Can I make a polite request to dial down the opacity a bit when highlighting?
duncesplayed
joined 2 years ago
No, it's considerably more safe than that. Unless the .deb has been cryptographically signed by the Debian maintainers, it won't install, no matter where you download it from.
For this reason, apt intentionally did not support any secure protocols (such as https) until just a few years ago. There's no point to downloading it securely or from a trusted source: all the security is in the signature verification. (And insecure protocols like http are usually easier to cache/proxy)
It wasn't even doing that. The translation was happening any time someone put the word/flag "Palestine" in their profile with the phrase "praise be to God". There didn't even any protest or any mention of the war.
Who are "the two idiots" here? Kylie Jenner and Mia Khalifa?
I think it's the "temporary" part of the licence where the trouble comes. Yes, you're allowed to do whatever you want privately...until you're not. I mean Louis Rossman is (in my view) a very trustworthy individual, so "trust me bro" legitimately does carry a lot of weight when he's involved on the project, but "we can take away your licence at any time for no reason at all" is not something seen in the open source world.
(No hate on the FUTO team. It's their hard work and livelihood and if that's the licence they want, that's fine. This is just my personal opinion.)
If they're just trying to avoid a NewPipe situation, the licence is more heavy-handed than it has to be. NewPipe is GPLv3, which has provisions in it for preventing forks from using certain names or logos or identifying marks. The NewPipe team chose not to (or neglected to) use those specific provisions in the GPL. But it's perfectly within their right to add to the licence information "You are not allowed to use the words 'new' or 'pipe' or use the letter P stylized as a triangle in a logo. The GPL makes a provision for these sorts of restrictions to automatically void the licence even for the case where none of those things are legally trademarked. (I'm not a lawyer and it's probably an open question as to how a court would enforce that clause, but my suspicion is it's probably enough to get Google to suspend violators from the Play Store at the very least. Probably you'd want to go to the trouble of trademarking them to be safe)
It wasn't, by the way. Though it could have been flagged by the dumbest of online translators (or even anyone who could read Cyrillic, since some of it uses English loanwords, like "sex" and "gay"). It should never have made it in release, but I disagree with categorizing it as "hate speech". I feel comfortable posting it here, even though it's pretty crude and #3 in particular is very vulgar. If anyone's curious, here are the Google Translate translations of the vandalized parts (except for one of them, fullInstallationSubtitle, which I think is too offensive to be repeated here. It references the Israel-Palestine war):
Suck dicks in this {DISTRO}
Your pants aren't off yet
.
Classic gay sex
Only the bare essentials, circumcised beards and Jewish pornography.
Warning: This feature is not supported by your synagogue and cannot support updates to future versions of the Podor system. Please, take off your pants already.
It's not that difficult, just take and take off your pants
Experimental encryption of the ancient Hebrew language
Complete infection with syphilis
Turn off RST, spread your buttocks, and continue
Everything is a hook
You left with your pin point
Too much grease on the primary socket
Leave unwashed
The mount point should start with removing the pants "/"
That "airline pilot speaking over an intercom" is spitting mad fire
It's a really good question which seems to have a complicated answer. This page here led me to this here (among other documents).
The short of it seems to be have that if you think of Rust in terms of "crates" instead of "libraries", then it's still possible to package in a way that conforms to Debian's self-contained avoid-redundancy style, though the details of it seem a bit tricky.
The usual Islamic flag/Jihadist flag is white-on-black.
The Taliban flag is black-on-white and I haven't seen any other group use the same black-on-white flag that the Taliban uses.