Demonstrably untrue. You just don't want to use it because you feel like you're giving up your digital sovereignty, and you're right. You just don't really get a choice for practical purposes. We've been knocked back to the 1970s where your computer is a mainframe in a different building and all you get a dumb terminal. Hopefully in 15 years we'll get our Commodore 64.
I want to DEBOONK or at least FUD up this "subsidized subscription" narrative. People seem to believe that the API rates that they proudly display in your harness are cost, they are certainly not. There are no real numbers. These are private companies. Financial reporting is not required to produce such specific details. It doesn't matter how many bazillions of dollars OpenAI and Anthropic have dumped into training when any random startup can raise money to buy enough NVIDIA cards to run and sell GLM 5.2 or whatever. What is the actual cost of running the model? No one knows. Don't fall for a narrative without proof. All numbers are fake. Just because they're not cash flow positive doesn't mean shit.
Demonstrably untrue. You just don't want to use it because you feel like you're giving up your digital sovereignty, and you're right. You just don't really get a choice for practical purposes. We've been knocked back to the 1970s where your computer is a mainframe in a different building and all you get a dumb terminal. Hopefully in 15 years we'll get our Commodore 64.
You are addicted, stalker child. Your life is already over. Enjoy thin client niggerhell.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyway clearnet might be going up in flames but boy oh boy has this weekend been the gift that keeps on giving. Remember how a while back there was this retarded drama where an Indian welfare leech pretending to be trans to curry gibs from the Canadian welfare state was crying about how Linux Mint refused to remove the Gnome Calendar App, of which he is a developer, or cowtow to his demands? Well, that little exchange ended in a really funny way when Clement, the BDFL of Linux Mint, essentially told him to go pound sand with this funny capstone post:
With the human septic tank felted, things quieted down, but little did we all know that behind shitted streets, a storm was brewing. Two months later, the brown is back with a vengeance, and has posted a large article to his personal blog (L./A.) STILL seething about getting felted by someone whose skin isn't the color of dysentery-addled diarrhea, calling Mint a "hostile fork" and "hostile distribution" for refusing to cowtow to his demands. Throughout the entire thing he constantly uses the royal "WE", referring to the GNOME project, to try and seem more important than the impotent dev of a fucking calendar app. Insecurity runs deep through his sundered izzat, hence why he had to take the time to excuse his shitty, aggressive bloody benchod behavior in the relevant git issue by coping that it was Clement who was arguing against strawmen and that he tooooooooooooooootally didn't come in there trying to swing the weight of GNOME around to pressure a downstream into removing a freely licensed, free software package for no good reason other than he couldn't be bothered to filter bug reports by version.
The article itself reads as you'd expect, tears streaming down his shit-crusted hands at the thought of his ruined izzat, to the point where he consistently levies really whiny verbiage at Mint, implying they are 'leeching off of Debian and Ubuntu' like ?????? its a fork retard what do you expect? Little wonder the GNOME project is staffed by mongrel that literally cannot wipe their own ass. This bit is the funniest one:
Jeet Faggot said: As an upstream, it is a lose-lose situation with hostile downstreams such as Linux Mint and Fedora. Once they start packaging your software, they immediately burn their bridges implicitly. In order to show that they are ‘good’, they only pretend to care about the problem, and keep proposing ‘solutions’ that 1. have nothing to do with the underlying problem, and 2. put on significantly more burden to upstream without putting an equal amount of effort themselves.
The reason there are so little undocumented cases is because many maintainers who deal with hostile downstreams are usually indie-developers that have very little resources and energy to deal with these problems, and have very little to no understanding with trademarks and legality.
They get burned out, stop developing and contributing to free software, and (rightfully) lose hope for the Linux desktop. They do not make any of it public or make a fuss about the situation because they do not feel comfortable to be in the middle of a conflict publicly. All they want is to just enjoy providing goods to the world, but are unfortunately bullied by repackaging fetishists whenever they raise a legitimate issue.
Firstly fucking LOL 'lose hope for the Linux desktop' because the irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind GNOME CALENDAR APP happens to be facing tribulation because of its retarded maintainer, geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeg. Of course, we all know this retard won't ever quit """"""""""""developing""""""""""""""" because it is such an easy izzat farm to bully people by calling yourself "WE" as a GNOME constituent, doubly so when GNOME is full of these kinds of abrasive, intolerable mooks that wouldn't ever THINK of criticizing one of their heckin brave true and honest transfolkx who is toooootally not just a jeet farming gibs, no, no, no. Secondly, I love how Fedora randomly catches a stray because of what I can only assume to be their Cinnamon Spin, which also packages the same version of the GNOME Calendar app as Mint. I haven't found any overt seething from this fag on any Fedora issues, but its still really funny how one he's calling the most GNOME distro of all, second to maybe RHEL, a 'hostile downstream'. Anything to recoup all that lost izzat, I suppose. Here is a full text rip so you don't stain yourself wading through his shitting street:
How far would hostile distributions go to hurt application developers?
