The most of countries likely to invade Canada is as follows:

• the USA

Nobody else could manage a land assault on North America. Coming in from the arctic would be almost impossible.

Invading from the west or south means the US is in the way. And the US is unlikely to tolerate an invasion to the continent anyway (unless they are involved). And where is an invasion from the east being staged? Europe?

In practice, Finland and Poland are the greatest protection against Russia as they are very much in the way and would trigger all of NATO.

Many European counties have very credible defence industries. From what we have seen in Ukraine, NATO (even without the US) has both a technological and tactics advantage against Russia.

We are also seeing that warfare has changed. He who makes the most drones and cruise missiles wins.

And Europe could massively outspend Russia, again without help from the US.

Germany has massively stepped up their military spending. If they had to, Norway to completely fund a NATO war against Russia on their own.

The only thing the US really brings to NATO these days is their nuclear arsenal. But again, Russia has shown that their “superiority” in this area is useless in practice. It will not help them in a war with Europe.

The only way that Europe loses against Russia is if the US teams up with them. This used to be an insanely unlikely outcome but….

Did you mean USSR? I assume so but it is just “not obvious” enough that I may be missing out on what URSS means.

I see that you have responded to multiple people this way.

I have never heard of you but your responses lead me to believe that they are correct.

That would be a plot twist. Far more likely is that they go in on it together.

Ah thank you. You likely guessed the reason for the question.

Many popular projects written in Rust, including the UUtils core utils rewrite, are MIT licensed as Rust is. There have been people that purposely confuse things by saying that “the Rust community” is undermining the GPL. I can see how that may lead somebody to believe that there is some kind of inherent licence problem with code written in Rust.

Code written in Rust can of course be licensed however you want from AGPL to fully proprietary.

I personally perceive a shift in license popularity towards more permissive licenses at least with the “younger generation”. The fact that so many Rust projects are permissively licensed is just a consequence of those kinds of licenses being more popular with the kinds of “modern” programmers that would choose Rust as a language to begin with. Those programmers would choose the same licenses even they used the GCC toolchain. But the “modern” languages they have to choose from are things like Rust, Swift, Zig, Go, or Gleam (all permissively licensed ). Python and TypeScript are also still trendy (also permissively licensed).

Looking at that list, it is pretty silly to focus on Rust’s license. Most of the popular programming languages released over the past 20 years are permissively licensed.

I have never heard the licensing of Rust being raised as a concern for the Linux kernel.

As Charles Babbage would say, “I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

The distro I use builds the entire Linux kernel with Clang which uses the same license as Rust. Linux is bound by the same modified GPL license regardless of what compiler I use to build it.

The compiler has no impact on the license applied to the code you build with that compiler. You can use closed source tools to build open source software and vice versa.

And, of course, the Rust license is totally open source as it is offered as both MIT and Apache. Apache 2.0 even provides patent guarantees which can matter for something like a compiler.

If you prefer to use GPL tools yourself, you may want to keep an eye on gccrs.

https://rust-gcc.github.io/

A legitimate concern about Rust may be that LLVM (Rust) supports a different list of hardware than GCC does. The gccrs project addresses that.

I used to think the problems with Manjaro stemmed from Arch. The I tied EndeavourOS and I thought that EOS was fixing the Arch problems.

Then I tried Arch and realized that all the problems are the result of Manjaro. Arch does not have them. None of the other derivatives have them either.

Manjaro is a Trojan Horse.

They may team up

It has gotten better in Wayland. I am looking forward to the near future when we can finally stop appending “on Wayland” to everything.

You should use what you like.

COSMIC may offer a middle ground if you did want to try something else though.

And KDE is very configurable. It does not have to look like Windows.

The GNU projects that people actually use are primarily hosted, maintained, and developed by Red Hat (IBM). They are the primary code contributors. Not just GPL, GNU specifically.

This is just a fact.

https://sourceware.org/ (Previously known as sources.redhat.com)

There is more permissively licensed code in most Linux distributions than there is GPL code. Not only is that permissive code not being “stolen” by “mega corps” but the majority of it is corporately funded.

Again, just facts. All pretty easy to verify if facts matter at all to you.

What part did not make sense? Just that the facts do not agree with your opinion?

The comment I responded to was stating things that sounded like facts that are not at all supported by the evidence. And if I ask for some, I am pretty sure the cherry-picked examples will be mostly companies “stealing” projects that they wrote to begin with.

The thesis that permissive licenses result in less Open Source code is wrong. In fact, they lead to greater corporate participation and employees write more code than unsponsored individuals. That is what the evidence shows.

Use whatever licenses you want. Not wanting companies to use code you wrote is a totally valid choice. But you should not have to misrepresent reality to convince other people to do the same.

You are in luck. COSMIC launches in 3 days.

I am also interested to see what kind of adoption COSMIC gets. From the comments I have seen, I looks like it may pull-away a fair number of GNOME users.

No sure that COSMIC calendar will have all the features you want. COSMIC is a pretty good base for GNOME apps though. It does not have to be either / or.

If you ever want to try Wayland, check out LabWC.

I am also loving Niri

Sort of.

Everything is Wayland compatible but there is no XFWM for Wayland. So, you use a Wayland compositor like LabWC with the rest of XFCE running on top of it. This is the default XFCE config on SUSE Leap for example.

XFCE is not quite as far along on portal support as GNOME or KDE though. Depending on your use case, you may still prefer running on Xorg.

You can run the XFCE apps on any Wayland desktop.

Hundreds of billions of years should be sufficient t

Having the original UNIX source code with fully preserved timestamps?

Even if this happened, you cannot count on it. Trump or someone like him will take them back.

If you build and service Gripens in Canada, you can count on those jobs.