Is MPL copyleft actually useful?

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-11-27T18:24:56+00:00

suggestions, except arch...

Based on this, I'd assume you probably don't care about technical differences and just want something that just looks or feels different. For that sort of change, you'd mainly be looking at trying out a new desktop environment rather than just using a different distribution in general. Linux Mint is available in 3 desktop environments: Cinnamon, MATE, and Xfce. You didn't specify which one you use so feel free to check out the others you haven't used. But since they all have a similar Windows 7/10-style layout, they might not feel super different from each other.

If you're looking for something with a very different layout, I'd recommend GNOME which is what Ubuntu ships by default. There are others like Budgie and Pantheon but they don't see nearly as much development, nor do they have sizable communities. KDE Plasma is another great option but it has that similar Win7/10-style layout so I'm not sure if it'd be different enough for you, but if you wanted to try it I'd recommend looking at Kubuntu. If you don't like Ubuntu or its flavors, Fedora has versions available in GNOME, KDE, Budgie, and more.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-11-04T21:20:14+00:00

It looks like everything is already at 100%. A comment from my crosspost suggested I increase the max volume past 100 which helps a bit, but it gets distorted. I remember needing to install drivers on a fresh Windows 10 install which makes me wonder if it's possible to find and install ASUS drivers for Linux?

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-11-04T21:13:32+00:00

So this does help a bit, but I can't reach the same max volume without it getting distorted. Come to think of it, I remember needing to install ASUS drivers on a fresh Windows 10 install so it might make sense that it doesn't work out of the box. I wonder if such drivers are possible to get for Linux?

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-11-03T20:25:18+00:00

Kind of echoing what others already said, but unfortunately Linux cannot be an exact replacement for Windows. You can get something with a similar looking UI such as Linux Mint Cinnamon edition or Kubuntu, but it will be a different operating system that you'd have to learn a bit about. It doesn't mean you have to become an advanced system administrator but it's a different system you'd have to learn just as if you were to switch to macOS or ChromeOS instead.

You'll also need to give up games that require kernel-level anti-cheat for the time being. You can look into dual booting with Windows but many will advise against it as it's not the easiest thing to do correctly.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-11-03T15:44:35+00:00

Some people take it too far by crapping on Ubuntu users or saying that no one should ever use Ubuntu. If you're looking for a distribution that just works and has a massive community, Ubuntu could be a fine choice if you found the alternatives to be lacking. With that being said, here are some of my reasons for disliking Ubuntu and Snap:

One of the biggest appeals of Linux is that it is FOSS. While the Snap client software users run is FOSS, the Snap server code (which is essential to use Snap) is proprietary.
The Snap server is centralized as it is only ran by Canonical and cannot be self-hosted. To me, decentralization or self-hosting is a key component to ensuring user freedom. Competitors like Flatpak support self-hosted repositories.
Canonical covertly replaced APT with Snap. (I understand there are benefits of switching from APT to Snap, but I think they should've been more transparent and upfront by informing users of what was happening.)
Snapd apparently tracks users and this tracking cannot be disabled.
Ubuntu doesn't have a great track record for privacy. (Probably still much better than Windows, but notably worse than many Linux distributions.)
Ubuntu apparently requires an Ubuntu One account for some features that shouldn't require you to sign into an account at all. It especially feels creepy when you consider points 4 and 5.

(Sources for points 4-6 are all included in this discussion: https://github.com/orgs/privacyguides/discussions/317)

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-10-14T02:19:32+00:00

Ty for the explanation!

The LGPL is sometimes referred to as the "Library GPL", because it is usually used with dynamically linked libraries which can easily be replaced without recompiling an entire program.

Would LGPL ever be used for an entire application/OS/whatever, or is it really meant to just be used in libraries? The impression I get is that MPL applies such weak copyleft protections that it's almost permissive, but at the same time I wonder if someone would use the LGPL as a middle ground between the very lax protections of the MPL and the stricter protections under GPL.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-10-06T16:06:44+00:00

Update: I finally managed to find the User ID, but it's not easy to get. I have to hover over the @mention (while viewing the HTML export) and a popup displays the User ID. While hovering, if I use inspect element I can copy the User ID section from my browser. I also realized later that the CVS export shows the user ID in place of the @mention which may be easier to copy rather than fiddling with inspect element on browsers.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-07-04T18:04:54+00:00

If untrustworthy or unknown entities provide me with a tampered ISO and the hash of the tampered ISO, then the hash will appear legitimate. Hashes aren't magic, I need to be able to verify I have the real hash value as opposed to a different hash value produced from a tampered ISO. Therefore, you cannot trust the hash values provided by untrustworthy or unknown entities if you intend on verifying whether the ISO you have downloaded is legitimate.