TheEvilSkeleton
15–19 minutes
18 July 2026
The Linux desktop has an upstream maintenance problem due to many reasons for it, such as the lack of paid work. No one is entitled to a volunteer’s free time apart from the volunteer themself. This is especially true to volunteers working on upstream projects, as they are at the mercy of downstream distributions, who have the final say.
As an upstream contributor, you have no choice but to meticulously plead for any reasonable request to be granted by difficult downstreams, treating them as if they are some kind of deity. Not doing so with the utmost respect can get you on their naughty list, which they can then use against you just because the license ‘allows’ it and they can get away with it; even shamelessly use the ‘you chose the wrong license’ card when they have nothing else to add.
We have seen several instances of downstreams misusing their power while simultaneously abusing upstreams’ generosity and free time to do whatever they want. This was especially true with XScreenSaver and Debian in the past, which Debian has since changed its policies to communicate better with upstreams, and more recently Bottles, OBS Studio, and Fedora. This article is specific to an even more recent incident we at GNOME Calendar have had with Linux Mint.
There are a few technical definitions that should be understood before reading the rest of the article:
Upstream: A group of individuals authoring software, for example GNOME Calendar.
Downstream: A group of individuals building, curating, and redistributing these software to end users, for example Linux Mint.
Distribution model refers to an established model that the Linux desktop has been practicing for decades, where an end user is expected to report issues to downstream, and, if necessary, downstream relays said issue to upstream.
The adage that users report issues to downstream holds true up until these users start reporting them to upstream without reporting to downstream beforehand. In reality, many distributions advertise themselves as user-friendly. Users of these distributions are unaware of the distribution model, so, in good faith, they report issues to upstream without ever knowing that they should be contacting downstream.
Often, downstream issues have already been resolved in previous releases; however, since these issues are being reported to upstream, upstream has to regularly triage and close these invalid issues. This creates an additional burden for them because they end up spending their limited volunteer time managing these issues when it should have been downstream’s responsibility to ensure that the user is reporting to them first.
Whenever the upstream project reaches out to the hostile downstream and asks for a change, the response is usually met with the downstream bluffing by pretending to look for a solution for a nonexistent request, such as adapting the issue tracker with the implication that upstream will have to write the template(s) themselves, and then regularly update when the message is misinterpreted, just so downstream can avoid doing any actual work. That is called moving the goalposts.
If upstream objects to these ‘suggestions’, this is usually done with a shift in tone, as these one-sided discussions occur in the span of weeks, if not months, if not years, which quickly drains upstream’s remaining energy. When it shifts to a harsh(er) tone, the hostile downstream takes the easy way out by making remarks on that tone and acting like they are the only one being dignified; when they can, they end the discussion just because they do not like the tone and can use that tone to justify their (lack of) decision, without taking any appropriate action to remedy the underlying request.
As a result, they continue to mislead users into reporting issues to upstream, but this time intentionally and out of spite simply because free software licenses do not disallow abusing people’s generosity and free time. However, you will see later that this has nothing to do with free software.
For years, we have been dealing with users reporting Linux Mint’s broken packaging of GNOME Calendar to us, that were either never present or addressed releases ago.
There were a couple of discussions regarding this in the past, in chat and without my involvement, but none of them ended up being productive. Eventually, we got fed up by it and I opened ticket #1 on Linux Mint’s “gnome-calendar” repository, asking them to remove all links pointing to upstream GNOME Calendar and rebranding the app:
Remove/replace links pointing to GNOME Calendar, and update branding
Being one of the core developers of GNOME Calendar, we do not support any of the versions provided and held back by Linux Mint. We would really appreciate if you could remove or replace every link, especially support links, targeting to GNOME Calendar, as well as rebranding the app icon.
Mind you, this is the first issue ever opened in the history of Linux Mint’s package repository (8 years ago)! Based on the links above, I think it is safe to say that the app was broken throughout these years despite the lack of tickets.
This ticket had no response for six months, in other words half a year, all the while we were still getting bug reports about their broken package.
