I’m not a believer in the theory that Canonical is trying to migrate everything to MIT so they can have their proprietary Linux. Some people think that their move to Rust projects is a cover for that goal.
But in this case, Canonical Sequoia PGP is still GPL, so the conspiracy doesn’t make sense here. Hence my joke.
All evidence just points to Jon Seager, VP of Engineering at Canonical, just really liking Rust.
I find it highly concerning that Ubuntu is using Rust as a guise to replace GPL components like GNU GPG with GPL components like Sequoia PGP.
/s
The vast majroity of tasks work without issue. But there’s a lot of edge cases where uutil fails. When those are found, new tests are added to track them and prevent future regressions.
And new test cases are constantly being added. And with those new cases, the pass rate drops.
Reminds of this series by Dagnel where he started a world in alpha and collected every block (maybe items?) possible: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN8i55wNhCjjHsNZ3qhPD96uV8Bq1pn5v
Unfortunately he stopped at 1.14.
Sorry, I should note that 26.3 is not released yet. This is a “snapshot”, aka a development build. The full version of 26.3 will be released in a couple of months.
I updated the title to reflect that 26.3 is not released yet.
Definitely agree, particularly when it comes to security.
Valve takes a snapshot of Arch repos, frozen in time. They then spend months developing on top of this version. And by the time it’s released, it’s multiple months out of date. They don’t pull in security updates; Arch is a rolling release, they don’t backport fixes like Debian or Fedora does.
Definitely misremembering.
Technically yes, practically no.
Windows doesn’t include the drivers to read Linux file systems (except through WSL) and Vanguard sure doesn’t either.
If you encrypt your disks, then it definitely can’t.
You have to be careful with in-house developed tools though. Canonical outright owns the majority of the code and outside contributors need to sign a contributor’s licensing agreement that would allow Canonical to use their code in a proprietary version if Canonical chose to do so.
Yes, the GPL version would still exist, but Canonical could continue working on the proprietary version and not push the commits to the GPL version.
I’m not saying Canonical would do this. And you can replace “Canonical” in the prior sentences with any company and/or software that requires a contributor licensing agreement.