It doesn’t actually contribute to the discussion.

That’s not a meaningful comparison because it splits Ubuntu by version but all of Arch is a single category. We’d need to roll up the Ubuntu users for it to be apples to apples.

Someone is going back over their contributions, right?

Right?

Debian and Fedora have ports, though not all packages are available, and you’ll probably be doing a lot of porting if you want anything else.

But this bit from the uConsole R-01 product page might be relevant to you:

uConsole R-01 is a highly experimental model and requires some experience with Linux systems & FOSS. We strongly recommend all beginners choose other models.

swapoff, reformat, swapon?

Also make sure the drive isn’t dying.

Even at big companies, devs get flexibility because they need to run a bunch of random stuff that can look sketchy to security software.

Mounting or unmounting a filesystem won’t make a difference for drive longevity.

If you want to keep your backups secure, you want to keep them offline, so if you get ransomware it doesn’t encrypt your backup too. (Or if you just mistype a command and target the wrong device, folder, etc.)

But drive motor starts and stops are when the most failures occur. So the ultimate question isn’t how to make a drive last longer, it’s how you plan to handle it when the failure inevitably occurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot)

That’s not busy work. Busy work, as explained in the article, is work that doesn’t really accomplish anything, like re-folding towels that have already been folded. Or as I’ve had to do before, sweep a perfectly spotless sidewalk. Data validation is valid work.

Long story short, I can’t use multiple monitor RDP because I have different resolution monitors and they are stacked 2x2 instead of all in a row.

Did you try setting them up as one big display across all four, instead of four little ones? I think that’s something you can do.

Does the multi-mon RDP thing work from a Windows client too? I’d be surprised if it did, Windows’ multi-monitor support is fairly lacking in my experience too.

Why not run sed and pipe to diff to preview changes?

You’d still have to manually copy out the command line to a notes file, but I don’t think that that’s too terrible. You could use a terminal-integrated snippets palette to make it a little smoother.

I’m not aware of any program that does exactly everything you want it to, so you might write your own or extend an existing one, as mentioned.

You would probably get a better answer by asking a Rhino community. But a quick look at the documentation suggests you can choose: https://rhinolinux.org/wiki-rpk.html

Only if you file suit and the court finds it enforceable. Sometimes they say you can sue anyway.

And integrated GPU counts, so you could use the integrated one for the host and a discrete card for the guest.

Not my Model M.

Yes, I understand there are orders of magnitude of complexity between the two. And no, it’s not remotely feasible, like I said, they wouldn’t be any good. If anything, I’m agreeing with you that no system of government, or system of economics for that matter, would make it practical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace

It’s a parallel. Mao tried to create industry in people’s backyards. It took people away from food production, destroyed existing valuable metal products, deforested the areas, and for all that effort, resulted in product with quality so bad it was unusable.

While it would probably also be more like input material production, silicon ingots and wafer slicing and such, I’m sure the quality would equally be shit enough to be unusable. Especially since metalwork tolerances are usually in micrometers at best, but microchips are in the nanometers.

Communist China and Soviet Russia would do it.

They wouldn’t be any good, but they’d do it.

They absolutely do fund development like this. But they keep it for themselves until such time that it no longer gives them a competitive edge.

For example, when the US sells tanks or planes to other countries, those export versions have much less fancy equipment on the inside. Or in pure science like cryptography, you can assume that when the NSA publicly approves of an algorithm, they’re confident that they can break it if they really need to (either because they inserted a backdoor, have identified a weakness they can exploit, or just have no use for it any more themselves).

Sure. And the number of people who would do it purely because they want to is a tiny fraction of people who do it for pay. To pay those people you need profits, to get profits you need to be special, to be special you can’t share your trade secrets.