mindlesscrollyparrot

You mean like Ukrainians? When Putin just won the election?

As long as the Supreme Court agrees that that is restrictive, sure.

They are going to spend those 4 years doing everything they can to fix the next election as well. Gerrymandering, voter intimidation, you name it. By all means hide in bed to get over the shock but, if you stay there, you'll need to stay there more than 4 years.

So an EU-backed distro could be the same. Yes, they would fund maintainers, but their own maintainers, not maintainers of upstream distros.

How much of Ubuntu's funding goes to supporting debian? I actually don't know.

I don't, for example, see Ubuntu listed here: https://www.debian.org/partners/

Given how much they have been projecting about vote-rigging, I would say this is very plausible.

Well, what better way to embrace FOSS than dismissing the efforts of all the existing distro maintainers? Welcome to the community, guys. Good luck building your cathedral next to the bazaar!

How about they instead work together with the distros and create a way of certifying a distro as gov-ready?

We found the solutions a long time ago - it's just that nobody wanted to implement them.

I think it's quite clear that we did.

Your wording seems to imply that inability to make a decision is anarchism and/or that anarchists are unable to make decisions, even though you blame the social democrats for the failure to march on Versailles sooner.

This is somewhat ironic. Obviously the anarchists could have dissuaded the National Guard from marching, but if they had the authority to prevent them, then they weren't anarchists!

By contrast, in a setup where a decision needs to be made before people can act, then it's very possible for a faction to prevent it. For example, they can say that key stakeholders are not present and therefore the meeting has no authority. If you've never witnessed this, I envy you.

Yes, if individual people have solidarity, then that is not incompatible with anarchism. In fact, that is practically the definition of it! It is important, for all of the reasons you said.

But you said "how can you have solidarity if you can't have states or hierarchies?". From that, I understand that you think that 'solidarity' can be something that is mandated by the state or hierarchy. I do not agree that that is important.

I am not sure what you are saying. If the Paris Commune had been able to order every man in Paris to fight, they would have been able to repel the French Army?

If you want people to fight and die for the cause, surely it is only right that you have to convince them that it is a good cause first. And, if it is a good cause then surely that should be easy? Telling them that they have to do it because there was a majority vote simply doesn't cut it.