I understood Matthew's position as "this should be discussed in the Workstation WG first", not as a "no":
in favor of the process outlined above (tl;dr: talk to the Workstation WG, and if that does not come to a satisfying outcome, file a Council ticket for next possibilities).
Yeah, NTFS being the problem actually makes a more sense.
OP could also just use the fuse driver then. I'm using it on 5.15 (Linux Mint) and it works quite well. I only had problems when I tried to use it for a Steam library.
You could also try to switch the kernel version. Ubuntu 22.04 currently supports two different versions: 5.15 and 6.5, you could switch to the other one and see if the problem also occurs there.
Nah, it’s been upstream since RHEL locked down. Rocky’s been doing some funky stuff though.
AlmaLinux mostly ships packages that are maintained by Red Hat for RHEL, which is why I called it effectively a downstream. But maybe we can just agree that they're related and it's complicated 😅
Good thing there’s flatpak, snap, appimage, nix, guix, distrobox, etc. to keep you up to date. The question is then: do you mind if your DE and drivers don’t change for years. And that’s perfectly fine for a lot of people.
Yes, the situation has certainly improved, especially for GUI applications. But there's always some trade-offs involved with those alternative packaging options. The nice thing is that you can freely choose if you want such a very-LTS option, or something fresher :)
AlmaLinux is effectively a downstream of RHEL, so it inherits a lot of RHEL's pros and cons. I think, from a technical perspective, it makes a lot of sense for professional applications. It has a rock solid base OS that only changes rarely, which has lead to widespread support among professional (commercial) software. On top of that you get more regular updates to hardware support and (some) applications. You also get very long support times, which can make sense for some use cases.
On the hand, this model certainly also has its downsides. Towards the end of the life cycle, the packages get very old, especially the base OS (e.g. RHEL 7, which goes EOL this year, ships with gcc version 4.8). If you care about having the latest and greatest packages, this is not a distro for you. It's also not clear if Red Hat will try to further crack down on their downstream distros...
Overall, I think it's a good choice for a professional environment, where you don't need bleeding edge packages. Some commercial software also doesn't give you a lot of other options. For personal use, I'd probably look for another distro, unless you're looking for a very slow update cycle.
I would argue that any majoritarian electoral system (winner-takes-all), including ranked choice, incentivizes large parties. There is some nuance between them, but I don't think that ranked choice can fundamentally solve that issue. Sure, you can enter a protest vote, but will it really change anything? I think that parties need realistic changes at gaining (some) power in order to be viable in the long term.
Given that Fedora is a distro that aims to be on the frontier of new features and technologies, the inclusion of KDE seems like a much better fit than Gnome.
Would you mind explaining how introducing ranked choice voting would substantially help smaller/additional political parties? I always find it confusing how much Americans focus on the presidency and ranked choice voting when it comes to breaking the party duopoly. At the end of the day, there is only a single president and he/she will probably always come from one of the largest parties. The presidency somewhat inherently limits the influence of smaller parties.
What I would focus on, if I wanted to increase the number of political parties in the US, is the House of Representatives. If proportional representation (e.g. biproportional appointment, party lists, MMP, ...) was introduced there, it would allow smaller parties to hold real power. (With biproportional appointment, the seats are distributed according to party voter share while also ensuring regional representation). Do you know why this hardly ever comes up in the context of the US?
On paper, those PPA characteristics positions the company’s new Intel 4 process at performance levels better than TSMC N3 and Samsung 3GAE. On the density front, Intel 4 appears highly competitive against N3 high-performance libraries.
The GPL (and AGPL) do place some restrictions on how you can integrate it into another application but this doesn't have anything to do with commercial use.
Basically, if you create a derivative work and publish/sell it, you also need to license it under the AGPL. In case of the AGPL it also applied if you use it to offer a service. But if you only use the unmodified version (same source code) and the intended application interfaces, this does not apply.
Running the application on Windows is clearly allowed. The second case also sounds ok (allowing this is kinda the point of FOSS). However, if you create an improved version of PDFCreater, then you'll need to publish it under the same AGPL license.
I'm not a legal expert, but the AGPL seems to be quite clear on this point:
Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. [...]
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. [...]
However, depending on the exact thing that they said, they may be in violation of the AGPL. Once they have given you (conveyed) a copy of the program, they cannot impose a license fee for the use of the software.
Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. [...]
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation [...]
I'm not sure I follow... Did the Fedora Council actually take a decision?