Red Hat created Fedora specifically to be the “community” distro. There used to just be Red Hat which tried to be both free and paid. Now they have Fedora and RHEL.
Red Hat releases all their own software as GPL. They are one of the few players releasing new and important GPL software. As you state, they employ and pay people to spend most of their time building an emphatically free and community based distro. I cannot think of a company that does more for Open Source.
What? Please no. XFCE is its own thing. It is not old GNOME. They are both GTK based so a little collaboration on apps they both need would be interesting. Beyond that, they are different projects—like GNOME and KDE. BTW, there is also an “old” KDE called Trinity.
You better hope that Cinnamon migrates to Wayland before Red Hat stops supporting Xorg. Despite the deeply researched and evidence based opinion above, Red Hat is the the primary contributor to many of the technologies propping up Mint. Xorg is MIT licensed of course and Red Hat has no obligation to share their changes for Xorg with Mint but they do. Most of the original software Red Hat writes is released under the GPL and used by every other distro. The very first program that Debian runs when it boots was written and is maintained by Red Hat. Fedora was founded by Red Hat to explicitly be community based and they pay the salaries of many of the prominent contributors. Regardless of what you think of Red Hat’s behaviour, I am embarrassed for anybody that honestly believes Red Hat is closed source, even without the all caps.
I know this is a joke comment but Linux is for sure an enterprise kernel first and foremost. It did not start that way but that is how it has been developed and managed for many years now. Maybe the most incorrect thing anybody has ever said on record in the computer industry is when Linus said Linux was “not going to be anything big and professional”.
Linux distributions, which are conceived and managed totally independently from the kernel are available for every niche. Many of them are desktop and “consumer” oriented. With many Linux distributions, I would say that it is more accurate that they are hobbiest oriented more than what Microsoft would mean be “consumer”.
In that talk he called C “the worst language” and said he chose it to troll the industry. How does that support your point?
He also said that you should choose “least privilege” whenever possible. That is precisely the value that Rust brings over C. So how does that talk support the idea that C is more secure than Rust?
I think they may actually be suggesting that you let each OS be the primary OS and then just control which one you want via boot order in the BIOS.
But yes, if Windows is able to install its boot loader on its own drive, it will not mess up the Linux boot loader on another drive. The Linux boot loader can detect Windows though and allow you to boot to it ( and Linux too of course ). That is why you make sure Linux boots first.
Colour spaces are ready. They are saying I may be hard to wire it up in all the right places in a month. Why not take two months and get it in? I mean, it has been over a decade already.
Many people have been waiting for 3.x for literally half their lives. To save a month, they are going to launch 3.x with the big change being the toolkit? Seems like a wasted opportunity.
If it were going to be 6 months or more I would agree with you. From the write-up though, they delay would only be a few weeks.