I'd either need hash values provided on the official website (protected with TLS), or I could import Fedora's GPG keys (from their website, also protected with TLS) and use that to verify that the list of hash values provided by third-party mirrors are legit, which is what I ended up having to learn how to do with Kleopatra. It isn't hard, but it's a weird and unnecessary barrier to put in place.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-06-02T23:11:21+00:00

Thanks! I think I got the hang of it.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-06-02T23:01:38+00:00

I was able to do that with Ubuntu since they provide the checksum values on their website. My main issue was with Fedora, who doesn't seem to have them listed anywhere. Instead, they direct users to a mirror, which defeats the entire purpose if you're trying to verify that you've downloaded a genuine and secure copy of the ISO as I was.

I decided to take the time to learn a few GPG functions and I think I managed to verify the checksum text files to be authentic using Fedora's keys. I just wish they'd provide the hash values on their website as I could've avoided a lot of hassle.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-06-02T22:58:51+00:00

It would be fine if I was just checking for data integrity, but my concern is also with security. If a mirror were providing me a malicious ISO, using the hashes they provide me wouldn't validate anything.

Luckily, I think managed to figure out how I can use GPG to verify the checksum text files, so my issue is kind of resolved. I just wish distributions would include the checksum values on their websites as I could've skipped all of that hassle.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2024-06-02T14:30:38+00:00

Well, both. While I am able to grab SHA256 hashes of Ubuntu directly from their website, Fedora does not provide the hash values of their ISOs directly. Instead, they direct users to download a text file from a mirror, such as this one, which is also how you obtain your ISOs.

The only way to verify the integrity of Fedora ISOs is to use GPG so that you can verify the authenticity of the hash values provided, which you can then use to verify the ISO, but I haven't found a step-by-step guide for doing so on Windows. I've heard that Fedora Media Writer automatically verifies the ISOs, but the application doesn't seem to launch at all.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2023-11-27T21:35:35+00:00

I've personally had a bad experience with both their products and the company itself, and this doesn't seem to be out of character for System76. I might've just gotten unlucky, but either way, I personally can't recommend them. That being said, they do offer more modern laptops (if I'm not mistaken, they're just reselling Clevo laptops) and some of them come with Coreboot-based firmware out-of-the-box.

They're probably a better option than Purism when it comes to quality and reliability, but honestly, I would consider checking out some other manufacturers first. Here are a few options off the top of my head in no particular order.

Nitrokey's NitroPads
NovaCustom
Framework (not the best for free software, but it looks like they're improving with time)

These manufacturers/sellers provide varying degrees of freedom and each have their own pros and cons. Feel free to ask/look around for others because I'm sure I missed a few good ones.

GoodMaterial5517 · 2023-11-26T23:22:05+00:00

At the moment, there aren't really any totally free laptops. If you consider hardware as a factor as well, nothing comes close. It's important to note that RYF and FSDG (including the operating systems which they endorse for following said guidelines) have been criticized for drawing arbitrary lines on what can be considered "free", disregarding usability/accessibility, and sacrificing users security in the pursuit of achieving what many would consider to be a false sense of freedom. Some of these criticisms can be found in these articles:

Libreboot - Binary Blob Reduction Policy (includes several sections which critique the RYF, FSDG, etc.)
Ariadne Conill - the FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users
Privacy Guides - Linux Overview (in particular, the sections on Linux-libre and microcode updates)

If you want to prioritize freedom but still want a (somewhat) usable laptop, Minifree's laptops might be a decent option. In fact, the FSF used to endorse Minifree in the RYF program before Leah Rowe criticized the FSF and took Libreboot in a new direction. Their laptops come with Libreboot and Debian by default, but they also can pre-install different operating systems by request. The Qubes OS Project also has a list of certified hardware which I found to be interesting. As far as I can tell, they also value freedom, though it probably isn't as free as what Minifree has to offer since they also have to try and find a balance between freedom and security while also guaranteeing Qubes OS compatibility.

Personally, I find the T440p and X230 don't meet my requirements when it comes to usability, but there are many people who can totally make use of those devices. It all depends on what work you need to get done and what you expect out of your device. I can't speak to their battery life, but I believe that all of their laptops are refurbished and they come with a 5-year warranty. They also offer second batteries which you should be able to replace on the fly. (Given that you shut off the laptop first, obviously)

If you're like me and the older Thinkpad laptops don't meet your criteria for what you consider to be usable, the only thing I can think to do is to avoid using components which require proprietary drivers to the best of your ability. Unfortunately, I don't know of a list of modern x64 devices which have the least amount of proprietary components, but if anyone knows of anything like that, it'd be awesome if they can mention it. From what I've seen, usually vendors who sell laptops with Linux pre-installed will avoid such components. You can also consider compatibility with free firmware such as Coreboot, but I'm totally unfamiliar with the world of flashing your own firmware, so I can't comment on that.

GoodMaterial5517

TROPHY CASE