Without OCLP, the latest release of macOS that a 2015 MacBook Pro will run is Monterey (5 releases ago).
The final release of Monterey was July 2024. So no, it is not getting updates anymore. Worse, many programs require a newer release of macOS to run at all.
This is a perfect system to migrate to Linux. It will run faster, be more secure, and will have totally up-to-date software.
You do not have to. It has already won.
Look at the list of demands these guys make. It is basically “go back to before” because even they know the ship had sailed.
It just has to always be the first question in a big report or forum question. Have they verified their issue with the Flatpak version?
I prefer packages from the AUR myself but I do not expect the software authors to support me. Distros need to support their own packages but the AUR is not part of the Arch distro. Arch does not support the AUR. The only support I should expect would be from the package author (the AUR package) and they likely do not have the ability.
I think the right way to understand Flatpak is that it is essentially its own Linux distro without a kernel. You have to be running that version if you expect support. People think of Flatpak as a “sandbox” which it is. But it is also like running an app in a Docker container or Distrobox where you have to pick a distro to run in the container. With Flatpak, you are running on the “freedesktop” distro. It is not the same environment as the rest of your system (right down to the filesystem layout and C library).
It is not about it being public. He just wants it on the mailing list.
The people subscribed to the mailing list are all people involved in or specifically interested in kernel development. The hope is that the conversations there will be less technical and less political. What he does not want is a bunch of social or political pressure from drive by opinion holders on social media (like us).
It is fine for us to be discussing there discussion here. But he wants the discussion to be had “there”.
Um, yes. I would rather ally with Ukraine, regardless of who else my friends and enemies are.
They are working on a pipewire plugin for that
There has been lots of reporting the X Elite will use UEFI.
Well, “death tax” at least ( unless I understand what you mean ) is just a portion of the deceased estate. So, they can at least afford it.
I would actually be ok if a basic level of funeral expenses were covered by the state. Like health care, the idea that we, as a society, can take care of everybody to a minimum level appeals to me.
It does not have to be extravagant but people should not be afraid to collect loved ones because of the financial burden.
I have been playing around a bit with both Antix and Damn Small Linux 2 that is based on it. I have been quite impressed.
First, it is really just Debian curated to be light-weight. You have full access to all the Debian repositories.
The 32 bit versions also work great. I booted to a fully working desktop on a 32 bit system and only 84 MB of RAM was being used. On top of that I ran Firefox, LibreOffice, Scribis, GIMP, and I think other things and was still around 900 MB. It would be amazing on ancient hardware.
You could argue that Cinnamon is not really a “fork” per se. It is more of an alternative interpretation.
MATE is a true fork. When GNOME abandoned GNOME 2 for GNOME3 3, MATE picked up the GNOME 2 code and continued.
Cinnamon took GNOME 3 and built a different desktop experience on top of it. Specifically, they rejected the controversial GNOME Shell to present a more traditional desktop. The earliest attempts at Cinnamon tried to provide a traditional desktop in GNOME Shell itself. By the time Cinnamon 2 came out, GNOME Shell was completely gone.
Cinnamon also provides X-apps which is a suite of GNOME applications adapted to work with Cinnamon ( but also MATE and XFCE ). These really are forks.
I do not really see hostility or taking down. More of a difference of opinion or experience.
Also, this is not a private email thread. It is a public forum. Whatever advice you get risks becoming guidance for the community. I think it is perfectly reasonable, even responsible, for people to respond with their thoughts on security.
You can ignore the advice not to implement this capability on your personal machine. That is your call. However, this should not become standard practice by Linux users.
Thank you for answering at some point in the thread the use cases that drove your question. I was very curious.
When I have needed “Run as Administrator” in Windows, it has typically been to run the command line. The reason Windows needs this is because it has lacked “sudo”. The next release of Windows is adding it as a feature ( going the other way ).
I have used Linux for decades as well and really not needed this. Partially this is because tools that require root access are typically configured to ask for it already.
Your “need to delete a file” use case made sense to me but I do not run into it. Perhaps my file systems are mounted differently. Perhaps I am not manipulating files of other users ( sounds right ). Or maybe I am more likely to be at the command line. Your “edit files as root” use cases leads me to believe I use the command line more as that is certainly something I would be doing from the terminal. I have to edit files as root everyday but it is always from the terminal. I am not encountering files that I cannot edit in my file manager though as I would have navigated to those files in the terminal to begin with. Clicking around in a file manager to get to system files is not even something that would have occurred to me. If I am using the file manager, it is to manage my own files ( mostly media and documents ).
No judgement. Do things how you want. I was just curious what you were using this for. When I use Windows, I use “Run as Administrator” all the time. In Linux, I did not even notice it was missing. Going back to Windows makes me miss “sudo” in the terminal though. I am not the only one obviously as they are now adding it to Windows too.
Trade is essential. It is not really optional.
So, the trick is to find the best trading partners.
I would rather not trade with China. That said, China is currently a better bet than the United Staes.
China is more conservative and takes a longer view. They want stability. They offer consistency and determinism. The United States in contrast offers chaos.
Of course China will act in their self-interest. But at least they believe that a stable and dependable global trade system is in their best interest. They will be predictable. You can anticipate their interests and plan around them. As such, they make a far better trade partner than the US.