39
submitted 5 hours ago by waspentalive@lemmy.one to c/linux@lemmy.ml

An HOA (home owners associations) can say what color you can paint your house, What you can plant in your yard, What you can have in your driveway, and some even say what color your blinds can be.

Microsoft controls your computer, they say what info is sent back to Microsoft, and they say when you must upgrade. They can shut down your computer when they want whether you like it or not.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 4 points 2 hours ago

Linux is a clearing in the woods. You have the freedom to build a cabin yourself from logs with your barehands with LFS, buy building materials and power tools to build a completely custom house yourself with something like Arch or Gentoo, get a kit and put it up yourself with Fedora or Debian, put up a prefab with Ubuntu, or just pull up a trailer for a while and move on with a live ISO.

[-] waspentalive@lemmy.one 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Perhaps Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc are either pre-built homes delivered complete by truck or a stick-built home built to specifications provided by an architect.

In any case, remodeling is a possibility.

[-] flashgnash@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

I'd say they're more like the developer, they've made the house their way, you can kinda change it, change the paint, move the furniture but you can't make any major structural changes.

As much as Microsoft sucks their os is generally pretty solid. Not great but good enough for most

(I say this having not had a windows install on a personal machine for over a year now)

[-] waspentalive@lemmy.one 1 points 1 hour ago

You will not find a developer standing at your front door saying "Sorry, Updating the house- you can't go in right now" - and if you buy a home usually you can remodel but if you are in an HOA you probably have to beg permission to do anything that would be visible from the street.

[-] MagisterSieran@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 hours ago

where linux

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 3 hours ago

Sounds like Gnome.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 5 hours ago

So can Canonical. The difference is, they don't.

[-] waspentalive@lemmy.one 2 points 1 hour ago

So far, and since I have been running Debian for a while now I don't know about Ubuntu specifically, All the distros I have used either show an update is available, or you check for updates.

You have the choice and control to install the update and can do it later if now is not a good time. Or don't install it at all, it's your system.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 50 minutes ago

Obviously, yes. My point is: Do you read and understand all changes in the code for each update? You need to trust the maintainers, cause they could theoretically push out any code with the update.

[-] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 hours ago

Some HOAs are better than others.

[-] waspentalive@lemmy.one 2 points 1 hour ago

Unfortunately, all it takes is a change in the HOA board to turn a better HOA into a badder HOA.

[-] gregor@gregtech.eu 2 points 5 hours ago

Please do tell how they would do that.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 5 points 4 hours ago

You trust their repos.
With every apt update, they could push whatever code they want onto your PC.
Same as with literally any binary-based OS.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 2 points 1 hour ago

Not sure why you specify binary-based OS's. Following Gentoo's upgrade guide also gets you potentially whatever they want on your systemp

[-] tsugu@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 hours ago

Someone definitely reads the changed code of Gentoo packages. You are saying that every operating system on the planet is untrustworthy, besides gentoo and a few other source-based distros, but let's target Ubuntu in particular.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 7 points 4 hours ago

That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying you need to trust the people making your OS cause no way in hell is anyone else able to audit every update they push.
Whether your OS is trustworthy depends on their history. In that regard, I'd give Ubuntu a solid B-

[-] tsugu@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 hours ago

Fair enough

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 4 hours ago

How does that work, exactly? I don't actually know. Are they compiling their own copies of the upstream code changes?

[-] superkret@feddit.org 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Yes, they're taking the source code from upstream, modifying ("patching") it, compiling it, then uploading their compiled binaries to the Ubuntu repo where your system downloads them during an update.

You can technically download the source code as well, if you activate the source repo. But hardly any end user does. And the source code you get doesn't compile to the same binary you get from the repo anyway. (This would be called a "reproducible build". Some distros try to be reproducible. Ubuntu doesn't, they have other priorities.)

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 4 hours ago

Thank you. That makes sense why some downstream distros designed for specific purposes (e.g. gaming) might include a handful of their own repos for specific software.

this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
39 points (89.8% liked)

Linux

48317 readers
856 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS