zero_iq

VMS implemented ACLs in the early 80s. It’s design influenced the design of ACLs in both AIX and Windows NT.

Yep, you’re right. I was thinking of an ACL evolution/chain of influence of VMS -> AIX -> NT, but it seems VMS -> NT and VMS -> AIX as two separate histories is much more accurate. Thanks for the correction – I’ve updated my comment accordingly.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong.

Windows has ACLs and they are an important part of Windows administration, and used extensively for managing file permissions.

Windows has supported ACLs on NTFS since Windows NT & NTFS were released in 1993 (possibly partly influenced by AIX ACLs in the late 80s influenced by VMS ACLs introduced the early 80s).

ACLs were not introduced to standard POSIX until c.1998, and NFS and Linux filesystems didn’t get them until 2003. In fact, the design of the NFSv4 ACL standard was heavily influenced by the design of NTFS/Windows ACL model – a specific decision by the designers to model it more like NTFS rather than AIX/POSIX.

Technically, at the filesystem level, exFAT also provides support for ACLs, but I am not sure if any implementation actually makes use of this feature (not even Windows AFAIK, certainly not any desktop version).

Damn, so what’s the name of the shape that’s a flat donut with an inner and outer circular perimeters? i.e. a filled circle with another smaller radius circular area subtracted from it. Or 2D cross section of a torus seen perpendicularly to the plane that intersects the widest part of the torus. A squished donut, or chubby circle, if you like.

And many “circles” aren’t circles either, but 2D torus approximations. The edge of a true circle is made of infinitesimally small points so would be invisible when drawn. And even if you consider a filled circle, how could you be sure you aren’t looking at a 1-torus with an infinitessimally small hole? Or an approximation of all the set of all points within a circle?

Clearly, circles are a scam.

In that case you’d be better off installing and learning Debian. It’s what Linux Mint and Ubuntu are based on, as well as many other distros such as Knoppix, Raspberry Pi OS, Kali, and many more. What you learn about Debian will be transferable to many other systems.

The modern definition we use today was cemented in 1998, along with the foundation of the Open Source Initiative. The term was used before this, but did not have a single well-defined definition. What we might call Open Source today, was mostly known as “free software” prior to 1998, amongst many other terms (sourceware, freely distributable software, etc.).

Listen again to your 1985 example. You’re not hearing exactly what you think you’re hearing. Note that in your video example the phrase used is not “Open-Source code” as we would use today, with all its modern connotations (that’s your modern ears attributing modern meaning back into the past), but simply “open source-code” - as in “source code that is open”.

In 1985 that didn’t necessarily imply anything specific about copyright, licensing, or philosophy. Today it carries with it a more concrete definition and cultural baggage, which it is not necessarily appropriate to apply to past statements.

Firefox + uBlock origin, and reVanced for YouTube ad-blocking/other features.

Worked fine for me (firefox mobile).

Trademarks and copyright are intellectual property.

You are partially correct. The general public also has protection written into in law in Canada (Yukon and Nunavut being current exceptions).

From the Ontario “Good Samaritan Act (2001)”, Section 2:

Protection from liability

2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person’s negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[12]

What you are saying really only applies to people who are rendering aid in some kind of professional capacity, or for remuneration. (So a higher bar of competence should be met if it is part of your job to give such assistance, as the above text would not apply to you if it is your job.)

If you are simply helping someone with no expectation of payment, you are not liable for any damages due to your negligence, unless you are acting with gross negligence. And educating yourself in first aid would be a good first step in avoiding negligence.

Gross negligence requires recklessness, or purposeful ignoring of health and safety. If you are acting with good intentions and with due consideration for the health and well being to the best of your ability, it is difficult to see how the bar for gross negligence would be met.

Such “good samaritan” laws are a common feature in many countries around the world, although it should be noted that there are regions (including some in Canada: Yukon and Nunavut) where such laws do not exist.