>>34765"Eschewing higher-quality software in favor of the FSF's nebulous concept of "software freedom" is actually existing idealism."
It's not idealism because it is actually existing, software already works on glibc and GNU, all professional FOSS and games work on GNU, but not BSD userlands or plan9.
we already have a working standard that ensures user freedom, using anything else and contributing to it is fascist fragmentation
"you do realise busybox has the same license as linux, right?" not a good thing by the way, GPLv2 is simply the best we have right now, Hurd will be stable in 2-3 years though so I won't have to care anymore.
"This shit has been shown to actively rot your brain, so enjoy it while it lasts. See the recent rsync regressions."
noone above 50 and is a distinguished compscientist/engineer is going to have their brain "rotted", years of school and work would have already built your attention span.
Also, pray tell, how are you going to achieve any sort of cybersecurity if LLMs can find exploits at x1000 the speed you can patch them without using the same exact LLMs? the cat's out of the bag already
"corporate-driven"
corporate-driven =/= infringing on user freedom
"software companies no longer need licenses to project ownership onto a project,"
what? yes they do lol, the only reason Android got like that is because of Apache. Android is the operating system and Linux is the kernel.
this is why - a rational person makes sure that their operating system contains as much GPL-licensed code as physically possible.
If you statically or dynamically link your proprietary code directly against a GPLv3-licensed library or component, your application generally becomes a derivative work and must also be licensed under the GPLv3.