That is one issue. The next is that software support on phones is generally poor because there’s lots of proprietary drivers and they don’t have a common base system like computers do (bios). So building custom roms is difficult, doesn’t scale well over the number of different devices and they often don’t work great in the areas of camera, accelerated graphics and wireless networking. Also installing custom roms is also too difficult for the majority of people, and requires bootloader unlock which is either not possible at all or at a minimum cancels the warranty.

This is not how redundancy works on cable cars. These systems are not copies of another, but different systems with different working principles. On systems with a pulling component (like the cable here) and a suspension component (like a suspension rope or rails), a safety brake on the cabin is only held open by the tension of the pulling cable. Should the pulling force bee too low, the brake clamps onto the suspension component.

Most of the time there’s sadly no medial coverage of the safety systems. So with the accidents I followed either I don’t know why the safety systems didn’t work, or they were manipulated. For example in the 2021 case at Monte Mottarone, the brake was propped open with maintenance tools.

Given the age of the system in Lisbon, I hope it was updated to these safety standards. The most informative I could see was this image showing the underside of the wagon. It is still difficult to tell how it works in detail, but the thing protruding from the cable mount could be such a catching brake working on the inside of the cable guide I think. And to me it looks like the cable pulled out of the holder due to cracks in the holder.

Could you name some then. I don’t really see any in the article.

Nobody gets forced to port kernel stuff to rust. Also the rust compiler takes a lot of burden from maintainers by the safety it enforces.

The whole conflict ist not a technical one, it is entirely human. Some long-term kernel developers don’t like people turning up and replacing the code they wrote. Instead of being proud that the concepts they built get to be elevated in a superior implementation, they throw tantrum and sabotage.

When you’re maintaining a product that is based on linux, you’re surely qualified to port that thing to your platform yourself.

Open source developers are thanklessly giving away their work for free already, and for the many things where there’s just a github page it is just a one man show run in spare time. Don’t demand them to give away even more of their time to cater for whatever distro you’re using, just because you are not willing to invest the time to learn how linux works and also not willing to give a way a few megabytes for the dependencies they’re developing against.

All the discussions about things like distrobox and flatpak where linux novices express their dissatisfaction due to increased disk space are laughable. In the linux universe sole users have no power in deciding what goes, they do not pay anything and at worst pollute the bug tracker. Developers are what make up the linux universe, and what appeals to them is what is going to happen. Flatpak is a much more pleasant experience to develop for than a gazillion distros, hence this is where it is going, end of story. As a user either be happy with wherever the linux rollercoaster goes, or - if you want to see change- step up and contribute.