they did not "just announce" that, it was a rather technical decision several layers down, made a while ago. Sure, some things are not easily created without US companies but the overall tendency is pretty clear and it is: reduce absolute dependencies.
It's probably only funny because the commenting germans are aware that there is a much simpler "UG" (without the &co KG), which is pretty much a LLC, which you can open on your own, a bit faster, much cheaper. But apparently OP didn't do that for tax reasons (in a normal UG, if you want to pay yourself, you gotta pay income tax and all the other stuff)
If an american comes and says they founded a public company (with stocks and all), and complained about the fuzz involved, you would also tell them that it's their own fault, right?
That said, maybe the US/Delaware LLC has this component as well, I'm not a lawyer :D
Jetbrains gives away for free infinity years of a $180+ per year subscription (its more expensive in the first year or for orgs)[1] for open source authors, students, and more. Sure, the per-month price tag is not as high but after year 4 you saved much more.
Tbh Arch itself is the most explicit about this compared to the derivatives. Manjaro etc allow installing AUR stuff directly from their main package manager
As someone who tried rerere and didn't see the point:
How? Usually I rebase the same branch multiple times onto different, but successive commits of the master branch. But after I solved a bunch of conflicts of the first rebase, I shouldn't have the same conflicts again in a second one, since the rebased branch contains the merged conflict. Rebasing again could only turn up new conflicts (with newer, other commits on the master branch).
How can I have the same conflict again for repeated rebases?
Why can't stores take over the "verification" process (like they do already)? Why do app developers have to be verified themselves, why does the verification have to be done by google? There are so many options, why choose google of all companies? Just laziness?
At what point will you draw the line between "the user wants to do this because of his/her free will" and "the user wants to do this because someone else told them to"? Where will you stop?
All of this is just a bandaid, so why not stop at the state we are at _right now_, without some kind of 24h-long process to enable sideloading and let people be people? Yes, people make mistakes. But that is not your responsibility, especially if it comes at the cost of freedom. The most secure android device would probably be a brick, but you won't sell these, right?
Please instead take these resources and invest them into the app verification process in the play store. Way too many scams are right under your nose, no need to search in places where people are happy with the status quo.
I only trust this once they have finally detailed how they will allow "easy sideloading" (See one of the last fdroid news on this, currently google is on track to basically ban sideloading as it exists) and what exactly means "registered app store program".
Re your last paragraphs: I think RMS really meant just the Linux kernel when he wrote that(the topic is drivers, after all), not GNU/Linux, the OS or GNU/Linux, "the system". So it can be argued that he isn't really contradicting himself
Ok, then I don't pay you for advertising. On an entirely unrelated note, could I buy a spot on your website(e.g. at the top) to put a piece of my own website on it? You have a news website, right? And I also have some news to share.
But what if I rent a space on your website that I can fill however I want? And then, coincidentally, I praise my products on that rented space. How is that different from... other hosting offers?
I "solved" this by adding a fail2ban rule for everyone accessing specific commits (no one does that 3 times in a row) and then blocking the following ASs completely (just too many IPs coming from those, feel free to look them up yourself):
136907 23724 9808 4808 37963 45102. And after that: sweet silence.
How to block ASs? Just write a small script that queries all of their subnets once (even if it changes, its not so much to have an impact) and add them to a nft set (nft will take care of aggregating these into continouus blocks). Then just make nft reject requests from this set.
I just counted the list of supported formats and landed at 35. This is still impressive, but if even this simple fact is wrong in the project description("40+ formats!!!"), I have no faith at all that any of this actually works.
Its not "building a new package management system", "alpm" is literally the foundation of the pacman ecosystem. They are improving this so they _can_ catch up on packaging tasks.
I'm the same as the sibling commenter, I don't want to have another deb or rpm distro. The AUR wouldn't exist without pacman&makepkg.