Plenty of people are ok with ads and such, and that’s fine. People who don’t want that may need to pay for the infrastructure of having an alternative platform. It all comes down to what you value more, and there’s no inherently right or wrong answer.

Time for nethack.

If the money is freely given as a donation, then I’m with you. If lack of money is what is stopping someone from making things that others are willing to pay to see more of, then sure. But if the only way to do it is to have ads or selling our data etc, then I don’t want that.

I’d rather have one unix surrealism than a thousand influencers with lots of followers. These days, I want to be among people who interact as equals, who share ideas, who cooperate in a genuine way. If we try a shortcut to more users through money, what is the point?

The way I understand it is that the security team supports releases for 5 years. If you are running an older version of ubuntu than that and want security backports, you need to get the extended support. The difference in Debian is that when a release is too old, the security team simply doesn’t backport security fixes. You can pay someone to do it, but it’s not a part of what Debian as a project does.

What are the details of this minerals deal? Is it just a way to put americans in Ukraine, or is it a way to basically steal Ukraines minerals?

After reading this I was at the local grocery store and counted 17 different kinds of bearnaise they sell. Sweden loves bearnaise.