I used the big ones, ubuntu, arch, opensuse and (atomic) fedora. Fedora had the nicest out of box experience. Morover, I moved to podman, systemd, selinux, etc. And the atomic version showed me a new workflow with flatpak and distrobox (nowadays, I use nix oftentimes).

The best part about it is that I do not care about the system anymore. I do not even interact with it. I don’t install packages (besides the base layer and minimal modifications that are long lasting like installing openssl for GNOME iirc)

I use mainly flatpaks, if I need aur, I fire up distrobox, or use nix if I want to. And the best part is, I’d have the exact same workflow even without the atomic version. Even on another distro. I do not interact with it much.

Moreover, I am happy with all the choices fedora made with the base package and images. I do not have to do an informed choice like on arch. It just updates whenever I boot my pc. I do not need to read updates, they are just there, somewhere. I do not need to disable snaps or work around weird choices. I just start firefox, vscodium, a terminal and do whatever I want to do.

Edit: I actually wanted to switch back to opensuse just to support it but I guess I’d rather move to nix some day. Maybe with niri and cosmic.

It does not fork anything. Right now, it uses already existing fedora / oci images.

Understandable.

Advertising for a change needs great effort. I’d rather spend the effort in improving gimp, writing down whats missing and how to get there. Adding suppor for affinity won’t improve gimp, does it?

I’d rather support FOSS software

bundling matrix and email would be cool

It says

Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led effort that provides Git hosting and other services for free and open source projects.

Codeberg?

You might be interested in reproducible-builds.org or f-droid.org/en/docs/Reproducible_Builds

Difficult. Paperwm/ Niri has the best workflow.

I am looking forward to set niri as compositor on cosmic.

Visibility :/

I am no dev of rust.

My guess:

• they didn’t want to scare anyone.
• They really think that MIT is free and that anyone shall do with it whatever they like. They are not afraid that someone takes the rust code base and produces a proprietary fork and make money from it.

You are allowed to license your code change under gpl, you do not have to use MIT just because the package author uses MIT. You can use GPL.

You can also use MIT or no license at all. it does not force you to use MIT

You could say that, yes.

It makes sense to suggest MIT license for a MIT project

MIT is better than proprietary. MIT does not force you to not make your project free.

It’s kind of the default in the docs

https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html?highlight=License#the-license-and-license-file-fields

SPDX license expressions support AND and OR operators to combine multiple licenses.1

  [package]
   # ...
  license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

Using OR indicates the user may choose either license. Using AND indicates the user must comply with both licenses simultaneously. The WITH operator indicates a license with a special exception. Some examples:

MIT OR Apache-2.0
LGPL-2.1-only AND MIT AND BSD-2-Clause
GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Bison-exception-2.2

When I started out (I don’t write Rust but other languages), in my first years, I liked gpl and after a couple of years I got to know MIT and I started using that because I thought it is “more free”. I wasn’t aware of the consequences immediately. Once I read the GNU philosophy and started reading more about free software, I started using gplv3 again

deleted by creator

That’s long overdue. Many removed it in favor of flatpaks. There were still some minor issues with flatpak. I guess those are resolved now

I was curious. Not mocking you :)

I could imagine living in a valley, or an alpine hut.

What’s a/your use case?

Family Feudora

I run grapheneos since a couple of years and I love it.