Patch

ChromeOS is as much Linux as anything else is. It's controlled by a greedy megacorp, but so is Red Hat (IBM) or, idk, Oracle Linux. Yes it's based on an unusual immutable design, but immutable distros are now cropping up out of lots of projects (Fedora, SUSE, Ubuntu, amongst many others, not to mention the Steam Deck). It avoids using the GNU tool chain, but the alternatives that it uses are already used by other Linux distros (like Alpine). It now uses the standard Wayland graphics stack, and is in the process of moving from upstart (a previously widely used Linux init system) to systemd.

It's hard to come up with a definition of "Linux distro" that excludes ChromeOS without excluding a bunch of unambiguously Linux distros too.

I only got on Bluesky a couple of months ago after a long wait, and honestly I don't think I've been on there once since setting up the account. A trickle of my Twitter contacts seemed to move over there in the early days but the trickle dried up and it doesn't look like many people are on there.

I hope it still finds a niche for itself, but the ridiculous invite rationing thing really does seem to have killed the momentum for them.

I've also lost interest in Mastodon, although again I'm willing to give it another go if it continues to grow. Mostly I've just found that I don't really need to replace Twitter in my life; I'm just fine without it...

I don't take selfies, and certainly don't post them to social media, but I still use my front facing camera all the time. Zoom/Teams/WhatsApp video calls are a big part of modern life. That's what the camera's actually for, in the context of being a "phone".

Realistically they never would, and wouldn't have even when the UK was in the EU due to the wider prevalence of other socket types.

But if you want an answer as to why they should, it's because it's an excellent socket design; just about as safe as it's possible to make a mains electricity connection, and practically indestructible to boot.

Exactly. Really, "fully charged" should just be conceptualised as being at a sensible safe point, with the acknowledgement that it's possible to "overcharge" the batteries to an even higher level, chemically speaking, but that all sensible devices don't let you do this.

Yeah, I mean if you want to get picky, the actual i386 processor family hasn't been supported by the Linux kernel since 2012, and was dropped by Debian in 2007.

Most people were generally not particularly affected by that, seeing as the last i386 chip was released in (I think) 1989!

Debian's choice to refer to the whole x86-32 line as i386 has always been a weird historical quirk.

No, this is just about the kernel and the installer/images.

You won't be able to install Debian on an x86-32 computer anymore, but everything you can currently do on an x86-64 install still continue to work.

Not all mainframes are ancient; new models are still designed and sold to this day. And the brand spanking new mainframes may still be running COBOL code and other such antiquities, as many new mainframes are installed as upgrades for older mainframes and inherit a lot of legacy software that way.

And to answer your question: a mainframe is just a server. A specific design-type of server with a particular specialism for a particular set of usecases, but the basics of the underlying technology are no different from any other server. Old machines (mainframes or otherwise) will always consume far more power per instruction than a newer machine, so any old mainframes still chugging along out there are likely to be consuming a lot of power comparable to the work they're doing.

The value of mainframes is that they tend to have enormous redundancy and very high performance characteristics, particularly in terms of data access and storage. They're the machine of choice for things like financial transactions, where every transaction must be processed almost instantly, data loss is unacceptable, downtime nonexistent, and spikes in load are extremely unpredictable. For a usecase like that, the over-engineering of a mainframe is exactly what you need, and well worth the money over the alternative of a bodged together cluster of standard rack servers.

See also machines like the HP Nonstop line of fault-tolerant servers, which aren't usually called mainframes but which share a kinship with them in terms of being enormously over-engineered and very expensive servers which serve a particular niche.

Projects which choose BSD/Apache type licences do so fully in the knowledge that their code may be incorporated into projects with different licences. That's literally the point: it's considered a feature of the licence. These projects are explicitly OK with their code going proprietary, for example. If they weren't OK with it, they'd use a GPL-type copyleft licence instead, as that's conversely the literal point of those licences.

Being mad about your Apache code being incorporated into a GPL project would make no sense, and certainly wouldn't garner any sympathy from most people in the FOSS community.

I'm not enormously bothered by the designs themselves; the new logos look fine, although I preferred the old logo.

But what really bothers me is that they've gone with a whole disjointed mess of different designs for each of their sub-projects. Why on earth wouldn't you take this opportunity to design a coherent family of logos? Bizarre missed opportunity.

Canonical have had it in Ubuntu for years, but it's taken them a while to get it to a point where it could be upstreamed. That's what this news is: that Canonical's patch is finally all clear to be merged.

The poor devs aren't even saying "no". They're just saying "what the hell is going on and why didn't you ask us about this first".

Pretty poor form for the OP to use a "KDE Developer"-badged account when they didn't have any backing from the KDE developers to make the post. Makes it look a lot more official than it actually is.