Bazzite is built using imagemode/bootc; is it not?
I'm trying to understand the "deprecated already" in your first paragraph. (All I know about rpm-ostree is from using and adminning a distro that relies on rpm-ostree. I.e., I don't know much.)
Here is my guess as to what you mean: Bazzite could continue to use imagemode and bootc while replacing rpm-ostree with something better, and maybe you'll give Bazzite another look after that happens.
Fedora Atomic and RHEL used to ship with rpm-ostree, new versions are now using bootc. the base philosophy is still to ship the OS as an image, but bootc goes more into layering like docker-images, so that you can deploy changes a bit more easily/dynamically.
they're different technologies with bootc being the new kid. bootc means "bootable containers". rpm-ostree has not much to do with containers and is more like managing your OS with git-logic.
forget about "imagemode", that's the marketing-term RedHat uses for bootc.
i imagine bazzite will migrate to bootc sooner or later, but of course that requires a new way to build and ship it.
The first paragraph of the home page of https://universal-blue.org/ ends with "We produce a diverse set of continuously delivered operating system images using bootc."
Another author explains: "Bazzite utilizes bootc to manage the base image for your system, pin specific versions, and perform rollbacks when needed. For systems with customized software via layered packages, rpm-ostree becomes essential for installing, upgrading, and managing those additions."
"Why do this? Each tool is chosen for its strengths: bootc offers robust control over base images, ensuring that your core system remains unchanged unless you explicitly update it, while rpm-ostree provides flexibility for managing additional software without compromising the integrity of the atomic base. This separation helps maintain stability and security. Bazzite uses bootc for managing system images and rpm-ostree for adding layered packages."
Of course, nothing I wrote contradicts your assertion that rpm-ostree "is freaking buggy, annoying", but it does cast doubt in my mind on your belief that bootc can by itself completely replace rpm-ostree.
Don't let the beer emoji in the program's output fool you: unlike most Linux package managers,
Homebrew has undergone a professional security audit, and is used (along with Flatpak and Ostree) by Secureblue.
The reason Mao helped Pyongyang still applies: namely, it would make China less secure to have on its border a regime allied to a great power other than China.
They already have a border with Pakistan and got exactly zero problems from it (if anything, China is the one to stir up shit on that border). You seem to be repeating Putin-style propaganda points. Stalin and Mao were never threatened by the West really, that was part of the Marx-mandated global commie land grab.
Saying "The West is no threat to anyone" at the same time you're advocating for an invasion and abduction of a country's leader is certainly a position to hold. Not a very internally consistent or convincing one, though. And I suppose Vietnam never happened in your constructed reality.
The relevance of Cuba is that (with the help of another power with better military tech) it can shut down transit of big ships to and from the US gulf coast.
Sure: it would be dumb for Washington through inaction to allow China to become secure in its region like the US is secure in its region because then China would be free to intervene all over the world, like the US does and has done for 80 years, which would be bad for the US, so Washington should try to prevent it.
In short, great-power competition is mostly zero-sum, and intuitions derived from relations between individuals in a civilized society mostly do not apply.
Why would Washington try to get oil from Venezuela when its domestic oil industry produces all the oil the US needs (and if production were to decrease, the US economy could easily make up the shortfall by buying oil from Canada)?
It's not about needing the oil to use, it's about profit for American oil companies. Resource extraction from foreign countries at gunpoint is a major basis of the US economy.
US has a long history of overthrowing both democracies and dictators to allow their companies to extract resources lining the pockets of already rich industrialists.
Has that got anything to do with why these[1] graphs of US oil and gas production are limited to "Lower 48 states". I found that restriction to be very strange.
Domestic crude oil is mostly not compatible with US refineries, so it mostly gets exported. The US imports heavy crude, like that produced by Venezuela, for our domestic use.
Why would you buy oil from Canada when you can take oil from Venezuela?
>Domestic crude oil is mostly not compatible with US refineries
The oil produced in Texas is easy to refine. Some of it is exported as crude, and an approximately equal amount of heavy crude is imported because US refiners have a competitive advantage in refining it. It is not that US refiners cannot refine Texas crude: they make more money refining the heavy stuff or stuff with a high load of contaminants.
>Why would you buy oil from Canada when you can take oil from Venezuela?
But the US is not going to take it, just like they never took oil from Iraq after conquering that country. The value of all the oil produced worldwide in 2023 was about $1.7 trillion. Of course it cost a lot of money to extract the oil. That year the IRS collected over $4.7 trillion in tax revenue. The US government has easier ways of getting money than invading oil-rich countries.
The US does not want any country or economy in the Western Hemisphere to be stragically dependent on Russia or China, so kicking Chinese or Russians out of the oil industry in Venezuela might have been one goal of the current military action.
Can you guess what resource the US is trying to procure by this military action?
I think you are trying to force an incorrect simplistic narrative on the situation. Obtaining natural resources is not an important motivation for US military action with the possible exception of US intervention in the Persian Gulf during the Cold War (and even there I see no evidence that the US was trying to get out of paying the going international rate for the oil as opposed to merely ensuring that willing sellers in the Gulf could continue to transport their oil over the ocean). Venezuela's cooperation with Moscow and Beijing is a much more likely motivation, i.e., US national security.
> Venezuela's cooperation with Moscow and Beijing is a much more likely motivation, i.e., US national security.
If that’s the case why pootin got a red carpet in Alaska instead of orange jumpsuit?
Why if ruzzia is such a “threat to national security”, current government of “no new wars” doesn’t help Ukraine?
Don’t forget that eliminating (or reducing its influence to nothing) ruzzia - would hurt China immensely. Two birds with one stone and all… also with a benefit of a true legitimacy of helping Ukraine and destroying ruzzian totalitarianism.
reply