I’ve used Linux for more than twenty years. I watched it grow from a community project into critical global infrastructure. I disagreed with many decisions along the way — including systemd being forced into the core — but I accepted them as technical or organizational tradeoffs.
\nOctober 2024 was different.
\nThat was the moment the Linux kernel stopped being neutral.
\nA group of Russian maintainers were removed from the Linux MAINTAINERS file. This did not happen because of malicious code, sabotage, or technical failures. It happened because of email domains, national origin, or past employment connected to U.S. sanctions lists.
\nLinus Torvalds approved the change.
\nCriticism was dismissed as “Russian troll factories.”
\nThe decision stood.
That distinction matters.
\nThis was not moderation of behaviour.
\nIt was enforcement of geopolitics.
Linux has always had politics around it, but the kernel itself followed a simple rule:
\nCode is judged by what it does — not by who wrote it.
\nThat rule was broken.
\nToday it is Russia.
\nTomorrow it will be China.
\nThen Iran. India. Or any country that becomes politically inconvenient.
This is not speculation. It is a pattern.
\nWe have already seen what happens when global infrastructure stops being neutral.
\nIn 1999, during the Kargil War, the United States degraded GPS accuracy over South Asia. GPS was marketed as a global utility. In practice, it was selectively disabled for geopolitical reasons.
\nThe consequences were concrete, not theoretical:
\nA shared system became a weapon.
\nThat precedent now exists inside the Linux kernel.
\nOnce a project enforces sanctions at the contributor level, it stops being global infrastructure and becomes a policy tool.
\nNeutrality is not something you partially abandon.
\nOnce it is gone, it does not come back.
The logic scales cleanly — and dangerously.
\n| Scenario | \nLikely Outcome | \n
|---|---|
| Taiwan conflict | \n.cn maintainers removed | \n
| Iranian hardware support | \nCode reverted for “compliance” | \n
| India resists U.S. policy | \nContributors labeled “risk” | \n
None of this requires malice.
\nOnly lawyers.
This will not end with the United States.
\nRussia already maintains forks.
\nChina is funding openKylin and HarmonyOS Next.
\nOther states will follow.
Once Linux is no longer neutral ground, every government builds a “sovereign” fork — officially for compliance, unofficially for control.
\nThat is how shared infrastructure dies.
\nThe kernel was never meant to pick sides in wars.
\nIt was supposed to be boring, impartial, and technical.
Code in. Code reviewed. Code merged or rejected.
\nLinus Torvalds once openly fought corporations that tried to control Linux.
\nNow he enforces exclusions because it is easier than resisting bureaucracy.
This is not about defending Putin.
\nIt is about refusing to let free software turn into another GPS switch any superpower can flip.
If Linux can be weaponized against Russian hobbyists today, it can be weaponized against anyone tomorrow.
\nAnd when the rest of the world decides it cannot trust a politicized kernel and builds something else instead, that outcome should not be surprising.
\nThat is exactly where this ends.
\n— A Linux user who just watched his favorite project commit suicide by politics.
\n", "tags": [ "Linux", "linux", "Kernel", "kernel", "Neutrality", "neutrality", "OpenSource", "opensource", "Geopolitics", "geopolitics", "Sanctions", "sanctions", "Torvalds", "torvalds", "Fragmentation", "fragmentation", "FreeSoftware", "freesoftware", "DigitalSovereignty", "digitalsovereignty" ], "image": "assets/images/2803de569b92c67ed2deb02ce622f1ba9f492de7289ecb8ff8c23ef01591da93.jpeg" }, { "id": "https://blog.besoeasy.com/debian-13-trixie-quietly-made-ubuntu-irrelevant.html", "url": "https://blog.besoeasy.com/debian-13-trixie-quietly-made-ubuntu-irrelevant.html", "title": "Debian 13 “Trixie” Quietly Made Ubuntu Irrelevant", "date_published": "2026-08-30T17:32:00.000Z", "summary": "Debian 13 “Trixie” delivers a faster, lighter, more reliable Linux desktop than Ubuntu — without Snaps, bloat, or corporate friction. Paired with Flathub, it becomes the mature choice for real users.", "content_html": "Debian 13 (“Trixie”), released on August 9, 2025, delivers everything Ubuntu claims to offer — but without the compromises. It is modern, efficient, and predictable, while remaining fully under the user’s control.
