unhrpetby

Bitwarden is a zero-knowledge encryption password manager. This means that Bitwarden as a company cannot see your passwords. They remain encrypted end-to-end with your individual email and Master Password. Bitwarden never stores and cannot access your Master Password.

And static linking even better than both

At which point it simply gets forked from the last release/commit. Unless the project nukes all of the history and no one comes forward with a backup.

And, they would typically need the consent of every contributor to legally change the license, unless they had been forcing contributors to sign over rights to their code before contribution.

they didn't create a fork under their control

I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree.

1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/

2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf

3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/

These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf.

What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project.

You have described the creation of a fork.

... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument.

I'm here if you wish to discuss further.

there is no mention of that anywhere on their website.

A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom.

This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ...

LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ...

This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences.

They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox).

EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications.

They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version.

LibreWolf is not a fork, though.

It certainly is.

They duplicate the code, creating a "fork" under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the "fork" definition.

Some of those countrymen are conscripts. 2/3rds? Which makes continuation of battle far less justifiable IMO.

Some people will choose to fight in Ukraine, to possibly die in Ukraine. Conscripts face punishment for refusal.

How many of those fighting would refuse the peace deal?

High memory usage isn't a problem by itself.

The issue is when it's used inefficiently or for useless purposes. An unoptimized application takes 500MB of extra memory and that is 500MB that cannot be used for read/write caching nor another application, and 500MB closer to an OOM situation.

In theory, an application can suffer from issues of underutilization of memory, just as one that over-utilizes memory. In practice, I find that lower-than-expected memory use is a much more positive indicator of an optimization-focused project than one that uses more memory than expected.

In the meantime, it's not sitting there, unused and useless.

If your system uses caching, then "usused" memory may not be so. Memory used for caching is also cleanly "Available" for use if needed. This is not the case with the 500MB of extra memory a process might decide to capture. Of course this is complicated further with swap (I wouldn't use it).

I'm reminded of the horrid example showcased on the amber-lang website previously.