thank mr skeltal

My c920 now glitches out and refuses to stream video after about 10 minutes of use (mic still works tho). After some unknown long period of time, it resets and works for another 10 minutes

how do I install rpm fusion repos on debian? I only found instructions for fedora and rhel https://rpmfusion.org/Configuration

Stop. You do not want to do this.. While resources published on other sites may be full of information, that information is not always relevant to you. Don’t blindly follow bad advice.

The “rpm” in “rpmfusion” refers to the filetype that Fedora’s built-in package management system, dnf, uses.

You want to use Debian’s builtin package management system, apt, which uses the “deb” filetype.

Here is an explanation of how to add Debian’s “non-free” repository

Do not follow information for other distros unless you know how to extract the bits that are relevant to your distro.

In general, I recommend following the advice from Debian’s wiki or website, then debian’s forums if you can’t find anything there, then debian specific forums elsewhere, then other distro’s wikis, then any other site in a last-ditch effort.

Now that you understand the “why,” here’s the “how”: go back to Debian’s download website and download the appropriate installation image from the bullet point that says

A larger complete installation image:

Reason being: the smaller “netinst” images are made to work generally for most people who can plug their computer into ethernet. It’s made to only use the bare minimum of disk space and get the rest of the files it needs from the internet (the “net” in “netinst”).

You need the installation image that come with the “drivers” (firmware) for your WiFi card already on disk, which should automatically detect your device, find the correct firmware for it, and set up the non-free-firmware repository for you.

If that doesn’t work out for you, you can try manually installing using the guide on Debian’s own wiki, which I found by searching for your wifi card BCM4360

Discount Darger

Lawns:

1. require artificial irrigation that contributes to depletion ofvaquifers

2. create monocultures that reduce biodiversity and harm ecosystems

3. require maintenance that usually involves burning fossil fuels

4. shadeless lawns contribute to warmer neighborhoods

5. act as nitrogen sinks

1. Don’t use hacky unlocks if there’s an official way. The best case scenario is it becomes a headache and isn’t reliable; ghe worst case is that it bricks your phone or installs malware in the bootloader

2. All I could find looking for custom ROMs for your phone was XDA users shrugging their shoulders and unverified downloads from very shady websites/githubs. I’d suggest getting the most out of this phone you can before selling it and getting one you know works with the OS you want

I know it’s bad form to suggest using other software that handles the same functionality instead of suggesting a fix, but it looks like sddm doesn’t have the functionality to change displays at the time of writing.

GDM seems to have a workaround

But it looks like every display manager chooses whichever display based on arbitrary criteria.

In the year 2025
if man is still alive
if woman can survive…

chmod -R 777 my_project_managed_by_git && rm -r my_project_managed_by_git

I’vw become so brainwashed by the FOSS Difference™ that if I see something exclusive to proprietary OSes, I assume it’s 99% marketing and not actually an important nor useful feature. I have no idea what HDR is, but it sounds like a marketing acronym for something that’s done worse than the FOSS equivalent

Also, my life is objectively better since I stopped using Adobe outside work.

I haven’t found a good GUI (Balena’s Etcher is cross platform, but the flatpak never worked for me)

dd has never failed me

sudo dd if=<path to ISO file> of=<path to USB> bs=4M status=progress conv=fsync

(double, triple and quadruple check that the output file, of=, is the correct device with multiple different commands before running this)

I have 2 lenovos (ideapad and yoga) and a pinebook. I’m happy with all of them, though I’m happiest with the pinebook and yoga’s impressive battery lives

While I’m not gonna argue the merits of GPL—it is technically restricting modification, even if there is no practical difference for those only interested in adding/removing functionality—I disagree with the assessment that using the GPL causes harm to the users.

The reasoning seems to be that a 3rd party’s refusal to use the software because of the license, and suvsequent use of a shittier product is somehow the (hypothetical GPL-using) OpenSSH dev’s fault.

The problem is that accepting the premise that the devs are responsible for what people who choose to not use their software do entails that they are then responsible for everyone who uses any type of software tangentially related to OpenSSH’s functionality. It also means that it’s their fault for whatever consequences of using the licenses they currently do, which inevitably drive some people away for various reasons. It also means any potential license (or even lack thereof) is open to the same criticism.

How does it restrict modifying the software?

Without knowing a better way, my go-to solution woukd just be getting an full installation image and diffing my files with the files on it

I couldn’t find any primary source on OpenSSH’s licenses, but wikipedia says “BSD, ISC, Public Domain.”

Both BSD and ISC explicitly grant permissions to modify the software (and redistribute the modified software), and Public Domain means no rights reserved whatsoever, so the mailing list user’s points aren’t relevant to any of the Four Freedoms (aka the Sacred Texts).

Without access to the source email: it looks like it’s a debate about using copyleft licensing instead of BSD/ISC, which is sometimes considered the Fifth Freedom. If you want an argument about that, I’m happy to do so (later), but it isn’t a valid reason for saying some piece of software fails to meet the definition of Free Software.

Did you mean

Is that related to the gpl advocates who criticize BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh at FreeBSD for letting Apple do something (I can’t remember what)?

I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi, I just want to make sure I’m interpreting you correctly and not putting words in your mouth.

Afaik, BSD and MIT licenses qualify as Free Software licenses. I could be wrong; I am not a lawyer, nor am I Richard Stallman.

As for your first question:

Can you explain more?

@rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com did a good summary of the distinction, so I will expand on m$'s role:

By most Free Software advocates’ accounts, the rise of the term “Open Source” was a deliberate move to make proprietary software less of a bitter pill for us radical digital anarchists: “look, our code is _Open and _Transparent (but you still can’t reproduce or modify it, even if you buy a license).” At the same time, Open Source advocates argued that this was the “Shoe-In-The-Door” for Free Software into the corporate/capitalist landscape—it’s not, because it doesn’t actually advocate any of Free Software’s Four Essential Freedoms (Five, if you consider Copyleft to be essential, as I do).

So basically the corporate world took the concept of Free Software, which was starting to be a threat to their businesses, sanitized it of any actual freedom, and sold it back to devs and users as some kind of magnanimous gesture that they were letting us look (but not touch) the code they wrote. Open Source.

M$ has been essential in this shift. Perusing their github, they make it clear that they’re willing to toss projects onto the pile, but make sure as hell to keep the Freedom from infecting any of their larger, popular software (e.g. Office, Visual Studio, Windows). And in return, they get access to whatever code you host on their service, assuming they can interpret vague phrasing in their Privacy Policy loosely enough.

After beginning to wrap my head around atomic immutable OSes, I can’t believe they’re not the standard for most servers. i can’t believe Debian doesn’t have an official atomic and immutable version yet, seems exactly like the kind of stability they aim for

In some dialects, “lemonade” is any citrus soda

They tried to destroy linux and free/libre software, and when that didn’t work, they started cornering the market and pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.” They also support SaaS model, and have made it next to impossible to get a new computer without their mediocre OS. On top of that, their OS is full of spyware, and is starting to become adware too.

But that all pales in comparison to the fact that you do not own your own OS: you can run Microsoft’s OS, but you can’t modify it or share it.

Oh, and this falls more in the realm of personal preference, but the deliberate lack of customizability is a real pain in the ass.

4/10 OS, only slightly better at disguising its capitalist greed than Apple.