Tab Stash. Don’t need nor will ever need anything else.

I haven’t heard of this before. How does it compare to Obsidian or Notion?

I much prefer it over grub. I don’t think there’s any other bootloader’s that support btrfs snapshots.

I think flatpaks are good. The performance penalty for containerized software can be felt much more when you’re not using a good CPU. So containers do not “solve” my use case.

Could you pass me a link to an example setup?

“subvolume - cannot be snapshotted if it contains any active swapfiles”

Make a subvolume only for the swapfile.

has a chance to fragment

This is true for all files. Is it a bigger problem for swap?

has issues with hibernation (that I’ve personally encountered multiple times)

This one I can’t refute. How long ago did you have these issues?

Mount options also only take effect on the first mount of the device. Since it looks like you only have 1 btrfs device - only / needs the options, really.

I didn’t know this. Thanks!

Yeah it’s supported. It’s listed in the docs for btrfs and arch.

The fee could be really small but scale depending on factors like business size. Or there could be no fee outright for businesses smaller than a certain size.

Well the question is, how would such a license look like? Or would it be a contract and not a license?

I guess I should ask a lawyer these questions, but I wanted to see what others here thought about the idea.

Let’s not be nihilist here. It’s better to come up with solutions than to give up.

they only use Linux because it’s free. Companies create hardware on Linux because it’s free

Companies use open source software because it’s the cheapest option. It’s all about margins.

Nearly all of FOSS is funded by corporations whether you like it or not

Yes, and FOSS can get a lot more funding if they charged companies even a little bit.

So as long as it’s cheaper to pay a fee to continue to use an open-source software than it is to hire a group of developers to produce and maintain the same thing, the idea is viable.

In my opinion, the issue is that a cell phone is such a free-software-hostile environment that arguably GPL software shouldn’t “be allowed to” come into contact with it in any capacity if the spirit of the GPL were being upheld.

How are phones free-software-hostile? I know IOS is, but Android not really. There’s a list of open source Android distributions. Although not very good, they are viable.

Actually, maybe making it a realistic possibility to drop in a recompiled replacement should be a part of the GPL. I remember people were talking about this decades ago

It does feel out of place how that isn’t in the GPL.

If current licenses have the problem that big companies just ignore the terms set out in the license, I wouldn’t imagine making a new sort of license with different terms like “big companies have to pay to get the benefit of using Pots-Open Source software” is really going to work.

It’s more that they avoid the spirit of the licensing, not the terms (except Red Hat of course).

I suppose you can split this into two separate arguments:

• Swap from licenses to more enforceable contracts

• Have companies pay open source devs

Yeah pretty much

If you had also read the article BTW you would have realized that spoilers: it’s not about source code availability.

You saw the first few paragraphs about the Red Hat drama and didn’t read further.

Reading the whole thing you’d realize it’s a list of reasons why open source software hasn’t become popular with the wider public, and his proposed solution to this.

I just included the idea he is proposing, others can read the article to see his reasoning.

Don’t you need FAT 32 for compatibility?

ext4 boot partition? Does that mean you have Coreboot, not UEFI?

I’m interested in a long time investment that will grow as I will

As long as you pick up shortcuts from any editor you’re used to and can implement them or something similar in any hackable editor, you’re growing long term.

Emacs and (Neo)Vim have passed the test of time and I honestly don’t think they’ll cease to exist in the upcoming decades

Neovim will exist on account of being a lightweight refresh on Vim that, due to issues with the Vim owner, was able to gain enough momentum to take off.

Emacs I’m not so sure. If you’ve checked the news anytime for Doom Emacs, you can see the maintainer mentioning how it’s become progressively difficult to maintain the project. I’d imagine it’s a similar story for plugins and other derivatives. People have attempted remaking Emacs from scratch, but there was not enough momentum for it, so that went under.

There are a lot of beautiful plugins for both Emacs and Vim that personally, I wish could exist as programs separate from these editors. Have you had a look at the design philosophy behind Kakoune?

“Kakoune is expected to run on a Unix-like system alongside a lot of text-based tools, and should make it easy to interact with these tools. For example, sorting lines should be done using the Unix sort command, not with an internal implementation.”

This would stop so many tears being shed for deprecated plugins if they just focused on being a separate program that can interact with whatever code editor you want, be it VSCode, Vim, Emacs, etc.

I also recommend reading this article here that goes more in-depth on this point and has a comparison of vim, helix and kakoune.

God’s Grace, I can finally unprivate my Steam.