The automatic updates are really good it would be better if they integrated with GNOME software, but it is still a distro I would recommend to people who want something that "just works". Atomic really is the future of linux

Their instructions aren't quite right, I did find that I had to change the icon theme back to adwaita myself using GNOME tweaks.

Yeah I use silverblue on another computer and previously on this one, but the killer feature of bluefin is that NVIDIA drivers and codecs are built right into the image (as with the other ublue images) meaning that you don't need to layer them and risk a bad upgrade. I'm planning on bringing the other computer over as well even though it's AMD, at least I'll get ROCm and the codecs.

Recently switched to bluefin from workstation, I was initially a bit held back by all of the GNOME customisations, but they're pretty straightforward to revert back to default. While I like the idea of automatic updates it would be nice if it integrated with GNOME software to make it easier to control. Otherwise if you're looking for an immutable/atomic desktop and want it to pretty much work out of the box I would highly recommend

You can just not watch it. I think it's their genuine opinion probably not rage bait

Exactly, what the video fails to mention is the eventuality that the software ceases to be supported, then what? You've built your entire business around this piece of software and it would cost more to migrate to something else than having someone who understands the code or perhaps someone doing it for free on the internet. But with server software especially, I wouldn't be surprised if some of this proprietary stuff ends up going SaaS only ripping off any companies that self host.

Happy to provide. YouTube gave me brainrot by recommending this idiot to me, now I pass the brainrot on to everyone else

It really depends alot on the situation, I do agree however, when you compare Open Source and Free Software, Open Source seems to be designed to be exploitative which is why it is supported by large companies. As you said the AGPL is really the only way to go as it means you get access to every modification a large company makes to your software, which is why the Linux kernel (albeit GPLv2, which is also a good copyleft license) has become such a big project, running on the phone I'm typing this on and the servers our Lemmy instances are on.

It's probably not the answer to everything and FUTO are trying to fix this (probably the wrong way though) but AGPL is really the best license to avoid exploitation, that way if they use it, you get in return more source code.

I wouldn't recommend watching it, but the central argument of this video is to do with software support. They argue that "open source" was more relevant prior to the internet (in servers?) due to the long turnaround time in getting a software vender (in this video IBM) to fix a bug in their software, arguing that by having access to the source code support could instruct the server maintainer what changes to make without them needing to send the tape to IBM to debug (apparently that was something they did, but it seems people in the video comments disagree with this hinting that the youtuber has no actual experience in this area). They argue that due to high speed internet support can release software fixes much quicker so having access to the source code isn't useful as paying for support contracts is a better option for businesses rather than having people who understand the software they're running. Apparently this is the only reason why open source is useful. They go on to argue that Linux is only popular on servers because RedHat's support contracts are cheaper than Microsoft's, something which I doubt and probably has more to do with the kernel and OS being easy to modify and control allowing it to be extended to a large variety of use cases instead of writing a new system from scratch.

There's lots of issues with their argument and some have claimed it is trolling but I reckon that would be giving them too much credit. It is likely they are just an idiot fanboying for their favourite companies desperately trying to justify their irrational biases

The title was the same thing but without the "[Very bad take] " bit, I probably wouldn't have read the description and just jumped to the comments. I don't really care about votes though, I find comments much more interesting. If I post content I just take any votes as a review of the content, if I've commented my honest opinion and put some thought into the comment only to get downvotes and no comments really explaining why then I'm a bit disappointed.

Yeah rip the post content, probably just drive-by downvoters