Re: Linux advocacy

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2024-09-30 3:40 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 07:29 this Monday (GMT):

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:37:56 -0400, Joel wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

It has Unix within it, I grant that ...

>
No, it has the legal right to use the “Unix” trademark, which is not
quite what normal people mean when they say “It’s a Unix system, I know
this!”.

>
That's not really true, you can do anything with it ...

>
Not quite. Apple is insisting on signed software now, so users of Open
Source have to negotiate continual off-putting warnings about “untrusted”
apps every time they try to install something.

 
Not surprised.

>
There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
damage of malware. Open-source will probably work as long as the
software is listed in the Apple Store though.

If they're pushing the Apple Store and digital signatures that hard, I
dare say both Winblows and macOS are obsolete, to people who want a
good computer.  Linux has literally taken sole possession.  (Think:
Copilot+.)

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.