Banning phones is an extreme measure. No restrictions whatsoever is an extreme measure. Articles like these simply start the conversation for the society at large to find a solution and, as I was saying in my initial comment some parents are simply unaware of how addictive video games can be. For many older generation (and even some of the younger parents out there that had no contact with video games) video games are often attributed to children’s toys. The truth however is not that simple - some games are for children and some are engineered from the ground up to be as addictive as possible. Even if the final responsibility lies with the parents, we need to have those parents informed and articles like this do that.

Often times, things are not black or white but multiple shades of grey. Should we demonize video games? Absolutely not, they’re not only fun but they can be a great tool to develop social skills, critical thinking and other adult skill. Should we inherently trust all video games and all parents to “do what’s right”? No again. There is a balance in everything and dismissing unbiased articles like this one isn’t helping anyone.

So many comments on this thread are very dismissive and just wave it off as “bad parenting” or “escapism”. While both of those arguments are valid and probably a very big part of the problem, should we leave everything on the parents?

We don’t allow businesses to sell alcohol towards children because we know it’s extremely harmful and addictive. Should we simply let it free for all and then blame parents for not teaching their children that alcohol is bad and for allowing them to go out to the local shop and buy alcohol? Same goes for multiple other restrictions. Not all parents are responsible and educated enough to know how to parent. Articles like this at least show unaware parents this is a real threat and they could at least keep an eye out or educate themselves on the parental control available.

Maybe I don’t understand the question, but what prevents you from adapting your Ansible playbooks to Fedora Silverblue? I assume for Debian at some point you have a “install packages” section which you should rewrite to use rpm-ostree or flatpak instead of apt-get; your dotfiles section should remain the same etc etc.

In the FTPD logs, do you see the initrd file being pulled? Could it be a mismatch between the kernel and initrd you’re serving?

Well, I don’t know how fair they play now, but for sure that wasn’t always the case.

Let’s not forget Oracle! While Rocky bit the bullet with this poorly written announcement, I believe Red Hat’s target was in fact Oracle, not some 20 employees startup with no customers.

I don’t think Red Hat is violating GPL. For sure it’s not violating the legal terms of it (I’m fairly certain the army of lawyers RH and IBM have at their beck and call made sure of that) and I don’t think it’s violating it’s spirit (at least not yet) – they are still contributing any changes and their customers still get access to the source code. And (for now!) it doesn’t even seem they are making it super difficult to do so either. The way I see it, RH wants to be the only game in town providing service contracts for their own product which is fair game, imho. The problem with Rocky is that they also stand to make money out of the same source code which is the disingenuous part, in my opinion.

I honestly don’t know why Rocky made this announcement, even if their intentions are noble, they do come out as the bad guys in all this mess. They could have simply put out some generic announcement that “we are working towards a legal way” and kept doing what they are doing.

And to be clear: I believe the true people that stand to lose in this are the users and the community. I’ve been a user of CentOS (the old style, not this new breed of RHEL beta) for a long time and even an occasional Rocky user in recent times, but that will have to change.

Well, Red Hat doesn’t really get paid (of course, I’m not arguing RH is not making or doesn’t have enough money) – they would get payed for one or a very small number of licenses. At the same time, Rocky (and Alma and more importantly Oracle) wants to actually sell (albeit only support) the same product put together by Red Hat so it’s not really a community RHEL clone. I think that’s the real issue here. I wouldn’t have a problem with this workaround if it were coming from the community, without the commercial asterisk attached.

I’ve been using the same Silverblue installation for about two years (maybe even more than that). Initially, I did a lot of tweaking because I didn’t really know how to approach toolbox and flatpaks, especially because I don’t use Gnome as my desktop environment, so this system went from standard Silverblue to Silverblue+i3 overlayed, then to Silverblue+sway overlayed, recently it got rebased to Sericea and it’s still running like day one. It also got upgraded from version 35(-ish) to 38 still without any issues (well, I did have some issues, but I simply rolled back and that fixed it).

I’m also deploying several Fedora CoreOS servers with a similar level of success, but those mainly tend to just run some containers, so I would say I mess way less with those, it’s been mostly just update/upgrade to the latest, check if podman is still running my containers and let them be.