Mastodon: @[email protected]
Don’t they already have the names Leap and Tumbleweed? Changing the name to Leap would make sense since it’s the name of the “official LTS” version. At this point it sounds like “openSUSE” is the name of the project and not the distro. But I haven’t been following them closely, so perhaps I’m wrong.
The shape of that bottle is creepier than the text.
That’s an unnecessarily strong reaction. Money clearly matters for some things. But that’s not all that matters. There are many people releasing FOSS without any financial expectations. Clearly, money doesn’t matter to those people on that context. Trying to argue that “money should matter also for those people on that context” doesn’t make too much sense to me. Nobody is forcing anybody to release FOSS.
Sorry, I don’t follow your reasoning. Why would a company not making money be a relevant problem for the advocates of FOSS? FOSS is about freedom. It never had an opinion about money. Money has always been irrelevant. Some people may not like it, and they are free to not use non-free licenses. And FOSS advocates will warn users about that (as they did in the past). FOSS doesn’t have an obligation to offer a solution to every problem in the software industry.
I don’t think that is relevant from author’s (and OSI’s) point of view.
Here is my understanding of author’s position: Stay away from companies like Redis and ElasticSearch. They are building software with a proprietary mindset (the fact that they have tight control over product strategy and development demonstrates this) only to realize that they are being devoured by bigger fish. It’s a business model problem, not an open source problem.
Here is the link to the original website (an NGO that monitors blocked websites in Turkey): https://ifade.org.tr/engelliweb/distrowatch-erisime-engelledi/
And here is the Google translation of the text on that page:
The IP address of the DistroWatch platform, which provides news, reviews, rankings and general information about Linux distributions, was blocked by the National Cyber Incident Response Center (USOM) on the grounds of “IP hosting/spreading malware”.
Because it is about a not-very-well-known feature of the language. Why would it matter that it’s old? I don’t think I have ever seen this in use in production code.
I have the same problem on mobile Firefox on Android. I’m using the default frontend as well. This was not happening a week ago (or maybe 10 days). Started recently.