\nUbuntu did not become bad overnight. The problem is diminishing returns. What once focused on usability and polish has accumulated friction. Snaps add latency and disrupt workflows. The system carries a heavier idle footprint. Over time, you adapt to Ubuntu more than Ubuntu adapts to you.
\nRecent benchmarks show small but consistent differences that matter in daily use.
\n| Metric | \nDebian 13 | \nUbuntu | \n
|---|---|---|
| Boot time | \n~15s | \n~18s | \n
| Idle RAM usage | \n~350MB | \n~400MB | \n
| CPU efficiency | \n~90% | \n~85% | \n
None of these numbers are dramatic on their own. Together, they explain why Debian feels lighter and more responsive.
\nDebian 13 works because it makes fewer assumptions. GNOME 48 with Wayland is now the default and finally boring in the right way. Temporary files live in memory by default, improving responsiveness while reducing SSD wear. Non-free firmware is included, so hardware works without ceremony. Secure Boot functions cleanly on modern AMD and Intel systems.
\nSeveral long-standing desktop pain points are now simply solved:
\nThe real shift happens when Debian is paired with Flathub. Debian provides a conservative, stable base. Flathub provides current applications without compromising the system. Together, they form a complete desktop that stays out of the way.
\nUbuntu mattered. It helped bring Linux to the mainstream.
\nDebian 13 shows what Linux looks like after that phase ends — when engineering replaces marketing and maturity replaces ambition.
\nThe future of the Linux desktop is not marketing-driven.
\nIt is Debian 13 with Flathub: capable, quiet, and under your control.
I’ve used file-sharing tools like WeTransfer for a long time. They work, but over time the restrictions become frustrating — file size limits, expiring links, and upgrade prompts that interrupt a simple task.
\nRecently, I switched to Transfer.it, and the experience has been noticeably smoother.
\nUpload a file, get a link, share it. No account requirements, no unnecessary steps, no visual clutter.
\nI don’t have to constantly think about file size or whether a transfer will expire before it’s downloaded. This removes friction, especially when sending large or frequent files.
\nUploads and downloads are consistently quick, without throttling or delays that appear once a file crosses a certain size.
\nTransfer.it is connected with Mega, which has a long track record in encrypted cloud storage. That connection adds trust when sharing important files.
\nFile sharing should be invisible. The best tools stay out of the way and let you finish the task without interruptions or decisions.
\nTransfer.it does exactly that.
\nIf you’re tired of unnecessary limits and complex interfaces, it’s worth a look 👇
\nhttps://transfer.it/
The Internet wasn’t built for infinity. It was built for connection, innovation, and sharing. But today we’re bumping up against one of the least glamorous — yet most consequential — limits of the digital era: storage.
\nEvery photo, video, message, and file we upload has to live somewhere. And as global data explodes into ever larger scales, platforms big and small are facing a hard reality: storing all of our data isn’t free, and it’s no longer cheap.
\nWe live in what experts call the Zettabyte Era — a period where humanity collectively generates and stores incomprehensible amounts of data. According to forecasts, global data creation is expected to reach 175 zettabytes by 2025 — the equivalent of trillions of gigabytes.
\nThis explosion is driven by:
\nVideo content creation (long-form and short-form)
\nCloud backups for photos, emails, and documents
\nRapid growth in IoT sensors and smart devices
\nAI systems that consume and generate data endlessly
\nIn other words: we aren’t just using more storage — we’re adding more storage demand every day.
\nMany people picture cloud storage as limitless and cheap — after all, companies promise “free” storage tiers. But behind the scenes, the economics look very different.
\nA 2025 industry report found that 95% of IT leaders say cloud storage costs are rising faster than expected, with surprise fees around retrieving and moving data causing major issues in budgets.
\nThese include charges like:
\nEgress fees — costs incurred when moving data out of a cloud provider
\nAPI and request fees for frequent access
\nRetrieval fees for archived content
\nToday’s cloud bills are complex and unpredictable — and storage is one of the biggest line items in enterprise budgets.
