So many great organizing ideas being shared here for the big box of cables. Thanks, everyone.

Thanks for your detailed reply!

Weather. You can only really enjoy the nudist lifestyle during the warmer months. I almost don’t even want to call this a con because it’s just the changing of the seasons, but I do get bummed out all winter when I have to wear stupid clothes all the time and miss that feeling of swimming naked.

I hadn’t thought about this one before. It seems like this could possibly make SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder - i.e., seasonal depression) even more severe for people who are prone to it.

Good to know, thanks!

Thanks.

Thanks for the additional details.

With the security vulnerabilities found in older chips that require either a revised architecture or otherwise take huge performance penalties to mitigate (e.g. Meltdown and Spectre), most enterprise customers upgraded their hardware older than 2008 in recent years.

Are you sure this is really one of the reasons? I thought that Meltdown and Spectre affected much newer CPUs, so that v1/v2 didn’t line up with that. The Wikipedia article on Meltdown says up to 2018 CPUs. The one on Spectre says all pre-2019 CPUs that use branch prediction.

deleted by creator

The key reason for doing this, as stated in the article:

ultimately they say “the straw that broke the camel’s back” to abandon Red Hat Enterprise Linux for their industrial accelerator-control computers was the “-march=x86-64-v2” compiler flag default as “forced obsolescence” for old hardware.

From what I understand, the v2 option requires relatively newer CPU instruction sets, making it incompatible with some older CPUs, even 64 bit ones. I don’t know what is gained by using the v2 flag, but I would imagine that it may be something performance-related, by more fully utilizing those newer instruction sets.

That’s not true at all. Like I said, copyleft relies completely on copyright. It was not at all created in opposition to copyright. It was created in opposition to proprietary (i.e., “unfree”) software. Here, from the Wikipedia article on Copyleft (emphasis mine):

The concept of copyleft was described in Richard Stallman’s GNU Manifesto in 1985, where he wrote:[6]

GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.

This is impossible to do without copyright existing. Like I mentioned before, without copyright laws, companies can take any code they wish, with any license, and use it in their proprietary software without sharing their modifications.

Another reference directly from the FSF: “Copyleft is a tool that works within copyright law” (emphasis mine)

I completely disagree. What’s the main thing the GPL does that is different from public domain or the complete absence of copyright?

It restricts how the code can be used in order to protect the writers and the consumers of the code. Without copyright and copyleft, any company can use any GPL code in any proprietary product they want, without sharing any of their changes and without even crediting the original writers. As an example, Microsoft could adopt the Linux kernel for Windows, heavily modify it, sell it, and stay completely silent about it, without any consequences. That’s what a world without copyright means for copyleft.

Absolutely!

You’re conflating open source and free software with public domain. Open source software licenses are completely dependent on software copyright. This means that if software copyright were eliminated, open source licenses would become completely unenforceable. We may be headed in this direction anyway, but I just thought I would make the point.

Leaving the electronics at home also seems easier to explain in case you’re stopped, compared to trying to explain why you have a phone wrapped in tinfoil in your pocket.

if someone can pump out near infinite trash for nearly no cost and earn 1% of what they’d earn by actually doing real work, they’ll continue to flood the market because it is economically viable, unfortunately

True, it’s a similar reason why spam, phishing, and various internet scams exist. Only a very small portion of what they put out generates any money, but it’s enough to keep them going and presumably more than what they think they’d earn doing real work.

That’s a possibility but it seems odd. I seem to recall that not all of them were as obvious to enable encryption as Bazzite (and probably Fedora). I think that that setting was if you chose to customize the storage settings.

Interesting, thanks. Maybe it’s something with the entire Ubuntu branch.

That’s odd. Maybe it’s a limitation with Ubuntu or their downstream distros. I’m now positive that all 3 of those distros I listed gave me the option to encrypt the disk during installation. This was in the last 3 months or so.

In my recent experience, I’m pretty sure all distros I tried (Debian, Bazzite, openSUSE) had a simple checkbox to do full disk encryption.