Historically, the oppressor, the despot, the tyrant, the dictatorship of the elites, has only ever been brought down by armed struggle. That hasn't changed. What has changed is how they remain in power under the illusion of democracy. While the proletariat sit by and do nothing, the ruling classes will continue to exploit them and grind them under foot. It won't happen in my lifetime, but eventually they will see the super rich, megalomaniac, psychopaths and perverts who rule over us for what they really are and it will explode. Hopefully in these times of doublespeak and hypocrisy, unjust wars and double standards, they are just beginning to awaken.

To elaborate: Windows 11 only requires that a PC be secureboot capable, it doesn't have to enabled:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/win … 3abef64fad

We're all 100% stumped too.

Assuming you have already searched and researched, I suggest asking the libreboot people if there are any known issues with suspend on that model?

https://discuss.cachyos.org/t/age-verif … md/26316/6

Looks like one to avoid...

It's a slippery slope. Aside from embedded, systemd/Linux is the only Linux the corporate world cares about. Everyone who wants to avoid this will be compiling their own OS and building their own computer (becoming their own "vendor"), so this is once again, a "dragnet" tactic, which will gather up the vast majority of easy targets and force them into compliance. Corporate mouthpieces in Canonical, Debian and IBM/ Red Hat will spin it to the masses as a good thing, nothing new there.

I have a suspicion that age verification will begin in systemd, then there will be the usual push from the systemd crowd for key parts of it to be moved into the kernel.

Poettering and some other ex Microsofters recently started a new company "Amutable" - I'm not yet clear as to what Amutable will produce - i.e. what is the product, as the website if full of meaningless corpo speak babble - also not clear who is funding it all...

"We are building cryptographically verifiable integrity into Linux systems. Every system starts in a verified state and stays trusted over time."

Amutable looks to be yet another Microsoft proxy (similar to Xamarin). I.e. it's a group working on something which is better to be seen as not being a Microsoft project. That tells you everything you need to know.

Let's see if, ultimately technologies like secureboot and TPM are leveraged - then it will all become clear what this is about.

Microsoft are the same. They changed their tactics in response to the internet revolution and the fact that most people "online" are using a smartphone. There is no longer any sense in MS solely persuing Linux or other FOSS via patent trolling tactics (though it still goes on by proxy) - it has reverted to EEE tactics and is playing the long game.

While I see your point on permissive licences, that's the common fallacy to adopt a mindset that those licences are corporate friendly. It's not so black and white. OpenBSD for example is permissive licenced and has far less corporate influence and control when compared to e.g. the Linux kernel, gnome or systemd, which are all funded, managed/influenced and/or developed by "Big Tech".

I don't think it's as simple as the licencing indicating where the intentions lie or of any affilations.

Licences can be abused strategically. While the MIT licence may be used for one project for a valid reason, the "viral" nature of GPL v3 may be exploited, as a means to an end (e.g. forcing potential competitors to keep their changes open). If code, developed by a corporate entity, is released under a permissive licence, a competitor can equally utilise that, turn it proprietary and close it off. They would not be able to under GPL. So GPL is "pro business" in that respect. So in reality, business favours closed proprietary code first and foremost - but that costs money. They cab throw what amounts to peanuts at the LF and get something which is a "good enough" replacement for something like AIX, HP-UX, etc.

Instead of the continual comments about the board and admin - indicating some ongoing dissatisfaction, I suggest that a member of the Devuan team request a forum at LQ and once established, let the users that prefer either venue make their choices. Debian has had this for years and, overwhelmingly most users go to FDN, but a handful go there - so there's nothing harmful about it.

Ultimately if you have a problem with the admin, you have to vote with your feet. The situation has been the same here for years and most if not all of you have been aware of it. I don't tend to take it too seriously anymore.

There are "fans" of this Linux distribution who would possibly take deep personal offence at being on the receiving end of some administrative action... and there are those of us who are not invested / don't care.

The admin aren't the only perceived problem. Aside from "commie bastards" like me, there have been assorted (mostly right wing conspiracy theorist) basket cases frequenting this site over the years - given free reign - and it's likely one of the big factors in why Devuan project isn't taken seriously by many.

Wasn't this "user repository" thing, originally a 'buntu idea? PPAs...?  It was a great way to end up with a broken system. Back in the "good old days", we would see a lot of threads where someone installed from a PPA and the result was a broken mess and pleas for help. They were all free to do that and break stuff, but we were also free to not waste our time talking them through fixing it.

I'm not averse to it, but it seems pointless. Either use what's in the repositories or build whatever else you need from source?

I would like to suggest that the reasoning behind closing those threads was obvious.

I remember when there used to be off topic sections on forums like this one, where the topic was still vaguely computing related, e.g. Halloween Documents, various security flaws in Intel chips, kernel.org breach, IBM aquire Red Hat, etc, etc, etc...

Nowadays everything seems to have gone full on reddit - and we have droves of right wing nuts, the MAGA crowd, conspiracy nuts, anti vax, xenophobes and other assorted deranged types spewing vitriolic bile in all directions, regurgitating their choice of "news" all over this site...

https://invent.kde.org/plasma/plasma-lo … equests/42

The danger here in this fork of SDDM becoming the standard display manager of KDE, is that it will result in SDDM being abandoned - and despite all the wordplay, the goals are obvious.  Greater systemd dependence [at the expense of portability] and the rationale? :

https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/1 … usable_on/

That first statement is weasel words.  This is simply an attempt to weave in systemd dependency by systemd advocates.

The second statement essentially means that only Red Hat/Debian/etc matter.

"The Dementia Connection" is based on older studies.  Older people have more of a tendency towards developing age related hearing loss (far more common than dementia), hair loss, loss of teeth, arthritis, etc, etc.  So claiming that hearing loss is linked to dementia is akin to finding a link between dementia and liking old music...

The British Academy of Audiology released their own position statement:

https://baaudiology.org/professional-in … -dementia/

"There is no convincing evidence that hearing interventions reduce the risk of dementia
in the general population."

"There is currently no good quality evidence that hearing loss causes dementia, only evidence to show that
there is an association between them."

There is also the "reverse causation" aspect to this - i.e. undiagnosed dementia may be linked to hearing loss...

The problem here is that this is about statistics, rather than science or medical fact.  There are also those in the market of selling hearing interventions, who are in a position to profit from such scaremongering "studies"/claims.