Debian?

For sure

You can absolutely use Linux without any GNU software. I use Chimera Linux for example (no Glibc, no GCC, no GNU utils). I even get away from some software that Red Hat created according to your definition like SystemD. However, even still, I know that Red Hat is responsible for much of the software I run since I use software like X, Wayland, Mesa, Podman, KVM, PulseAudio, and PipeWire.

It is VERY hard to run a Linux system without using code contributed by Red Hat.

No, Red Hat did not “create” glibc, GCC, or GNOME. They just contributed tens of thousands of lines of code to them. Perhaps more than anybody else over the last 20 years. Ever heard of Ulrich Drepper?

Actually, it is impossible to use Linux without using code contributed by Red Hat as they have been one of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel itself for multiple decades now.

And to clarify, the Linux kernel is absolutely NOT a GNU project. Very few packages in a typical Linux distro are actually. The full list of GNU packages is here:

https://www.gnu.org/software/software.en.html#allgnupkgs

Compare it with this list:

https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/contributions

GNU has been influential but is not essential as you can create a complete Linux distribution without any of it (again see Chimera Linux). Code contributed by Red Hat however is totally unavoidable and completely essential. It is not possible to run a Linux system without it. All the distributions you listed heavily rely on code contributed by Red Hat.

To say otherwise is not just misleading. It is wrong.

I do not use any Red Hat distributions. I do benefit from their contributions and am thankful for them.

You sir, may be the highest quality person on the Internet.

We may disagree. One of us may be wrong. Or it may simply be two sides of the coin. Regardless, I respect your opinion and values and cannot begin to express how impressed I am with your response here. I hope someday to achieve the same level of maturity.

We cannot expect companies to be “good” but that is absolutely something we can strive for in ourselves.

Services like stability, testing, compatibility, security, certification, and documentation?

I am not sure how you arrived at “none” from your second sentence. The second sentence is exactly my point.

Alternatively then, can I just use the Microsoft source code and claim that I got it from AI? That seems to be your point here.

Um. If I am old in a society that demands young people pay the expenses of old people (eg. Healthcare, housing, or interest on accumulated debt, then I can absolutely create a financial burden for my children. If we want to be pedantic, bankruptcy is the state of having financial obligations that you cannot bear. So, I can absolutely bankrupt my children.

I did misunderstand. Thank you.

I guess that is up to those other places

First of all, how were the “specific Republican states” chosen as targets by Canada? Are these the states where data shows the greatest malice for Canada to be focussed? Is Canada trying to target individuals in fairness. No, it has nothing to do with that.

The retaliatory tariffs are chosen to cause pain in the US without too much pain for Canadians (where Canadians can easily find substitutes). Mostly, they were chosen in the hopes that the individual States will apply pressure on the US administration to change policy. In other words, the most effective tariff targets will be States that actually like Canada and hope federal tariffs get dropped but where Canada can do immediate economic harm too. It is not Canada targeting only the bad guys like you seem to be implying. Do we target individual States to drive changes in their individual policy? No. Talk about an “overly simplistic take”.

Trump did not win because of his popularity. He won with the support of 31% of the voters. It is largely a story of people not bothering to show up to stop him.

So, while I do not vilify any particular individual American and do claim to know their mind, I also don’t have a lot of sympathy for the “it is not the people” talk either. This shit has a real impact in my world and 2 out 3 Americans are directly implicated in the result. As a group, they are absolutely culpable.

In addition, saying “people did not understand” is a weak argument. Trump was pretty vocal and explicit. At best, this is just a “I could not be bothered” argument. I could not be bothered to be informed means “I could not be bothered to defend my democracy”. Not a great defence.

But that is not even what matters. What matters is that they are, collectively, attacking me and mine. I am supposed to ignore that?

If you go to war and you find yourself engaged with enemy troops, you do not pause to consider the possible philosophical positions of each individual enemy soldier. The opposing military is either at war with you or it isn’t. It is attacking you or it is not. It does not matter if it is composed of hundreds of thousands of human beings. You need to treat it as a singular entity with the strategic, tactical, and policy goals of the leadership. You do not choose targets based on the ideology of the people being targeted. You choose targets that do damage to the enemy, to apply leverage against them in the hopes of driving them to capitulation. This is not some sort of “simplistic take”. I am not writing an academic paper identifying underlying causes. I am defending against aggression. A real attack. One with consequences.

Many of my friends in America do not like Trump and did not vote for them. That is nice. They can come visit me and some have. Good people. That does nothing to protect me from the government that acts in their name. So, I will absolutely boycott and act in opposition to their economy and their county at every opportunity. If the administration changes or radically changes their current policy of aggression, my position could change. Until then, it is not that complicated.

Should I let my country fall to the invaders because some of them might not agree with the invasion? In my view, that would be the truly naive position.

Both BlackArch and Kali are pen testing distros. I guess they see the natural evolution as one from newb to hacker (ethical or otherwise).

Outside of the default packages, there is not much difference between Kali / BlackArch and their base distros (Debian / Arch).

I had the same impression of Bookworm. Debian including non-free firmware made a big difference. Trixie may be a game changer for Debian on the desktop.

You might consider installing Arch in a Distrobox and adding yay to it to get access to the AUR on your current system. I use a MUSL based distro these days but use Distrobox to bring the AUR with me. This would be a way to give you a feel for the AUR without having to quit your current distro of choice cold turkey.

I have considered trying LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition) with a an Arch/Distrobox. That would be a base system of Debian Stable (stable), a reasonably up-to-date but not “bleeding edge” desktop (Mint), and the AUR for up-to-the minute versions of every package I can think of if I want them. Maybe I will try it when LMDE 7 launches. Could be good.

Nah. Arch sits at the table with Ubuntu at this point. It is the domain of gamers and YouTubers. The Edgelords have fled to Void (or even Chimera Linux).

Wicked. What distro works best for them?

I use Edge as my “work” browser. Works well with Teams and Office. Works well with corporate sites. Allows me to be logged in with work accounts. Keeps a work bookmarks separate. I can change the browser agent to say I am on Windows for compatibility. And I am ok if Microsoft spies on my work stuff.

And, to be fair, it is a pretty decent browser.

The road continues on to Arch from there.

Debian is becoming more and more viable as a desktop OS in the era of Flatpak and Distrobox. Trixie looks like a really nice release.

There are already areas where you pick-up at the post office (nearby) and super mail boxes already mean a huge fraction of delivery is no longer door-to-door.

We do not need to reduce coverage more than we have. Postal service is essential.

I think it is viable to ask about frequency. So no thing like 3 days a week works just as well for what postal service is used for in this day and age while costing quite a bit less.

Do we really need daily door-to-door delivery?

I think you could go down to 3 days a week.

Physical mail delivery is still vital but we have many, many communications alternatives available to us now.

I agree with you about what Americans think. However, Canada must deal with the United States as a single entity. At the moment, the United States is acting as an enemy. Until that changes, how some Americans think about it is not what matters.

They have two arguments:

• congress has the power to tax (tariff), not the president

• congress has previously granted the president “limited” powers for “targeted” tariffs in an “emergency”. The current situation is none of those things.

• combine the above two and Trumps across the boards tariffs are unlawful and therefore void