for the average joe using the terminal is too hard

The average Joe can certainly find it difficult to justify spending the time learning the terminal… but actually learning how to use the terminal is easy (and I’m tired of everyone pretending it’s not). If we tech literate people can put aside our low expectations then maybe we’ll find it’s easier to teach that expected.

Then we can consider something like downloading apps by visiting websites (perhaps after dodging malware links from adverts in modern search engines) a solved problem: don’t do that.

This is something which aught to be taught in school as part of using a computer but users being tech literate probably goes against tech corporates that have their claws in education.

Maybe modern search engines are part of the problem here. A local computer geek can probably offer better advice (better “tech tips” if you will).

Mint is the most similar environment for Windows to more easily transfer over and get used to?

Mint kernel version appears rather old - does it support the latest AMD GPUs out of the box?

Pretending to be the average Joe to see what issues may occur certainly does has it’s place - before an expert informs them of what they aught to do. That’s not to say people creating software cannot do better to appeal to the average user’s needs but it’s falls on experts to teach them to do tech right.

I mean if it’s 2nd hand… and the free (libre) drivers are good… and AMD hasn’t gone full Intel… maybe??

The freedom to deny others the same freedom?

If it’s all your own work then a license is purely for others to follow. MIT and GPL license can be just as simple as including a textfile of that license in the project.

Ideally one includes a header in each code file to ensure people just looking at that file (without project context) know the license.

Cancer is a bad analogy. It’s more like antibodies against non-free bactetia :)

The kernal provides tools to inspect the system that userspace-only probably never can. So “works” here would be not crashing when it cannot investigate. The dev of the game Rust (which previously supported Linux) has brazenly said game devs are not serious about anti-cheat if they support Linux. Rust still has cheaters on Microslop Windows as kernal access isn’t even enough. Linux is better of not chasing the delution that is modern client side anti-cheat.

I’m willing to celebrate… if it’s a net positive in the end. Linux gamers being able to play big titles, or game with Windows-using friends is good. Having to run DRM/adware/rootkit “anti-cheat”, subscriptions and dark patterns is very bad.

My outlook on the modern games industry is very low overall and I don’t see how to fix it. If I could do anything I’d instead promote and invest into “open source” games (software freedom respecting games).

The zed-industries Github repository lists Zed licenses as AGPL, Apache and GPLv3.

The AGPL refers to the GNU Affero General Public license, which does not limit others from competing. Unless you mean the fact that forks must share source code when accessed over a network?

Never understood a terms of service existing if the project code license is GPL or such. Can’t this just be forked and cured of anti features, if people value it enough to do so?

Binding arbitration (aka, if we break the law you can’t sue us) aught to be illegal in every country.

I’m not an artist, I just write silly game systems. I took for granted that a handwritting machine was an easy assumption. I doubt AI companies even have the insentive to try and create physical handwriting/sketching but I see no reason to believe it’s impossible.

Here appears to be a handwriting printer “holding” a pen. People can probably tell this was not human written but I just imagine a machine that can replicate human hand motion better - like a robot hand on a robot arm.

If the training data for “drafts” and “hand written notes” exists then one can train an AI on it, and generate it the same way. Do some artists share such things?

Instead of considering if the whole work is now copyrightable, consider parts of the work made by generative AI are not and the human parts are (if they reach the minimum line of creativity). Sure there’s other helpful tools that do some of the work but unless they’re substituting the creativity then they need not apply.

Seems impossible to me but I’m not an artist - I write code as a hobby and see no way to definitively prove I wrote any code that an AI could also produce. Is there any aspect of art creation that an AI cannot replicate?

It’s where people are, sadly.

Probably not if it depends on Google Pain Services?

If you post hard enough you can get a company to sue you out of desperation.

Godot is yours to control. You, and others, can change the engine and share those changes.

Someone else controls what your copy of Unity does, and they want to get paid. They can alter the deal at any time. Spend year(s) investing while praying they do not alter the deal any further.

There are other considerations one can discuss (what do you want to make, user prior coding experince, what jobs want these days) but if you value your software freedom it’s an easy question answered by looking at the software license. MIT > Proprietary.