I disagree. While I totally understand that it is an optional feature that can enabled and enforced only by others, I am not happy that the developers of systemd rushed to include it into the JSON file with the user info. I would expect the developers to be a bit more resistant to requests by two US states and Brazil. Why are they making it so easy? I guess we will see a resurgence of systemd-free dirstros.

No. They are not ready. If all your computers and phones “phone home” with “home” being your adversary’s country (that’s how USA deals with Europe in the last year), then you cannot call yourself a world power. Most PCs in Europe use Windows and MacOS. Almost all phones are either Android or iOS. And even if they managed to replace all the software with locally developed Linux, all recent (last 20 years) x86 PCs have either Intel Management Engine or AMD Security Technology. If they chose to make intensive efforts to replace their systems, computers and phones, it would take at least a decade to achieve this. And even then, the US would likely be able to penetrate their systems. It’s so much easier to yield to the Emperor of the Western World for the perennially submissive European serfs.

This is a very valid reason, indeed.

A lot of things can go wrong. A company can take the free code, change it slightly to work only with a proprietary file type and then use their resources to promote their version and make their proprietary filetype and proprietary program the industry standard. Unfortunately this sounds too familiar. There are even cases that the filetype is an open standard but obfuscated to make it impossible for anyone (including the original FOSS) to open/save it.

When most of your computers have either Windows or MacOS and almost all your phones are either Android or iOS, you cannot have any kind of independence. And even if you ever managed to fix that (unlikely in the foreseeable future), there is Intel Management Engine and AMD Security Tech to ensure that you won’t make a step without Uncle Sam knowing about it.

I’m pretty sure that code written in any language can be licensed under the GPL. That’s why I cannot understand the backlash against Rush for the Kernel.

GPL enforces that all derivatives are FOSS and GPL as well. With permissive licenses, like MIT and Apache, a company is free to take the code, change/develop it further (or leave it as is) and make it closed-sourced without sharing anything with anyone. Regarding Rust, I am with you. Hence my question.

Why do I think that this result has pitched an idea to the UK PM’s head?

Can someone explain to me why Rust has been so controversial for the GNU/Linux kernel? One thing that I personally don’t like is that the equivalent Rust-made (equivalent) GNU tools are licensed under MIT (or Apache? - something permissive like that) instead of GPL. If they were under GPL, I’d be more than happy. But since the kernel is under GPL regardless of C or Rust, what is the reason for the backlash? Sounds like a very promising language indeed.

What is she complaining about? All the countries in the world have been taking and following orders from the US for the last 75 years and have been happy about it. They don’t like offensive comments from the current president. But orders? Just give us more!

That’s strange. I thought FIFA had presented Donald Trump with his Big Beautiful Peace Prize. I am getting confusing messages here.