Yes, but that amounts to the same thing. The restrictions that prevent you from manually overriding it are there to prevent any app from freely overriding it. There’s a way to only explicitly allow you to manually override it, and that’s the way that’s currently being built and requires ecosystem support.

Because if it is freely overridable (which it used to be, on X), other apps can override it as well - including malicious apps. The portal adds an explicit path that ensures that the user is in control, but does need to see wider adoption first. Which will surely be helped by GNOME support.

From what I’ve seen if FDP and BSW don’t make the threshold, it’s more likely that CDU/CSA and SPD will have a majority with just the two of them.

There’s always talk about that (see alternative 2), but that could block packaging core apps as Flatpaks.

Ha OK, I don’t know what ozon is and I don’t think I’ve had to edit .desktop files so far, so I’m probably good. I’m on Silverblue, so I suppose they’re still doing system installs, or are looking at existing packages and following their lead.

Thanks for the clarification!

Wait, if I run flatpak list --system --columns=application, it looks like all my Flatpaks are system Flatpaks. Running flatpak list --user --columns=application shoulds just a couple of platform packages. What am I missing out on? What is this needed for:

like forcing crappy electron apps to use wayland

(Either way, thanks for writing up a detailed guide!)

we remain committed to being the responsible steward of the Chromium project

https://blog.chromium.org/2025/01/announcing-supporters-of-chromium-based.html?m=1

So this neutral space is still subservient to Google’s whims.

And llamafile is a binary you can just download and run, no installation required. “Uninstallation” is deleting the file.

I think it’s for the Hacker News crowd that’s always clamoring for smaller phones, or phones with a physical keyboard. Potentially for parents to give to their young children, to be able to contact them without getting them addicted to screens right away.

Not sure how big those markets are though.

It’ll be at the hands of whatever jurisdiction the forker is in. It’s not like you can escape governments.

No, I’m telling people not to suspect anything, because we don’t know anything.

This is all hypothetical

Yes, that is exactly my point: let’s not get all worked up about something where we have almost zero facts. Although:

open source is beholden to western laws and corporate practices

is definitely the case for the Linux Foundation: it’s beholden to US laws. And wake-up call or not, a foundation would always be incorporated somewhere, and beholden to the laws of that somewhere.

Oh geez, this the third reply by the same account… Again, I’m just saying that we don’t know whether the contributors were assumed guilty, or if they have actual ties to sanctioned companies.

I am literally saying the opposite: I am saying that it’s not clear that this applies to all Russians, or just ones that are sanctioned.

No, I’m saying that if the banned people are only banned because they’re associated with the Russian government (/employed by sanctioned companies), then I’m not going to get outraged over the kernel maintainers. I do not expect them to break the law just to die on this hill.

I would get it if he would have simply stated that the Linux Foundation needs to abide by the sanctions

I mean, that’s basically what he said:

If you haven’t heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read the news some day.

Doesn’t sound like they banned Russians in general, just people employed by sanctioned companies.

Honestly I wish that was a principle that the internet embraced more. We’re so trigger-happy to be outraged.

I don’t see what this has to do with my comment. I see no indication that all Russians are blanket-banned.

…and we don’t know whether they’re the former or the latter, no? So maybe a little early to get outraged?

I use Pika Backup to backup my home to this super cheap cloud host.