Supposedly it works with unmodified i3wm config files, though I haven't tested that myself.
duncesplayed
joined 2 years ago
Honest question: what does i3wm that swaywm doesn't?
Yes, which is literally what OP is asking about. They mention system calls, and are asking, if a userland program can do dangerous thing using system calls, why is there a divide between user and kernel. "Because the kernel can then check permissions of the system call" is a great answer, but "hopefully you can't harm your computer with userland programs" is completely wrong and misguided.
I've heard Brother isn't what it used to be, but if it's even half of what it used to be, it's still in a league above any other printer.
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda is a userland program, which I would say causes harm.
That would be a "technical merit", which the article author claims is irrelevant to the discussion.
It's come up in interesting cases. I can't remember which package it was, but there was one package that was distributed under the humourous "Don't Be Evil License", where you could "use this software for anything that's not evil" or something like that. This technically does not qualify as free software (freedom 0 must allow anyone to use it for evil), so Red Hat (I think it was?) had to get their lawyers to contact the developer and get him to give them an exemption to the licence, just in case one of their users used it for evil.
You mean Linux isn't going to have 200% market share one day? Shit, I'm starting to think my calculations may have not been totally serious.
It's a website that's managed by a community of pirates. It's invite-only (meaning you have to be invited by an existing user) and you will have your membership revoked if you don't follow certain rules (mostly about seeding). The .torrent files you get from them are specific to that private tracker, so no one who's not also a member of the same site can see which files you're seeding.
Just an FYI that at this rate it's only going to take another 115 years before Linux has 100% market share.
The timing of it speaks to what kind of damages they might be seeking, but it doesn't change the overall principle of it. Streaming or uploading video footage makes a derivative work or a partial copy, and I think that's pretty well established by now, regardless of whether it's done before release, right after release, or 20 years later.
I know, people do it all the time, anyway. Well, there are "fair use" cases where copyright law can get a little more lenient (like if you're giving a tutorial, or the footage relates to some academic commentary), but most of the video game footage you see online isn't there because it's legal, but because nobody really cares about it (or is suffering any damage from it). In principle it's still not legal.