPT4All. Some of them will even give you instructions on making drugs or illegal weapons.
From http://tunes.org/wiki/no-kernel.html
> A term describing a system without a kernel. The idea looks like it is original as far as operating systems are concerned, but it is so natural that for any other kind of software (and one of our points is that there should be no such privileged notion as that of an "Operating System" well-separated from "Applications") where there isn't such a stubbornly overwhelming tradition, it is the very idea of a kernel that looks odd.
> Software in a no-kernel system works just like most any software: various objects interact, each doing its part of the work. The difference compared to software in kernel-based systems? No-kernel software is not limited to a single centralizing entry point like the Unix syscall() or DOS interrupts, whose overhead, limitations, bugs and misdesign you must cope with or work around. Instead, objects can directly interact one with the other, and you can upgrade/extend/modify any unlocked part of the system anytime.
![]()