> Using Void on my main desktop has been fun and I've learned a lot about how modern Linux systems fit together whether I liked it or not, because the instructions for using ZFS root at that time involved starting mostly from scratch.
This is why I used Slackware 20 years ago. Slackware then tried to compete with Ubuntu and Fedora and IMO lost its way.
> How does Alpine compare in the day-to-day business of using a computer, do you suppose?
For day to day usage I think there are similairities, but I can share some reasons I prefer Alpine:
- Not rolling release, possible to stick to a version and just get security updates
- Focus on minimization. A minimal Alpine install is about 500mb, 700 after I install X and my WM and a few other core things. A void install was something like 1.2gb even trying to keep it minimal.
- Because Alpine, IMO is more dedicated to musl, the ports to musl have more care behind them and seem to work better, just anecdotal maybe biased experience.
- I prefer apk over xbps, one thing xbps can't do afaik is search files in packages, e.g. apk search library.h will return a result if it exists.
- I still feel void gets in the way more than it needs to. Installing or overriding a bootloader and custom kernel was easier in Alpine then void, only barely, but enough I noticed.
Honestly, I have had very few issues with it. Generally for the big issues there compatibly layer packages available, e.g. you can install a musl-fts package since musl doesn't implement fts.
I think there is value in a cleaner, newer, more minimal c library. Pretty much everything just works, and for what doesn't I either compile statically in a devuan container or use a flatpak.
No, as my main OS on my laptop and any other computers. I had better luck and a better experience over Void and Artix, and I'm not interested in systemd based distros.
> what security feature they ship???
The focus on minimization is a security feature given it reduces attack surface area. I'd say embrace musl wholeheartedly is another (as an example, Alpine sshd wasn't vulnerable to that big remote root vuln from last year). They have a general commitment to security as a priority that I don't think most distros share, which I appreciate.
It bothers me as well. I love the focus Alpine has on minimalism and security, it's been my main desktop distro for years. It's easily the best distro I've ever used.
Democrats lose due to significant ignorance in the population and successful propaganda by hostile entities. It's not an accident that the reddest states at the least educated and least literate. If you doubt that I'm happy to support the claim, but I think we both know it's true.
> They are completely out of touch with what the mainstream wants.
Democrats are the only party actually offering to give the majority what they want, but due to ignorance and propaganda the majority have become emotionally hostile to the means necessary to accomplish implementing what they want.
Despite Trump's promises that gullible desperate people fell for, his policies are likely to make things much harder for hid voters and not only not give them what they want, but give them what they explicitly don't want. Well, they'll still get bigoted policies, at least.
> Any other Democrat could have distanced themselves from Biden. But his own VP couldn’t.
There should have been no reason to. Trump is a rapist felon who literally advocated for injecting leach as a cure to a pandemic. That people voted for him at all shows just how bad things are.
Democracy can't function with such a gullible population. At the least I have a front row ticket to the fall of a modern empire though. That's something.
EU is always slow. They felt browser choice was an issue 0 years after it stopped being one, and then freaked out about cookies also 10 more more years later when it wasn't really an issue. Data tracking is an issue, sure. Not cookies though, not anymore.
> Yes, many big businesses are in fact breaking the law in this regard.
Define big business here. Coca Cola? IBM? Amazon?
> The truly compliant ones are far less annoying. They all generally need only a single click to refuse consent
No, they yare still annoying. It's still something you are forced to itneract with that diverts your attention.
> It's also essential to actually achieve the goal of protecting the data of people in the EU, much of which is done by companies which are based outside the EU.
The problem is it's unenforceable nonsense and has led to this foolish cookie popup situation.
If they had limited it to entities with a presence in the EU, it would have worked better. At the moment it applies to some malicious Chinese teenager who blatantly wants to collect and sell the data of Europeans who visit his self-hosted low-traffic blog.
> All they would then have to do is change the website's contracting legal entity to a foreign partner or parent company and then they could refuse data subject access requests, track without consent, and so on if the jurisdiction provisions in Article 3 were as narrow as you're advocating.
They can already do that because EU has no jurisdiction outside of the EU no matter what they claim.
Also, we are basically having the same conversation in two places. If you want to consolidate your two replies into just one I would not object.
Maybe some, but generally businesses are not breaking the law willy nilly like that.
> There are also EU big business sites which illegally claim the legitimate interest basis for advertising and tracking purposes of data processing which have already been ruled by the courts as not acceptable justifications for the legitimate interest basis.
And did the EU follow up?
> The EU is trying to protect the data of the people in the EU.
The problem is it's unenforceable nonsense and has led to this foolish cookie popup situation.
If they had limited it to entities with a presence in the EU, it would have worked better. At the moment it applies to some malicious Chinese teenager who blatantly wants to collect and sell the data of Europeans who visit his self-hosted low-traffic blog.
> The truly compliant ones aren't.
Yeah, they really are. It's still something you have to interact with to make it go away.
If your response says something if companies don't track they won't need a popup, then you have missed the point.
> I can accept that our website visiting patterns, and maybe our specific countries of residence within the EU, expose us to different experiences in this regard. I stand by my statement as a description of my own personal experience, but I'm willing to believe your own personal experience too.
I appreciate your attempting to reconcile different anecdotal experiences. In the spirit of objectivity however, I would insist that big businesses are not breaking the law.
> The free, informed consent which the letter of GDPR requires according to public and legally binding official interpretations (such as from the European Court of Justice) is not present when those dark patterns make it harder to refuse consent than to grant it.
I think here we've shifted the problem to dark patterns. The problem though is with the popups at all, because even when they are compliant, they are no less annoying, just slightly more clear.
> The problem in all of these respects is primarily very weak and reluctant official enforcement of the rules by the relevant Data Protection Authorities and very low fines when they do enforce them.
They probably shouldn't have claimed global jurisdiction then. Since that's a big part of what has resulted in so many poorly done cookie banners.