Your fdisk output shows a single partition of type ee which according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table is the type for the protective MBR partition shown by MBR tools when looking at GPT partition tables.
Try using gdisk -l instead of show the GPT partition table.
The driver runs in the kernel, distrobox still uses the host kernel as it is container based so no, you can not run two different drivers on host and in distrobox. That wouldn’t even work in a VM though unless you have a second GPU you pass through to the VM. How do you imagine one piece of hardware to be simultaneously controlled by two different drivers?
I don’t use Terraform but from my understanding Terraform is more for “what kind of server hardware/VM/container/… do I want” and less “which configuration do I want on that server/VM/container/…”
So this one guy maintains a mobile OS and a browser and an openwrt fork? That seems like too much work for one person and too few people to have issues with lack of donations if he actually does pull it off.
Seems familiar. Did you by any chance also not update the copy of grub in your EFI system partition since you installed it? Then you need to do that and afterwards everything works fine again.
While you are at it add a netboot.xyz EFI entry to fix that kind of stuff without a USB stick or your own network boot server.
What you want sounds like you need something CRIU based where the whole processes are saved and restored. Not sure that is worth it though as it would be rather inflexible if you want the slightest changes in the application state.
I was more thinking about things like governments that decide that every implementation of something must be certified to be used, e.g. with wireless technologies. Not so much implementation as specification or legal compliance barriers to open source basically.
You raise a good point though, financial barriers such as per user pricing that are hard to implement for software distributed for free would be quite similar.
Maybe your could also add organisations (companies, government agencies, NGOs,…) that create standards in such a way that the standard is hard or impossible to implement in open source implementations?
RHEL and other extremly long term support distros that have a significant user base because they hold back a lot of software features, network protocol features and moves to new dependencies that are required to work on the oldest and the newest supported distro for any given upstream software project.
Also, any time I have to learn something about a quirk in a version of software in use there it is basically wasted life time because the knowledge is already outdated by the time I obtain it.
Similarly, proprietary software can be secure despite being closed-source.
That depends entirely on your threat model and the kind of relationship you have with the software vendor. Software might be proprietary and closed source but e.g. you might be the only customer and did get to engage an auditor which could see the source code. Or it might be off-the-shelf software made in a country trying to spy on your company or country. In some of those cases it literally can not be secure for your threat model.
I have only tried it with wired but it uses ipxe and that is supposed to work with Android USB tethering too to bridge to other kinds of network access.