Without explicit license? Without contacting the administrator for permission? This is what I mean by conditions. There's no need to be pedantic, if the software isn't available for commercial use how can it be open source? I cannot modify this and redistribute or package it without getting in touch with a project representative.
I deleted my comment because I didn't really care to get into it with the weird custom license, but widely speaking if it's not distributable without condition, it's not open source.
EDIT- And it's okay that it's "only" source-available, it's a creator's choice how their works are used in the world. But I would argue this project license doesn't fit the spirit of this lemmy community.
It's hard to argue against "ain't broke why fix", and frankly, I'm surprised your install has lasted so long without going sideways heh. If you avoid the AUR that's probably helped. And I actually do believe manjaro has improved in the last year or two - it's just difficult to recommend while endeavour and archinstall exist.
Manjaro as a project is amateur hour, over and over again. Their practice of holding back packages is bad, causing many version conflict problems. Their software DDOSing repos is bad, they can try to pass the blame to pamac, but they are the ones shipping it. Their repeated inability to keep certificates updated is bad.
EndeavourOS should be recommended over Manjaro every time.
We formed a Super PAC and bought the personal voting records of every American citizen from a data broker we found on the internet. It’s pretty fucked up.
Just pointing out the author mentions they used mastodon for a time too, their argument is that bluesky interface, content and moderation are better for them.
I'm not arguing it was or wasn't right for Britain position at the time. Just making the point we know, from direct history, a policy of appeasement does nothing to stop further advancement.
Putting in the hours cancelling interviews and wandering aimlessly at rallies, heh