We eventually got fed up (again!) and pinged the packager. The packager replied and asked which modifications we did not like, conveniently ignoring our actual request.
So, I stated that we do not have the time to look through the code just to pinpoint specific issues, so I loosely said “everything”; then followed up by stating that the only solution to this is to rebrand or drop the package.<a href="about%3Areader?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftesk.page%2F2026%2F07%2F18%2Fhow-far-would-hostile-distributions-go-to-hurt-upstream%2F#fn:2" rel="footnote">1</a> (Of course, it should not be our responsibility as an upstream to pinpoint issues to downstream’s mispackaging.)
Then, the packager responded with “I reviewed the changes. None of them are problematic.”, ignoring the essence of my comment once again, and followed with a whataboutism:
[…] [GNOME Calendar] 46 and 48 are used by millions of people right now in Ubuntu LTS and Debian Stable. Are you going to request Debian and Ubuntu stop shipping GNOME apps?”
In other words: “what about Ubuntu LTS and Debian Stable?”, essentially roping Ubuntu and Debian into Linux Mint’s problem. As a bonus, they also twisted my words and changing the subject from “GNOME Calendar” to “GNOME apps”.
So, once again, I reminded that this is not what the issue is about, and Debian and Ubuntu LTS have nothing to do with this.
As a side note: no, never would we go after Debian or Ubuntu over this. If the distribution in question is doing its job properly by simply not bothering the people writing the software that they package, then why should we go after them? They are not the ones misleading users into opening in the wrong place, so there is no reason for us to be upset about. In this case, Linux Mint is leeching off of Debian, pushing their responsibility onto us, and roping Debian into their problems.
If we were to stop packaging GNOME Calendar, Mint users would end up with the exact same version 46 as now. You understand that? It wouldn’t magically upgrade their version of GNOME Calendar to 50+.
Very clear signs of strawman to make points against a proposal/demand that was never made, by arguing against ‘stop packaging GNOME Calendar’ rather than the original ‘rebrand GNOME Calendar’.<a href="about%3Areader?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftesk.page%2F2026%2F07%2F18%2Fhow-far-would-hostile-distributions-go-to-hurt-upstream%2F#fn:2" rel="footnote">1</a>
Then:
Mint 22.x is built on top of Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. Packages come from both repositories. If there’s no gnome-calendar in Mint 22.x repositories, Mint 22.x users get it from the Ubuntu 24.04 repositories. The version in both repositories is 46. Removing gnome-calendar from our repositories would basically make our users switch to Ubuntu’s version, which is 46 as well.
Same goes for LMDE and Debian Stable, same principle, same bug fix, with version 48.
The only way to make it so Mint doesn’t have a frozen version of gnome-calendar would be to remove it from Debian. It would then disappear from future versions of Ubuntu and Mint which are based on it. If you got it removed from there we’d obviously oblige with your request not to re-add it and wouldn’t do so.
These are, again, unrelated problems to the essence of the request, as the request is about rebranding, not dropping the package altogether.
So, I again reminded them that this is not our responsibility as an upstream to fix their problems.
They then ‘suggested’ us to add code to check if the user is running an outdated version, and then ‘offered’ that they will patch their existing packages and potentially Debian’s and Ubuntu’s as well, essentially moving the goalposts once again. They’re expecting us to either phone home or somehow keep track of releases every six months.
If we were to phone home, we would need to cover more cases, such as bothering designers to find an appropriate way to display a warning to the user when they are not connected to the network or when the “gnome.org” domain is unreachable. This adds another dependency on the network for no reason.
This also adds more burden to translators: this is not a typical string where one needs to translate one word into another; the tone and vocabulary of a warning depends on the region, so translators need to adapt the vocabulary to ensure that the underlying meaning is not misinterpreted. In any case, I think it is fair to say that this is an absurd suggestion to a problem that has nothing to do with the upstream.
I lost my patience; I hostily replied that we as upstream do not care about how distributions operate, and, once again, reminded that all we want is for them to rebrand; a very simple request that was continuously red herred with bikeshedding, strawmen, whataboutisms, and moving goalposts.
When I posted that comment, I misinterpreted the message as I thought their ‘offer’ was them asking us to do their work, hence me stating that we do not care about how distributions operate.
The packager then replied: “If you don’t care, then neither do we.”; here, they are explicitly confirming that they do not care about Debian and the situation altogether. In a later comment, they stated: “probably requires GNOME Calendar to move away from free licenses” and locked the issue, which, once again, completely ignored the essence of this entire issue, but this time concluding with the ‘you chose the wrong license’ card.
