Wallpaper, yeah, there’s a lot of that going around. The main feature discussed with the recent new release of apt discussed colour as the primary new feature. No mention of any actual substantive changes or reference to the impact on apt-get et al., or even a link to the detailed change log.

I started using Linux every day in 1999 and I’m glad I did.

Managing a Linux server is no different from managing a Linux desktop. If you were to consider the GUI nothing more than a display layer over the top of a server, you’d have a good mental map of how things work.

To get started, use the same desktop distro as your server and use their preferred or default windowing system.

Once you’ve familiar with it and the pitfalls it comes with, you’ll know which questions to ask for your next choice, but you will be able to build on what you already know.

It appears to be an attempt to monetize open source software, something which should in my opinion be applauded, given the trillions of dollars made off the backs of software developers who contributed to OSS without ever getting compensation, something that’s required to have a roof over your head and food to eat.

Another approach being attempted in this space is by Bruce Perens (of Open Source fame).

He’s calling his efforts Post Open: https://postopen.org/

Disclaimer: I contributed to the community conduct document.

If you open your CPU up to a jailbreak by being a dumkopf, does that really count as Open Source?

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/you-can-now-jailbreak-your-amd-cpu-google-researchers-release-kit-to-exploit-microcode-vulnerability-in-zen-1-to-zen-4-chips

Nothing and everything.

There are thousands if not millions of open source solutions scattered around society. Some are feature complete, most are not. Some are maintained, many are not. A handful are funded, the rest is not.

What open source needs, more than anything else is fundraising and the means to distribute those funds to the tune of the trillions of dollars that the corporate world extracts in profits from those open source efforts.

In other words, the people who make this need to get paid.

Firefox terms and conditions, Red Hat, and several other projects that have caused uproar through the community, are all caused by the need to get paid to eat food and have a roof over your head whilst you contribute to society and give away your efforts.

This sounds like a trap.

It’s free unless you fail the test.

Have you considered what is driving this change?

Looking from the sidelines, I think it’s all about money, specifically, how to make the development of Firefox sustainable. Yes, I’m aware of the cynical view that this is about lining the pockets of the CEO, I have no evidence for this.

I think that’s essentially caused by how we have licensed open source software and had limited resources to combat abuse at the industrial scale that silicon valley companies have monetized other people’s work.

Bruce Perens is attempting to erect “Post Open”, but I’m not yet sure if that is going to solve the fundamental issues.

Disclaimer: I’ve worked a little on the community standards document for the post open project.

I’m familiar with Linux, having used it daily since 1999.

I’m referring to the research about tech workers thinking that MacOS is based on Linux.

What I find more shocking about this assertion is that I have no facts to back it up, but I believe it, and I’m not surprised.

Of course someone here has a link to some actual research … right?

When you pipe the output, it’s a single shot, no dynamic updates.

The top command will tell you what each process is using in terms of CPU and memory. You can log this to a database and analyse it as required.

I’d be surprised if the Android battery application was anything different.

Satellite TV is transmitted as DVB-S. Normally the TV itself does not decode it, but an external box.

How is the Satellite signal getting to your TV?

Except that the idea is that you cannot get data in or out of the corporate network. Depending on how it’s implemented will determine how successful that is.

Regardless, you’re likely to lose your job if it’s detected without written permission and even then it’s likely to turn into a security pissing match.

From having played with the remote desktop offering from AWS, it’s a Windows Server running a terminal session. It’s likely heavily locked down and on its own network with likely no inbound network connectivity.

Similarly, the compute nodes are likely to be locked down to only accept connections from the remote desktop network.

It all depends on what the brief was to whomever set it up.

You might be able to do some shenanigans with the web browser on the remote desktop, but for my money, I’d just open your browser, set it to full screen and forget about how your keystrokes are travelling.

Ultimately, unless you’re a shareholder, it’s their money.

And for the record, it might be that the IT department doesn’t want you to run your own SSH session for a bunch of very good reasons.

I have no idea what Bazzite is.

The error says that there’s a missing file. If it used to work, but after you updated, upgraded, compiled, installed or something to get a new kernel, it broke.

I’m guessing that you installed the wrong kernel or didn’t update the initial ramdisk correctly.

You might be able to boot using the previous kernel, but I’d start with trying to figure out what you did to get here.

You should be able to boot from the installation media in rescue mode to fix this, but that won’t happen until you know what’s broken.

It seems appropriate to describe Facebook itself as a cybersecurity threat because of the OS platform it runs on. Perhaps they should also ban all the technologies named on this page … just to be safe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

More info:

https://distrowatch.com/weekly-mobile.php?issue=20250127#sitenews

I think that what you’re looking for is “CPU affinity”, but that is not something I know anything about.

In the 40+ years I’ve been playing with computers, I’ve always let the OS worry about where and when to run a process and only rarely do I renice a process that needs to run, but not at the expense of everything else.

A Docker container is a security framework. The process running “inside” the container is just a Linux process like any other.

So, as I understand it, the performance will be identical to a process that is running “outside” a container, subject to the overhead associated with any security restrictions.

To answer your post title question, I suspect that at this point it seems counterintuitive to introduce complexity in an environment already rife with exploits.

It’s not like it’s a new idea either. Microsoft published research on this in 2009, 16 years ago.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-multikernel-a-new-os-architecture-for-scalable-multicore-systems/

The abstract on that link holds the promise of many benefits, but it appears to carefully avoid specific claims, which makes me wonder if the idea ran into unexpected hurdles, which is common in software development.

The abandonment of the Barrelfish project is probably an indicator that this is an idea that didn’t pan out.

Having said that, I haven’t dug into kernel development over the past 40 years of my career, so it might well be that aspects and nuances of this idea were adopted and are in common use.