I’m using a couple of TP-Link EAP225 ceiling-mounted PoE access points, and one EAP235-wall wall-mounted one, connected to my old TP-Link Archer C7 router (with the antennas disabled) running OpenWRT.

I’d like to replace the router with something rack-mounted, but haven’t gotten around to it yet.

I love that GL.iNet stuff ships with OpenWRT (or apparently FreeRTOS in the case of the Thread border router I’m eyeing right now), but I wish they would make stuff like ceiling or wall-mounted PoE access points and rack-mountable wired routers. The form-factor is what stops me from choosing them over TP-Link devices that I have to flash OpenWRT onto myself.

Don’t get lazy with soundbars; do it properly with discrete speakers (at least in the living room).

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4LFDPbbSVk

No, especially because we don’t actually know if Luigi is the guy.

Two people have tried, so far.

Which country has both abusive crony-capitalist billionaire CEOs and fun jail?

Ah, right.

I’m an emacs user, so that’s why I didn’t remember the vi bindings accurately.

I can tell you aren’t a vi user because you would’ve remapped it to ctrl.

Ce n’est pas un cheval.

Implement a basic socket connection in C (20 lines of manipulating struct sockaddrs and such), then do the same in Python (2 lines).

And then go back and make the C version support IPV6, because your initial implementation didn’t.

Because “more effort and care” in Python is still way less of a pain in the ass than the minimum enforced boilerplate necessary in most other languages.

I am pleased to announce that I have recently upgraded from 3x 1920x1080@60Hz to 3x 2560x1440@100Hz

I reject the presupposition that season passes can ever be “proper.” What’s “proper” is buying a game once, receiving a game that’s finished and complete, and owning the whole thing forever.

Ah, that’s different then!

Hmm…

From https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:manual:contrib:hyperbolabsd_faq:

HyperbolaBSD is under a progressive migration by replacing all non GPL-compatible code. It will be replaced with new compatible code under Simplified BSD License. We do this in order to incorporate GPL code from other projects such as ReactOS, as well new code from scratch.

It’s not clear to me that relicensing the existing code to GPL is what they’re planning on doing; it sounds more like they’re going to mix in GPL code but not change the existing files to GPL en masse after they finish harmonizing them to two-clause BSD.

Frankly, IMO that’s too bad: I’d love to see them make the whole shebang GPLv3-or-later

Related question: is all Linux kernel code required to be licensed GPLv2-only, or are individual contributions allowed to be GPLv2-or-later? I’d be nice to see if that project (and stuff like HURD and ReactOS) could benefit from at least some Linux contributions, even if they can’t copy it wholesale.

Yeah, I know, but I would’ve expected a distro that describes itself as “GNU/Linux-libre” would fall on the other side of it!

Speaking of old, dead distros, my first Linux – sort of – was TurboLinux 6.0. I say “sort of” because I never successfully got it to install and run. : (

A meme Linux is the “most obscure” you can think of?

Sounds more like a BSD kind of idea, to be honest. The GNU idea is to let specifically end-users have control over their own computer, not some third-party.

Wait… they’re militant enough about Free Software to refuse to package anything even slightly non-Free, but their “final goal” is to switch the kernel to BSD? WTF?