Now, they were explicitly told what the problem was, have refused to act on it by continuing to shove their responsibilities onto us. The attitude went from doing something ‘just because they can’ to ‘that should show upstream for hurting my feelings!’, never mind the fact that we and Debian are the ones doing the hard work, which they are leeching off.
Note
If you read through the entire ticket, you may notice a part where the packager makes a comment regarding some serious accusations. This is a response to a banned user’s comment that is now deleted, who originally made these accusations.
As explained above, this actually has nothing to do with free software; rather, this is a question about trademarks: Linux Mint is allegedly<a href="about%3Areader?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftesk.page%2F2026%2F07%2F18%2Fhow-far-would-hostile-distributions-go-to-hurt-upstream%2F#fn:3" rel="footnote">2</a> (mis)using GNOME’s name by redistributing unsupported builds while pretending that they are supported by us, and is actively misleading users to avoid supporting them.
Offending distributions use the ‘you chose the wrong license’ card because it is simultaneously very difficult to correct them as a non-lawyer, while being looked positively throughout the free software community. However, they know very well that looking at the situation from the perspective of trademark usage rather than software licensing would make it significantly harder to defend themselves, so naturally they opt into using (the incorrect) free software licensing as a gotcha.
The issue itself was originally calm and straight to the point. Half a year passed by and there was no response. Then, the packager was pinged, they chimed in, and changed the subject immediately. The tone shifted, and they took the easy way out by locking the issue and misleadingly stating that this is an upstream problem for choosing the wrong license.
In other words, you have two choices:
You kindly ask, and nothing happens apart from your own time and energy getting wasted for a considerable amount of time, with constant red herring or silence.
You start acting like a ‘dick’, and now they use this as an excuse to no longer communicate with you, all the while still refusing to address the underlying issue.
As an upstream, it is a lose-lose situation with hostile downstreams such as Linux Mint and Fedora. Once they start packaging your software, they immediately burn their bridges implicitly. In order to show that they are ‘good’, they only pretend to care about the problem, and keep proposing ‘solutions’ that 1. have nothing to do with the underlying problem, and 2. put on significantly more burden to upstream without putting an equal amount of effort themselves.
The reason there are so little undocumented cases is because many maintainers who deal with hostile downstreams are usually indie-developers that have very little resources and energy to deal with these problems, and have very little to no understanding with trademarks and legality.
They get burned out, stop developing and contributing to free software, and (rightfully) lose hope for the Linux desktop. They do not make any of it public or make a fuss about the situation because they do not feel comfortable to be in the middle of a conflict publicly. All they want is to just enjoy providing goods to the world, but are unfortunately bullied by repackaging fetishists whenever they raise a legitimate issue.
To summarize all this, hostile downstreams have already gone as far as to burn their bridges with upstreams. Any upstream is at a lose-lose position no matter how kind or unkind they are. If they are kind, they will be on the waiting list for as long as governments put patients on the waiting list for medical care. If they are ‘rude’, hostile downstreams will use this tone against them. If upstream sends out a cease and desist letter, the free software community will start seeing them as the Nintendo of free software and conflate volunteers who are fed up with hostile downstreams, with corporations that sue every sentient being that breathes.
While dropping the package was mentioned, the entire essence of the issue was about rebranding it ↩↩2
For some reason, “allegedly” is a common term used in legal contexts, even when there is all kinds of evidence pointing to something ↩
there is literally no point in computing without striving for digital sovereignty, this is why every "innovation" in proprietary software is largely worthless except as a model to copy and make actually free so we can have sovereignty with the niceties of it.
It doesn't matter how many bazillions of dollars OpenAI and Anthropic have dumped into training when any random startup can raise money to buy enough NVIDIA cards to run and sell GLM 5.2 or whatever
my jab at the subsidized tokens was mostly with the frontier models from companies like OpenAI. Chink companies like Z.ai do the model way better with your aforementioned competition. While its not as good as tech sovereignty, I can at least commend the liberated models promoting competition of services so people have some agency over their LLMs in computing.
I personally hope we can get some form of distributed computing innovation that lets us do LLM-style work in a sovereign way, but until that day comes, the tech is as good as useless for humans and only services governments, corporations, and other evil people in their pursuit of selfish gain for humanity's destruction.
This just in: chinese open weight models everyone can run at home are communism.
