Just wanted to add, when I’m travelling I very much enjoy it when a town has up to date cafes/restaurants. That’s why my highest priority when I contributing to OSM is adding cafe/restaurant information.

Just checking is this sarcasm or a genuine reply?

It’s been 11 months and I haven’t heard any talk about Manjaro for a while, not much about Endeavouros either. I’m sure Endeavouros is still a good choice but Cachyos has become really popular and I have started using it as my first arch based distro and it’s great so far.

uv and pyproject.toml is so much easier than pip and requirements.txt

Why did it spike so much in just the last few months? That is a huge change!

I think your right it is indeed vibe coded, and vibe code does mean it’s bad by default. If it’s made using AI assistance and a developer that knows what there doing is checking over what the AI writes, then it can be fine. But this person advertised they made it using there very own vibe coded vibe coding software!.

Just because AI was used in the development process doesn’t mean it is bad. Doesn’t mean it’s good either but you can’t just ignore it because AI had something to do with the process. Things being made by humans doesn’t make it good either people can write really bad code.

The straw manning in this thread is amazing.

Linus allowing AI? This means the linux kernal will be flooded with unverified slop!

with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it.

Ok regardless of your opinion on AI this is just stupid. No one is forking and maintaining the entire linux kernal.

In the absence of drugs, theirs always installing arch linux.

Fuck cars is pretty cool though.

🏴‍☠️

I suppose so, but in that case either red or yellow is a primary colour not both. And since we are viewing this on an addative screen red is the primary colour.

Yellow isn’t a primary colour.

The current GNU coreutils have been C for decades, and I am not aware of an instance where this was a limiting factor. The GNU coreutils can still be bundled with proprietary software. Just like some Linux distributions used to come bundled with proprietary Nvidia drivers.

Can you possibly find an example where the Licensing the rust coreutils under the GPL would be an issue? Or actually any example at all of where using the GPL is a bad thing?

MIT License isn’t giving up Open Source, as all Open Source projects with MIT prove it.

I literally just described an example of it giving up open source. Any project under the MIT (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat) license can become proprietary at any time and all development is no longer open source! How is my example of apple using FreeBSD without contributing not an example of giving up open source? If you would like I can find more examples. So far you havn’t given me any for your own evidence but I would like some so I can understand your argument better.

Also applogies for the late replies, I hope you don’t mind too much.

Oh okay thanks for the correction, I should revise my understanding of the difference between copyright and copyleft.

Because the license has other strengths as well.

What are it’s strengths?

So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.

The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.

If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.

And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.

I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.

Think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?

Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.