FreeIPA covers most scenarios. Kerberos, Dynamic DNS/DNS, LDAP.

GPO equivalency would need some config management tool. Ansible is what RH would suggest, but something with an agent would probably be better.

The most stable system is one that is out of support. No updates == No breakage! 😄

I wasn’t clear and that seems to have cause some confusion. I was talking about the Linux kernel itself, and only the Linux kernel.

There are two sides to the Linux kernel: internal exposed to drivers and such, external syscalls exposed to the public. That’s what I was talking about.

All bets are off with 3rd party software. That’s just a general problem in software development. It’s not specific to Linux, and it’s why vendoring libraries is recommended.

This is why all the 3rd party software is frozen at a point-in-time with fixes backported in distros like Debian or RHEL. It fixes the problems of devs being mercurial. The distro is the SDK. It creates a stable base, and it works rather well.

Unfortunately, most software relies on libc and a compiler. Both of which can be problems, and both of which are external to the Linux kernel. There’s not much which relies on only kernel syscalls.

Basically. Out-of-tree drivers are annoying without an LTS kernel.

There are also out-of-tree drivers which don’t get mainlined for one reason or another even though they are FOSS. OpenZFS has this problem, and now so does bcachefs.

1. The user land API/ABI is stable to a fault in Linux. The kernel API/ABI is unstable.

2. Companies are cheap. They hired web devs then tasked them with building a desktop application rather then hiring people to write native apps. They had a hammer and used it to fix every problem they had.

3. macOS is just as affected by electron apps as a Linux is.

4. Electron is horrible, but it does bring apps to many an OS once Chromium is ported.

5. Open protocols or open APIs from the company would fix the non-native app problem.

It is. It’s just not particularly good outside of a X11/Wayland environment.

I think this being worked on though.

How is this applicable to the comment? Companies never figured out how to charge rent for those.

Devs see home computers as a free resource, and the burden is on the consumer to buy a computer which runs their software.

Nah. Web devs will create even more bloated web pages to keep home computing in business.

For real though, most people don’t need that much computing power, and we reached the plateau 12 years ago. That’s why we’re seeing crypto and AI grifts happen. They recentralize decentralized systems. The elites are striking back.

You know the saying“information wants to be free; information wants to be expensive”? This is the expensive part where people try to horde knowledge by making it inaccessible to everyday people.

Awesome! Previously, Evolution was the only Linux client which supported Exchange, and Evolution is… well…. 😕

That’s going on the list. My heart says I don’t need this, but my brain says I do.

A-series would already be at a disadvantage due to being designed for iPhones and the design parameters that entails compared to the M-series.

The M-series Mac Pro was always for companies which were going to rack them and use them in render farms. Normal people was never its intended market. It was more of an Xserve successor.

Apple would need to design a different CPU for the Mac Pro, and the limited market doesn’t make it feasible. Descending the M-series CPUs from the A-series limits what the designs can do.

There are rumors of a CPU split in the Apple lineup. iPhone, iPad, iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook get the A-series, and MacBook Pro, Mac Studio. Mac Pro get the M-series. That would make sense, and might give them some room to expand the “Pro” procs.

One nit to pick for anyone who reads this later.

/srv is probably a more appropriate location than /mnt. /srv is for local data services are going to serve.

Was it a conversation or a knowledge dump without a lot of interaction?

I like the other person to show a little bit of interest in me, but that’s just me. I could be wrong.

Qualcomm is pretty dumb. Even if this were true, they’d still be leaving Linux support to the community.

The universe is just being restored from backups. It took 7 days to fond a backup which would boot, and the Time to Restore was wildly inaccurate.

Oh, so it’s written in Lisp.

The primary ways in which the Mozilla Foundation earns money is through search partnerships, donations and grants.

Yes. It’s the same thing with the Linux kernel and other large FOSS projects. There isn’t a perfect fit for Android, but it would be better than the way ASOP is run now.

As for Red Hat, this comes down to subscriptions or enterprise offerings, neither which really apply to a consumer OS unless you’re willing to pay a subscription fee out of pocket.

Consumer devices ship with proprietary software which is licensed all the time. It could be a library or an entire OS. Consumers are not the target market, like consumers aren’t the target market for RHEL.

The prime example is Windows. It’s licensed to Dell or whomever and ships with the hardware. The license is baked in.

Some people might be willing to pay if the price is reasonable enough. Android has support for major vendors, so using it as a base would be a boon to people doing things like media boxes and signage.

I doubt there will be much to be earned from offering consulting or training, either, unless they make Android exceedingly confusing to use.

It’s the opposite. Make it easy to use. Companies pay for tools which reduces developer time.

The only companies that would pay for Android are OEMs who are already making thin margins, and effectively it’d drive the price of non-iPhones up.

The smaller OEMs would pay for licenses, PS hours, and backend services. They don’t have the expertise or budget.

Samsung? They’re going to keep doing what they’re doing because they have the expertise and budget to fork from upstream. It’s possible they would rally around Android, like companies have rallied around the Linux kernel.

OEMs do this with Linux already, so it would bring Android more inline with the norms.

It could be profitable the way RHEL or the Mozilla Foundation is profitable.

Companies will pay for OS support, and companies will pay for access. Android as a foundation with a company selling OS support and services which could be rebranded would be profitable.

I’m thinking about the wider IoT space here beyond only mobile.

Yeah, MS would probably buy Android to get back into the mobile market.

I agree. Ideally, Android would be something like Debian or a mobile project of the Linux Foundation. It would really be better off if it wasn’t beholden to a company.

The mobile OS wars have already settled on Android and iOS. Closing off Android would destroy the market, and I don’t want to go back to the days when Windows Mobile was the leading mobile OS.

Odds are low of anything good happening because of this administration.