This is on the coat-trail of western frontier models getting wrecked by Kimi K3 in benchmarks and of announcements of both a new Qwen and deepseek model, that according to rumors/statements are up in performance to claude fable, just once again, probably a lot cheaper and also open weight.
Translation: Daddy Trump save us from the competition which delivers an equivalent product, just cheaper and with less strings attached. Must be the free market I've been hearing so much about.
(for people that remember Microsoft's narrative re: Linux in the 90s and early 00s this is nothing new)
This just in: chinese open weight models everyone can run at home are communism.
View attachment 9292519
This is on the coat-trail of western frontier models getting wrecked by Kimi K3 in benchmarks and of announcements of both a new Qwen and deepseek model, that according to rumors/statements are up in performance to claude fable, just once again, probably a lot cheaper and also open weight.
Translation: Daddy Trump save us from the competition which delivers an equivalent product, just cheaper and with less strings attached. Must be the free market I've been hearing so much about.
(for people that remember Microsoft's narrative re: Linux in the 90s and early 00s this is nothing new)
Love to see the old 'open source is communist' FUD still going strong. Realistically, how much compute would you need to run the latest local open weight slop bot? I imagine it must be going into the 100s of gigs of VRAM o algo (I know fuck all about AI so these numbers are pulled straight from my ass)
Yeah realistically, not gonna happen for you and me. That stuff needs six-figure hardware (and the infrastructure to support it). Kimi K3 needs a bit more than about 3 terabytes of RAM to run at an usable speed. We're talking specialized hardware here.
But for companies, that is viable. A company could run Kimi K3 in-house to work on their data, without having to share the data with an AI corporation and without the fear of being rug-pulled, sanctioned for "wrongthink" or spied on, which is a realistic concern for foreign (e.g. European) companies working with OpenAI or other US companies. Even worse, if you use a cloud AI, you don't know what you are actually using. It might be subtly influenced to do bad things to your data.
That said, there are also a few small models you actually can run realistically on modest home hardware that surpass much bigger models from just a few years ago in capability. If that particular trend holds up, a model of the capability of Kimi K3 can be run at home in 2-3 years. This sounds silly now as I just said "3 Terabytes" but yeah, it happened before. No reason right now to assume it can't happen again.
Anthropic's models, whether it's "PR" or not, are quite good at translating one language to another language. Rust is not unique in this regard. Sonnet/Opus/Fable will just as happily recreate a Rust project into a same-performance C/C++ project given the same steps
If that was true they would've gotten it to improve tiktoken sometime (assuming I'm not misreading your comment). It was held up has some prime Rust performance (and costs the AI labs for every invocation), but there's dozens of replacements in C and C++ written by everything from hobbyists to serious Chinese labs that beat it among every axis (always performance, and most have more features). People constantly underestimate the performance overhead of even optimized Rust.
Realistically, how much compute would you need to run the latest local open weight slop bot locally? I imagine it must be going into the 100s of gigs of VRAM o algo (I know fuck all about AI so these numbers are pulled straight from my ass)
Is there any more info on how the GDID is actually exposed to the wider web and websites? There is next to no info on the GDID outside of discussing the case.
I highly doubt Mickeysoft would share the GDID with random websites, from what I can tell the trick is that they send everything you do in Windows/Edge (including URLs) as "telemetry" including the URLs you visit together with your GDID.
It's the only reason for them to ship a browser they don't control 99% of the code for, except the "telemetry".
If that was true they would've gotten it to improve tiktoken sometime (assuming I'm not misreading your comment). It was held up has some prime Rust performance (and costs the AI labs for every invocation), but there's dozens of replacements in C and C++ written by everything from hobbyists to serious Chinese labs that beat it among every axis (always performance, and most have more features). People constantly underestimate the performance overhead of even optimized Rust.
You're not misreading me, but maybe on a tangent I wasn't addressing.
I don't know much about tiktoken specifically, but I'll take your word that Rust is currently an actual limiting factor on its performance ceiling. If that's true, then porting it to a non-Rust language (C, Odin, Zig, whatever) would probably make it lose substantial users/contributors. If there's alternatives which beat it on every axis, then the sane people who don't care which language good software is written in are already using those alternatives. The Rust kool-aid drinkers will stay clung to it.
This just in: chinese open weight models everyone can run at home are communism.
View attachment 9292519
This is on the coat-trail of western frontier models getting wrecked by Kimi K3 in benchmarks and of announcements of both a new Qwen and deepseek model, that according to rumors/statements are up in performance to claude fable, just once again, probably a lot cheaper and also open weight.
