I always try to consult the man pages for these kind of questions (you can search by typing ‘/’ in the man page). Here’s what the systemctl manual has to say in the specifications for the --force option:

Note that when --force is specified twice the selected operation is executed by systemctl itself, and the system manager is not contacted. This means the command should succeed even when the system manager has crashed.

Nope, not at all. Silverblue here (GNOME), and the upgrade went smooth, nvidia drivers and all.

As far as I’m aware, CloudLinux is based on CentOS for older versions, and Alma Linux for newer versions, so it would be in the RHEL sphere of things.

They’re also the company that launched and continues to sponsor Alma Linux, a community run RHEL compatible distribution.

I’m not sure about using xml files, but there’s also a ‘picture-uri-dark’ key you need to set instead if you’re using dark mode. I have a similar setup with a systemd user timer that runs every 5 minutes.

Edit: I just tried it out in the terminal and it works ok for xml files, too. Also, I try to avoid parsing the output of ls in scripts. You can use find instead, something like

find $wallpath -name '*.xml'

should work.

Not quite the same issue, but similar in the sense that it was caused by a UEFI that didn’t conform to spec.

I have an HP laptop that I installed Debian on, and it would never actually boot to grub even though I checked the boot entries several times over. You could open the settings and choose the boot entry manually, so it’s not like it was a problem with the OS or with grub. Turned out, this model was hard coded to only allow a boot entry named “Windows Boot Manager” to be loaded by default. I used efibootmgr to rename the debian entry and it booted into grub straight away.

As far as I’m aware, the Truecrypt backdoor thing was speculation regarding the termination of the Truecrypt project, but it was not confirmed. You can see here that development of Truecrypt ceased in 2014. Veracrypt was forked around that time. As for whether or not you can trust it, you’ll want to evaluate the audits that have been performed and decide if you trust them. You can find a link to what seems like the latest audit here.

Truecrypt is abandoned, and has vulnerabilities that will not be fixed. Veracrypt is a fork of Truecrypt that is still actively maintained.

Glass cliff?

I think they’ll still be compliant as long as they offer their source to customers. The GPL doesn’t require that you make source available to anyone, but to anyone that you distribute binaries to. From the GNU website:

One of the fundamental requirements of the GPL is that when you distribute object code to users, you must also provide them with a way to get the source.

Source: Quick GPLv3 Guide under the More Ways for Developers to Provide Source section.

Of course the GPL also allows redistribution of source code, and Red Hat seems to want to threaten customers who do so.

When I say we abide by the various open source licenses that apply to our code, I mean it.

So he’s saying that Red Hat intends to abide by licenses such as the GNU GPL, and yet…

Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source…

Red Hat is claiming that redistribution (which is explicitly allowed and encouraged by the GPL) is a threat to open source. They are also threatening to penalize customers who do exercise the rights granted to them by the licenses that Red Hat claims that they will “abide by”.

According to Red Hat the GNU GPL is a threat to open source. And they think this won’t make people angry?