Telorand

Thank you. That makes sense why some downstream distros designed for specific purposes (e.g. gaming) might include a handful of their own repos for specific software.

I'm not even sure it can, unless they want to pay server operators. Who would do that for free for a for-profit company? And if they're ultimately supported by the top, they're still centralized.

Not that it's super expensive to run a server, but it ain't free; at least in a place like the Fediverse, every transaction is voluntary all the way down to the financial support, because any part may choose to participate or leave as they see fit.

I don't see how BlueSky can replicate that and still chase profit.

How does that work, exactly? I don't actually know. Are they compiling their own copies of the upstream code changes?

linux has this problem of experienced users raining downright useless and often counterproductive advice on noobs.

Not to be rude, but you might want to take your own advice. I see a lot of hyperbole in your two, frankly, rants. "Greybeards" might have ruined your experience, but most people around here just want to help.

Asking the important questions

Imagine sitting down with an AI model for a spoken two-hour interview. A friendly voice guides you through a conversation that ranges from your childhood, your formative memories, and your career to your thoughts on immigration policy. Not long after, a virtual replica of you is able to embody your values and preferences with stunning accuracy.

Okay, but can it embody my traumas?

Does linux support from manufacturer really matter?

Only they can truly answer for themselves, but from a business standpoint, yes. It might. Being able to get support direct from the people who made/sold the laptop, whether it be in the form of a warranty or tech support, could save you from having down time when you need to be working.

Yeah, still a net positive. Not complaining, just informing.

I've just seen the "it's federated ~~(eventually)~~" and "it's a public benefit corporation" tossed around on occasion like they're exonerating evidence, and I would hate to see people get tricked into a false sense of security.

...as a public benefit corporation.

I would encourage everyone to read about what a Benefit Corporation is. It's still for-profit, but being public benefit gives the officers a little protection from shareholders suing them when stock performance goes down. In theory, this protects them from being driven solely by profit.

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

However, there's no real guidance or oversight on whether a company still qualifies for that designation. They can self-audit, they can vote to change to a normal corporation at any time, switch back again, etc. This is not a different tax classification, this is a corporate board promise, and I have no reason to think they'll stay a public benefit corporation, even if they have the best intentions right now.

That's why some people just create their own instances.

True! I forgot about that. Other accounts have used similar functionality.