BusyBox
@pawb.social
While much of the Unix family has died, (especially in the System V family) there is an old one surviving and a few new additions being added.
Solaris is still alive, and from it was forked illumos. Meanwhile BSD has spawned its own family made up of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD, but also MacOS and Playstation. Other systems that appeared without any prior history like Linux include Redox OS and SerenityOS.
With that being said, the Unix family has noticeably shrunk, and the System V family is very much in danger of going extinct, with only the Solaris branch looking like it will survive the next year. If the System V family goes extinct, it would make the BSD family the only surviving branch descended from the original Unix.
Given how Paradox published (not in-house developed) games are increasingly Windows only I'm not surprised. I hope they eventually release a Linux version anyway, but it's probably not a huge deal with Proton being so good for single-player games.
"OpenBSD made a secure fork of X?" Depends on what you consider secure I guess. X has some fundamental design issues.
One particularly memorable one is that lock screens in X are run on top of your userspace. If they crash, you get to use your computer again. No matter how many patches are applied to X lock screens, a new bug appears every few years that has to be patched. It fails insecurely, and as such will always be insecure as long as the lock screen could feasibly crash.
If your answer is "lock screens don't matter," security is not a top priority for you, and that's okay. There are other reasons you may wish to use X. Please understand however that some people may find it important, and may choose to use Wayland as a result.
I feel like you've built two straw-men and conflated them together. I haven't seen anybody arguing either case on the left side of the meme in response to the images depicted (or similar) on the right side of the meme. People wanting to send weapons to Ukraine generally tend to also say it doesn't have a Nazi problem (and may compare Russia with Nazis), and people wanting pacifism in Palestine also don't like weapons and support sent to Israel.
RNA vaccines may be relatively new, but they aren't genetic therapy. It does not get integrated into your DNA.
Plus, weren't there 3 covid vaccines? One of them used a more traditional method.
Haven't encountered people hating furries this much in a long time, I wonder why we're still hated by some people.
I suppose it's like how there's also furries that hate others they misunderstand as well: I've encountered a surprising number of transphobic furries, as they buy the myth that transgender people are pedophiles. I even recently heard a furry tell me that they hate bronies because they think bronies are zoophiles.
Pretty sure it's 3, they have a history of claiming to resurrect extinct species when they're just modifying existing species to be a little more similar to the extinct one.
They claimed to bring back dire wolves but they're more similar to grey wolves. They make the argument that the genes they used are what most makes a dire wolf a dire wolf, but it's controversial.
I also remember hearing they said they would bring back a population of red wolves by extracting red wolf DNA that had been absorbed into a coyote population, but seemed to ignore the existing red wolves (which could do with extra genetic diversity) and worked using coyotes as a base.
I think there were a few other changes indirectly inspired by what had transpired, but admittedly I can't remember most of them. I think Debian also modified apt.
I also think I remember immutable distros taking off just after this.
I think that's more what the people excited about AI think it it is, many of the people who fear it don't really fear its intelligence as much as how it's abused. Personally, I don't even like the machine learning algorithms in social media, despite them being a thing for a long time now.
I kind of suspect life wouldn't exist today if it didn't make the occasional error. Although I believe DNA does have rudimentary correction mechanisms: each strand is paired up with its negative and duplicated chromasomes will have 2 chromatids. In those cases there are kind of 4 copies. Sometimes errors are corrected by using the other chomatid as a template. However, not all that useful before the chromosome is duplicated.
At some point the data has to be copied for reproduction, so DNA must be writable at least for new copies, but that's part of what makes the copying process so vulnerable. However, I do agree that it's too easy to trigger a write, and while histones reduce writability, they also reduce readability.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...