Translation: Daddy Trump save us from the competition which delivers an equivalent product, just cheaper and with less strings attached. Must be the free market I've been hearing so much about.
(for people that remember Microsoft's narrative re: Linux in the 90s and early 00s this is nothing new)
Love to see the old 'open source is communist' FUD still going strong. Realistically, how much compute would you need to run the latest local open weight slop bot? I imagine it must be going into the 100s of gigs of VRAM o algo (I know fuck all about AI so these numbers are pulled straight from my ass)
i asked my pet eng at work, to run it full-featured you'd need network clusters of at least 600 gb vram.
the political issues are def interesting. this is like if the chinese communist party released a free open-source version of adobe's portfolio and the microsoft office suite. yeah, it would be great from a consumer perspective, but they are releasing these with the goal of destroying US AI revenue so china can impoverish us and turn us into a post-imperial backwater monitored by their surveillance state. it's as bad, really worse, of a fail state than the klaus schwab you will own nothing fucktopia the openAI guy is rooting for.
but they are releasing these with the goal of destroying US AI revenue so china can impoverish us and turn us into a post-imperial backwater monitored by their surveillance state
the fact that America would be economically crippled by finally acknowledging the fact data can be copied for free and that you don't need a state-sanctioned copyright monopoly to create economic incentive is hilarious. I hope the chinks succeed just so we can watch the tech industry and government endlessly kvetch about being having to acknowledge the reality of information wanting to be free.
Incorrect. 99% of that reputation comes from its creators having excellent message discipline when it comes to marketing. The truth is that its security is a joke.
There's issues with OpenBSD and security is not necessarily one of them.
I have to say having a default filesystem with no journaling is retarded. I actually had OpenBSD on a laptop once out of curiosity and more than once my install died because my laptop had no battery and it died immediately on a power cut.
This is the result of a chronically underfunded operating system and its general mindset over code correctness to the point where they remove useful things.
There's a reason why -unlike OpenBSD- people actually use FreeBSD and Linux.
Hypothetical/Real security doesn't matter if it can't survive a powercut.
There's issues with OpenBSD and security is not necessarily one of them.
I have to say having a default filesystem with no journaling is retarded. I actually had OpenBSD on a laptop once out of curiosity and more than once my install died because my laptop had no battery and it died immediately on a power cut.
This is the result of a chronically underfunded operating system and its general mindset over code correctness to the point where they remove useful things.
There's a reason why -unlike OpenBSD- people actually use FreeBSD and Linux.
Hypothetical/Real security doesn't matter if it can't survive a powercut.
View attachment 9289511View attachment 9289512
fuck you Kevin. This is why cdda's half loot is pride flags and dildos.
no wonder why I have to run 0.H via wine to play the game because the native linux client segfault like a faggot.
The nice thing about Troonstodon is that the username and domain combination is the account identifier like an email address, so he has no way to change the "Kevin" username without creating a new account. There should be a way to transfer accounts to a new username, but IIRC you will lose certain history and connections, just like trooning out in real life.
there is literally no point in computing without striving for digital sovereignty, this is why every "innovation" in proprietary software is largely worthless except as a model to copy and make actually free so we can have sovereignty with the niceties of it.
As Stallman likes to point out, Linux is only the kernel anyways. And compared to the *BSDs offerings, Linux is the superior kernel; more compatible, more feature-rich. You can have your correct system on top of a linux kernel no problem, and I've been avoiding cancerware for at least a decade now to prove it. Granted, it isn't straightforward and you probably want the right distribution to help you in that.
Is it impoverishing you (as in "us") or these corporations? Genuinely not being able to keep up with China can't be solved by protectionism (and having the broad populace eat the losses) forever anyways. The western countries would do well to reinvest into their population and a common vision for their society instead of being complacent with letting their fat cats grow fatter and not caring about anything else besides that. That is the truly alerting trend, if you ask me. We won't be able to beat China at their game now, it's at the very least 25 years too late for that. We *will* fall behind. It's about damage control now.
This literally means nothing. Claude/GPT will also claim being deepseek on an empty prompt sometimes (one example) especially when prompted in chinese. The reality of the situation is that the western companies are not as superior as they claim they are and they all take from each other. Also most of the internet is AI generated text now anyways.
I know I sound like I'm batting for the chinese, but I'm truly not really. Thing is I've been warning people about not underestimating them for longer than some people on this website are alive and often was met with laughter. Even if it's not great, it's kinda satisfying in a way to see the other shoe drop now.
