beojan

> While it may technically be possible under certain circumstances, I find it very hard to image how a piece of legislation could be crafted that would successfully override the arguments made here.

Something along the lines of "The issuance of general warrants is expressly permitted," perhaps? The principles of constitutionality may be similar, but the amendment process isn't, it simply requires an Act of Parliament.

> As an aside, HN comments with nothing to say except CSS comments is so shameful.

I see two top-level comments of this sort, and they're both at "I can't read it" severity.

One of the best things about CVMFS is the idea of LCG views which are coherent installations of a large number of packages. This more or less eliminates the need for package management and guarantees that someone else can reproduce your environment.

It's like Stackage LTS releases, but everything's installed already.

I expect if you are offered the Oxford/AZ vaccine and refuse it, you would not later be offered one of the mRNA vaccines.

Everything's been pre-ordered (at least in the west) so I doubt price will be a key factor.

In this case its more of an LLVM / no stable ABI issue.

That is the type of thing Google (and Wolfram Alpha) tries to do now.

`curl | bash` downloads an installation script and runs it as it's being downloaded, with no opportunity to read the script and ensure it does nothing malicious, and has no inadvertent bugs that could cause damage.

I think LGPLv3 has anti-tivoization provisions. That said, I don't see how Gtk's license has anything to do with The Qt Company's recent antics. I'm in no way advocating people choose Gtk over Qt.

I'd guess they really want to get rid of the LGPL option (which was introduced when Qt was owned by Nokia and presumably they were more interested in Qt as a platform to develop their own products on than as a revenue stream), but the KDE Free Qt agreement means they can't just get rid of it.

> which is a shitty thing to do when you're not a mom&pop shop but a company like...

Why? That's the whole point of LGPL, it doesn't matter how big you are, so long as your users can replace your copy of Qt with a modified copy you can use it under LGPL.

Your software would have to be very locked down to preclude using LGPL libraries.

No, the deceleration on hitting the ground is a lot more than 1g.

He didn't steal bitcoin, he stole giftcards (/ codes) and tried to use bitcoin to launder the proceeds. Evidently it didn't work.

> If anything, you’d fear that Brother’s software [e.g. drivers] would suck even worse than everyone else’s; but somehow, it doesn’t.

On Linux it certainly does. For some reason I can use network printing on my Brother laser from Windows and even Android, but not Linux.

Proprietary doesn't mean it's anyone's full time job.

How does this relate to Qt? I see that both founders worked for Trolltech and your other reply says SixtyFPS uses Qt styles on desktop (all Qt styles or just the ones shipped with Qt?) so clearly there's a close connection there. Does it build on top of Qt or is it a replacement, and if it is a replacement is it source / binary compatible?

> In other words, I'm not aware of a permissive license that's the same as BSD/Apache with the only difference in that also says "use it as you wish but you must mention my name when you're a commercial enterprise making a splashy product announcement".

There is: the four-clause (original) BSD license (https://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-4-clause/). Pretty much no one uses it anymore because things quickly get unwieldy if you have to mention ten or twenty projects you used code from in all advertising.

Yes? You pay monthly, not just once on signup.

NordVPN's ads have made it onto TV, and a lot of TV ads nowadays are for gambling. Nevertheless it certainly is easier to regulate advertising if it isn't dynamic.

Spacemacs is actually quite a bit slower than it probably needs to be (by which I mean "slower than Doom emacs [https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs]").

You could always dual boot.

In large bodies of code, you might not notice the warnings if they weren't errors.

You can't be ruined if you can only lose a percentage of what you bet.

I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of US desktops were Windows. Their users are probably also less tech literate than the Mac users.

Not just Perl. Curses is what most TUIs on *nix are built in. It's a C library with a few different implementations.

> rg

Never going to happen because it's written in rust. ag (https://github.com/ggreer/the_silver_searcher) on the other hand is written in C.

I think you misunderstand me, I think the LGPL is a perfectly good license for Qt and I have little sympathy for those who aren't willing to abide by it (not least because Qt is a rather large library, and there's no excuse for every application to load its own copy).

> Decide to go commercial, then pay accordingly upstream.

Hmm. The commercial license actually prohibits starting development under one of the open source licenses then switching to commercial. If you start under an open source license, you'll need to abide by the LGPL if you decide to go closed source (and of course what you've already released remains open source).

> I needed to open a browser and agree to some inane ToS or watch an ad, or something, before I could get unadulterated Internet access.

This is pretty common for public WiFi.

It would be misleading to call Qt the fruits of the labour of (the current) Qt Company.

It is licensed under the LGPL though (however much its current owners may want to change this, they can't because of the KDE Free Qt agreement), which means you don't have to pay. All you have to do is dynamically link to the library instead of statically linking.