ulkesh

That's because it's pure bullshit. And this repo will be deleted or abandoned in a month.

Again, good luck :)

Pretty subjective that what you're advocating is "right" and not just simple opinion. It also is easily construed as semantics with little benefit to argue. But I admire your convictions. Good luck.

Interview wasn't bad. I especially like Torvalds's take on meetings and interruption of flow.

Going to be pretty lonely on that hill.

And Monopoly is insanely easy to win. Just never buy hotels, and buy all the houses. They’re purposefully limited as a resource.

This article sounds a decade old.

systemd attempts to cover more ground instead of less

Have I got news for the author about the kernel he seems to have no issue with. (Note: I love the Linux kernel, but being a monolith, it certainly covers more ground instead of less, so the author's point is already flawed unless he wants to go all Tanenbaum on the kernel, too)

When I can set that up for my AppleTV to block ads on YouTube, I’ll be happy to use it.

I already answered that first question.

And then all those app store fronts that say whether a flatpak is verified or not is inducing fear and/or guilt and is therefore bad UX. It's not, but you are free to have your opinion.

Have fun then, I'm done wasting my time here.

I didn’t say it was more secure, I said it’s about the same.

The difference is a person being forced to go to a website to download software means more steps and more time to consider the safety of what they’re doing. It’s part psychological.

Not all such packages are retrieved from GitHub, I remember downloading numerous .deb files direct over the past 25 years (even as recent as downloading Discord manually some years back).

The main point I’m making is that you should legally protect yourself, it’s a low and reasonable effort.

It’s a cool concept, but automation breeds laziness (by design, to an extent) and lazy end users tend to shoot themselves in the foot. So it isn’t great for security, but it also isn’t that much worse for security :)

Since some people with money tend to be litigious, and, of course, I am not a lawyer, I would advise a warning message (or part of the license if you don’t want to muck up your CLI), if you don’t have one, to force the user to accept and acknowledge that the software they are installing using this tool is not verified to be safe.

When there exists an operating system that can satisfy that qualification, I'll concede the point. Until then, OEM and retail support is what matters.