Again, not a great equivalent to what he said.

If you mean creationism to mean Christian doctrine then you do not get the mass nullification effect. If you mean creationism to mean all creation myths then of course you do. However, as soon as you add evolution it changes things because there is evidence for evolution and it “is predictive” and therefore testable. That means that you are not relying only on the existence of incompatible alternatives for nullification. This breaks his premise.

It is not a particularly great statement. But all the alternatives here in the comments seem to miss what he was saying.

The “logic” of his statement is that there are many incompatible religious options presented. The incompatibilities mean that they cannot all be right. The number of options serves as the “evidence” for wrongness. Without independent evidence to support any given option, the weight of evidence against it ( the combined likelihood of the other options ) is greater than the evidence for it it ( single option ). You could make the argument for each alternative individually until all have been eliminated.

You cannot do this if evolution is an option. It has more evidentiary weight than the aggregate evidence of the alternatives. Evidence wise, it is logical to take evolution as valid and reject the others. Remove evolution and the remaining portfolio of creation myths is left with no clear winner ( and hence the likelihood that they are all losers becomes logical ).

Almost. That is almost what Science says. It does say that most theories are probably wrong and certainly any that have been shown to contradict known evidence are. The ones that are not known to be wrong should be treated skeptically ( not cynically ). In practice, all we can do is work with the best that we have so far. They are the “most correct” even if they turn out to be wrong.

Like another commenter though, the problem with your analogy here is that not all scientific theories try to describe the same phenomenon and so they are not all mutually nullifying ( as the original quote proposes religions are ). Newton’s Laws do not support or nullify evolution whereas the Jews and Christians cannot both be right about Jesus and, if either of them is right about the rest, then the Norse certainly got it wrong.

I dislike it when people argue science vs religion though. The standard for science is evidence. The standard for religion is faith. They are almost opposite concepts. One is not invalid because it does not adhere to the other. Comparing them is at best not useful and pehaps deliberately misleading.

A person truly without religious faith is probably agnostic. Most atheists I have talked to have quite a lot of religious faith ( arrived at absent evidence ). They are just not honest about it. Richard Dawkins for example wrote a completely political and anti-Science book called The God Delusion and did not even seem to realize that he was arguing for faith over evidence. It is filled with stuff like “I believe” someday science will answer every question. Our current math and science excludes a great many answers in principle ( not just unknown but unknowable ). So his opinion is not rooted in evidence. “I believe” is of course self-evidently a statement of faith. “Science” can be what you call your religion whether you add in the Flying Spaghetti monsters or not.

Apologies. I kind of went off here. Not a criticism of the comment above. I just like science and would rather people not mislabel their political or “faith-based” opinions as scientific assertions.

Without trying to defend him here ( not my goal ), that is a pretty weak analogy.

“Everything on TV” is not a zero sum game. For one thing to be true, it is not necessary for everything else to be false. There is little dependency between the content on one channel and another.

Looking at his own cultural religious tradition, the major religions say contradictory things and say that they are the truth. Islam and Judaism both reject that Christ is a God whereas it is pretty important to the Christians that he is. They cannot all be right. That is clearly what he is saying.

Although, taking a step back, many religions throughout history require faith in the Gods they profess but not necessarily a rejection of other Gods. That seems to be a more recent thing.

If it was not required to reject the Egyptian Gods to accept the Norse ones, then his reasoning falls apart and your analogy becomes valid.

The answer seems to be yes but I have not seen much detail on what works now and what does not. It also seems that device trees are required for each device and I have only seen that for one ASUS and one Lenevo so far.

If anybody knows more, I would love an update.

Just uninstall eos-hooks and then comment out the eos repos in pacman.conf if you want vanilla Arch. Pretty easy journey. You don’t even have to reboot.

EOS is about 24 additional packages on top of the 70,000 Arch already offers, many of which are already on the AUR ( like yay and paru ). EOS uses the real Arch kernel. Once installed, EOS is Arch in my view.

There are not “two updates”. It is not an OS over an OS. EOS is awesome but it is a glorified Arch installer with opinionated defaults.

Backed by a hardware reseller. Likely to be around as long as they stay in business.

What did you not like about EndeavourOS?

I went through this recently and was not able to resolve it. Unfortunately, it looks like there is no way to use Resolve with an iGPU.

They only charge for the “extension pack” ( which is different from “guest additions”

I teach a class where I use VirtualBox. Students commonly use Windows or Mac. I use Linux.

It is very handily to use VirtualBox where, if I demo something, the same steps will work on the student machine. It is also nice for documentation if you want to show a screenshot.

I have never used the “extension pack” for this so it would be fine. Educational use seems to be permitted regardless.

The only license that VirtualBox and the Guest Additions are even released under is GPL3. I do not even see a dual license.

What remedy are they proposing when they come after you? I am not sure I would even take their call or respond to their letter. If I did, I would just send them the GPL text, announce that we are complying, and tell them to pound sand.

I suppose it might be fun to tell them that I got it via IBM or Red Hat or something and to take it up with them. But I probably would not actually be dishonest about. As above, if I got a letter asking me to pay for their GPL software, I would just mutter “idiots” and throw it away. If they want to persist, it would only cost them money and I would continue to respond the same way.

I just looked all this over and, just to clarify, both VirtualBox itself and the Guest Additions are free and released under GPL3.

https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ

What is not free is the separately downloadable “VirtualBox Extension Pack”.

As long as you stay away from the “Extension Pack”, you are ok.

I do not believe I have had to accept anything. I am installing it from the AUR and it builds from source. Pretty sure it just went straight into the UI the first time I launched it ( without a EULA ).

I will have to look into it. Thank you for the answer through.

I use the version of VirtualBox that has been modified to use KVM as the back-end. Do you know if it has the same problems?

Sounds like you want EndeavourOS.

Installs in a few minutes to a fully configured and usable desktop environment of your choice. It is Arch ( uses the same packages, uses the same kernel, has access to the AUR ). A huge benefit of the Arch repos is the up-to-date package universe as well everything you are likely to want being in the repo or AUR.

Don’t underestimate the maintenance and reliability benefits of not having to cobble stuff together from multiple sources.

While I agree with you, what is attractive about Manjaro that you want that EOS does not offer?

I also tend to see EndoeavourOS as a great Manjaro replacement because what I want is a high-quality, opinionated, and easy to install no-nonsense distro that offers a massive repository of very up-to-date software in its repos.

I used to think Manjaro looked better but I installed it recently and I did not like it as much as the default EOS look. Perhaps I am just conditioned.

The only thing that stands out for me that people might prefer about Manjaro is the graphical package management. Of course, it is a one-time, one line command to install the very same package manager in EOS that Manjaro uses. Does that disqualify EOS as a Manjaro replacement?

You may already know this but you can run OPNsense on top of Proxmox. That may mitigate the driver issues you are having.

BSD is well designed and cohesive but has many more missing bits and contraints than Linux. So, if you are in its sweet spot, it is awesome and maybe better than Linux. However, outside that it can be totally unusable.

For me, the biggest issue is the lack of software. There is both a mountain of it as it is of course an POSIX compatible OS and at the same time it is trivial to need important software that is missing.

As a desktop, it therefore feels very nice and also very limiting.

I love that it is actually real UNIX with an unbroken history back to the beginning. I find that really compelling. At the same time, I always get “bored” using it because it inevitably does not support what I want to do.

I am still hoping Chimera Linux finds a sweet spot that melds the two worlds in a nice way.

First line of the the description of Zorin on zorin.com/os

“Zorin OS is the alternative to Windows”

https://zorin.com/os/