Jajcus

What is more interesting, Google came as a more friendly alternative, with drastically less ads than Alta Vista and other search engines of that time had. Today’s Google is only just approaching now the amount of ads on the search results page that those had. It is just a bit smarter about mixing ads with actual search results and the ads are more targeted (which is not necessarily a good thing).

The idea is you package the software once and it works forever, because all dependencies for it are provided in the exact right version. And the dependencies may include things that would not be included in the base system (like super new versions of some important libraries).

That is true, but that is also the problem: both the package and all its dependencies may be left never updated.

In traditional Linux distribution, like Debian, every package must be compiled within the same system, which usually means specific version of all key libraries. And when the key libraries are upgraded some packages compiled for older versions won’t work, the package might not even compile with newer version of the libraries. And it is often not possible/practical to provide multiple different version of libraries (or other shared system components). The result is distribution developers have a lot of hard work updating all the packages. When there is no one to fix a package for the next version of the package, the package will be removed from the distribution. That happens when package is not maintained upstream and/or no one cares enough to maintain it in the distribution. In that case – is it worth to keep it?

Snap makes packaging applications much easier, and more decoupled from the operating system ‘core’. Less maintenance is needed… but that also means less maintenance will be done, which is not necessarily good.

On the other hand, Snap allows application to be maintained more rapidly than the distro core – in that case it can make things safer – fix in applications and their dependencies can be fixed that it could be done in the normal Debian release process. But that depends on maintainers of the specific snap and its dependencies.

You mean they choose not to support Linux. Still sounds like they are to blame, not Linux.

I use FreeCAD for modeling (already used it for different projects) and Cura for slicing. Both seem to work for me, though these are my first steps with 3D printing.

Differences between 2.4 and 2.6 were quite big, I don’t think there was another such big change in kernel releases any time later. But that was also the time when Linux was transitioning from being a hobby project (already useful for serious stuff) to being a serious professional operating system – the last moment for major refactoring.

Linux kernel is still changing and being constantly refactored, but now the changes tend to be more gradual and version numbers matter much less.

Then my recent research was wrong - I tried to make it work and failed. Then read somewhere it is not supported. But it can be that it is valid EFI configuration, but not supported by Windows and some firmware implementations.
I don’t think I have ever seen an EFI firmware which was not broken in one way or another.

On EFI systems all bootloaders are supposed to reside on a single partition. EFI does not support multiple ‘EFI system partitions’, so operating systems have to share a single one. And this is usually not a problem if it is the one Windows choose. The problem most often is broken EFI firmware which fails to correctly handle adding and removing boot entries. Or Windows, which fails to boot if anything changes (disk order and such), even though everything is still available.

They destroy everything they touch…

I am only happy for the damaged they made to MySQL popularity. ;-)

Every major distro uses systemd, because before that it was nearly impossible to properly implement things that distros have to provide.
Most startup scripts were incredible set of hacks to make services behave. Those were very inefficient (they could not be efficient being shell scripts calling other commands for various simple repetitive tasks) and would often break when circumstances were different from ideal.

Systemd just makes building Linux distribution much easier, and the resulting system is more reliable, more consistent and more flexible. Why would distro developers chose anything else?