\nFaced with ballooning storage expenses and vast amounts of unused data, businesses are taking action. Research shows that up to 50% of cloud data sits unused — duplicated files, old backups, redundant content — taking up space but adding no value.
\nThat leads to two inevitable strategies:
\nMost major platforms already charge for additional storage once you exceed a free tier. But as demand grows and storage costs rise, storage could become a mandatory paid feature, not an optional upgrade.
\nMany users will resist this shift. While people tolerate advertising, paying for data storage is a psychological and financial shift that could cause user backlash and churn.
\nPlatforms may begin deleting or “freezing” data that:
\nHasn’t been accessed in years
\nComes from dormant accounts
\nFalls below certain activity thresholds
\nThis kind of data hygiene is already common in enterprise storage strategies — and it’s likely to spread to consumer services as well.
\nIndividuals aren’t blind to rising storage pressures. Surveys and user communities show:
\nMany feel cloud storage pricing hasn’t kept pace with modern needs
\nUsers seek alternative backup strategies like hybrid local/cloud models to avoid high recurring fees
\nDebates swirl around limited free tiers and aggressive upselling tactics
\nSimply put: people want control over their data, not surprise charges or pressure to pay more.
\nIf platforms begin strictly charging for storage or aggressively purging data, the way we use the internet could shift dramatically:
\nMore Cost-Conscious Users — People will become more strategic about what they upload and store. Endless hoarding of files “just in case” will feel less sustainable.
\nShift to Hybrid Storage — More users and companies may adopt hybrid approaches — keeping old data offline or in cheaper storage — and relegating only frequently accessed data to the cloud.
\nNew Business Models Emerge — Storage by usage rather than fixed tiers, decentralized storage networks, and subscription models that bundle storage with value-added services.
\nBoutiques Outshine Giants — Smaller, niche platforms may win by offering transparent pricing and user-centric data policies.
\nThe internet might feel infinite — but behind every file, video, and message lies a physical cost. As data grows beyond zettabytes, and storage costs rise with it, platforms and users alike must confront a new truth:
\nYou can store everything forever — but eventually, someone has to pay for it.
\nWhether users accept paid storage, adopt new habits, or demand smarter alternatives will shape the next decade of the internet.
\n", "tags": [ "AI", "Storage", "CloudStorage", "DataExplosion", "Internet", "Zettabyte", "CloudCosts", "DigitalOwnership", "ContentPermanence", "FutureOfInternet" ] }, { "id": "https://blog.besoeasy.com/apple-removed-0xchat-from-app-store--why-android-wins-for-privacy.html", "url": "https://blog.besoeasy.com/apple-removed-0xchat-from-app-store--why-android-wins-for-privacy.html", "title": "Apple Removed 0xchat from App Store — Why Android Wins for Privacy", "date_published": "2026-08-30T17:14:14.000Z", "summary": "Apple removed 0xchat, a Nostr-based encrypted chat app, from the iOS App Store without explanation. No sideloading leaves users stuck. This proves Android’s openness is superior for decentralized privacy tools.", "content_html": "As one of the developers behind 0xchat, I’m deeply frustrated.
\nWe poured months into building a truly private, end-to-end encrypted chat app on Nostr — private keys, no personal data required, decentralized by design. It was meant to be a privacy-first alternative in a world that desperately needs one.
\nThen, around March 20, 2026, Apple quietly removed 0xchat from the iOS App Store. No detailed explanation. No warning. Just gone.
\nOn iOS, there’s no sideloading. Existing users are left without updates, and new users can’t join. All that work — blocked by one company’s opaque review process and anti-competitive policies.
\nThis is exactly why I (and many others) prefer Android. True ownership of your device matters. Decentralized protocols like Nostr shouldn’t be at the mercy of Big Tech gatekeepers.
\nIf you’re building on open platforms, be ready for this reality. The fight for digital freedom continues.
\n", "tags": [ "Nostr", "0xchat", "Privacy", "Apple", "Android", "AppStore", "EncryptedChat", "DigitalFreedom", "Decentralized", "Censorship" ] } ] }