All pronouns
The /boot partition is FAT32 due to RedHat’s stupidity but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that regular users don’t know how to boot into a previous version of the OS. Yes, I know you just have to select it on GRUB but a black screen with a list of kernels qualifies as broken for regular people.
Linux does do the black screen and hope you don’t touch it, at least OpenSUSE and Fedora do. And that’s a good thing. The “reboot to update is bad” meme needs to die but I digress. I’m skeptical that Linux is more resilient than Windows when it comes to updating but even if it is, Windows automatically rolls back failed updates while Linux will boot you into broken system and expect you to know what to do. Regular people can’t deal with this, even if the answer is a simple as selecting a different entry from the GRUB.
What you stated was a lie. I don’t know what to tell you 🤷🏻
Even if you keep your code in a separate file, if you link to GPL code, according to the FSF, your code should be GPL. The law says otherwise but they would still sue you.
Until everything breaks because the average user held down the power button mid-update because the computer wouldn’t shut down.
I’m with you, I don’t believe it’s ready but the command line is not an issue anymore. I only ever see it because I’m an stubborn old man who insists on using Vim. Truth is, if something you do on Linux requires the command line, doing it on Windows probably requires group policy, regedit or something like that, which are equally esoteric.
Not those examples!
Just a couple of days ago libreoffice decided to ignore my dark application theme but still honor my dark icon theme so I had white icons on white background making it basically unusable. Took all of 30 seconds to fix but imagine it happening to my 65 year old mom.
Oh, boy. Go on. Try that experiment. A regular person will encounter problems you could never imagine would be a problem in the first place. Say what you will about Windows but it at least has ~30 years of experience dealing with regular people. Switching my mom to Linux because “all she does is browse the internet anyway” is exactly how I became part of the “Linux isn’t ready” crowd.
Until everything breaks because the average user hasn’t bothered updating.
Nothing that requires the command line in Linux can be done in a “friendly” way in Windows.
Whatever you want to believe.
This argument only works if you assume everything that isn’t the GPL is feeding the rich.
The only reason you perceive my comment as disingenuous is because you’re on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. Again: me writing new code on existing software and wanting to license it as MIT takes away nobody’s freedom, it just doesn’t comply with your dictator’s fantasy.
The rest of your comment is really just you trying to cope with the insanity of the licence you choose to defend. There’s legal precedent saying adding to code doesn’t count as using the code but the FSF will still sue you if you license your work how you see fit. Authoritarianism at its best.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot “protect freedom” and impose restrictions on freedom. Also, no, you just explained how the licences worked and didn’t provide a single argument as to why having the freedom to licence your work however you want is a bad thing. The GPL doesn’t ensure that the software stays free, it ensures that it keeps control of the software and all future additions to it even if they’re completely unrelated.
Also, copyleft is just newspeak for copyright.
You’re not unless you keep the licence.
You’re again assuming that the GPL only restricts non-free licences. This is not the case. If I add a feature to a piece of GPL software, I can’t use BSD on my new code even though the new code isn’t derivative work. Hell, if I write a completely independent piece of software that links to GPL software, my new software has to be GPL even though not a single line of GPL code was used. All of this also applies to free licences like BSD. The GPL doesn’t protect freedom, it protects itself.
The GPL doesn’t restrict selling. Go read the damn thing before arguing about it.
That’s also false. The GPL doesn’t only restrict non-free licences, it restricts any licence change on the derivative work. If I fork a GPL project and want to redistribute my changes with a free licence such as MIT, the GPL will prevent it to protect itself. It’s an authoritarian licence that doesn’t respect your freedom.
Yep. That’s what I’m saying, Linux isn’t ready.
Your installation is probably quite old. It used to be like that but now the default is mounting the ESP to /boot. The old way makes way more sense to me, btw.