Bold of you to assume he started with actual data
Bold of you to assume he started with actual data
Ah yes, it was all a false flag, instigated by the government to take away our freedoms, I get it
Ah yes, why are people so silly as to use Grub, the single most widely used bootloader in the Linux universe, we should blame that poor choice when they have problems with arch
Lol “Nobody cares about Snap vs Flatpak” says dude who cares about Wayland vs X
this has nothing even remotely to do with patents, fam
but it is indeed bullshit.
the purpose of a “trademark” is to prevent the public from being deceived about what they’re purchasing, so you can’t sell “Big Macs” on your own because the public might be deceived into thinking they were purchasing a product from McDonalds, which (I assume) has trademarked the use of “Big Mac” for fast food.
I HIGHLY doubt the Linux Foundation owns the trademark for “Segmentation Fault” with respect to random merch, so… yeah 100% bullshit
(The image does also say “Linux IP” in addition to “Linux Trademark” and I wonder what the hell that is supposed to mean, since “IP” covers a multitude of dissimilar things, maybe it’s just a vague handwavy assertion they make in order to make a takedown without particularly justifying it?)
You can still make websites, fam. And you can go to websites other people have made. Nothing ever changed there. You just left it behind and went onto social media.
Also if you’re banned from a place, you’re not in a “void that is inescapable,” you’re just not in that place anymore. You can go to other places. If you think not being on a particular piece of social media is a “void that is inescapable,” you’ve decided that everything outside that social media system is a “void,” and that’s on you.
There are a lot of distros which are more focused on old hardware than Mint, but Mint definitely wins in the “this distro will be familiar and discoverable to people who are used to Windows” department. If it works, it’s great for that reason.
Do you live in a country where the government would put a gun to YouTube’s head and say 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP BROADCASTING THIS MAN’S CHANNEL, PUT ADS ON IT, AND SHARE THE AD REVENUE WITH HIM, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME"?
That seems weird.