Not seeing evidence of your corporate control, rather Linus accepting contributions.
That's a semantics problem. Go back to the first post where the situation is better characterized as the development of Linux is being guided by corporations now, not hobbyists.
No, Linux is an overloaded name that can refer to the kernel or the operating system as a whole. And it is used in both ways by many Linux advocates and enthusiasts. Context usually makes it quite clear which is being used.
In this discussion's context,
You can't weasel your way out of this one. The summary is about Linux, then the discussion was about Linus and his Linux. Stop trying to make this about GNU.
Re-read, I didn't bring up GNU, I'm the one replying GNU isn't relevant since they have nothing against corporate sponsored.
And to get back to my point, Linus is not that relevant anymore. Corporations, not Linus, are directing the development of Linux. Linus just reviews and merge's in their changes in one part of the Linux operating system, the Linux kernel. Their changes being what they are submitting themselves or what their financially supported external developers are submitting.
No, Linux is an overloaded name that can refer to the kernel or the operating system as a whole. And it is used in both ways by many Linux advocates and enthusiasts. Context usually makes it quite clear which is being used.
In this discussion's context, Linux is corporate directed whether you are referring to the operating system or the kernel.
The GNU utilities (not corporate) and other open source wares...
You also misunderstand the nature of corporate directed. If the developers of a GPL project are funded by a corporation then that corporation will have a lot to say about the direction the code heads in. That is inherently part of the FSF world view, want a feature, pay for it to be developed. That is one manifestation of corporate directed.
Microsoft has made it clear that Windows 10 phones won't allow the OS to be changed due to SecureBoot in the near future.
I was referring to Windows 10 PCs, Windows 10 phones never entered my mind for some reason.:-) You were referencing Intel and Secure Boot so that got me thinking PC architecture. Isn't the Android thing Verified Boot and hasn't it been around since Android 4.4?
Samsung allows you to unlock the bootloader, but they frown on it. I don't doubt that they'd perma-lock it if they could.
Actually I have no doubt they could make it much harder if they wanted to and deter many of the mildly curious.
I don't know and there's no point in baseless speculation. I would guess it would be something like a security chip in the Nexus 5 isn't compatible with the new secure boot mechanism, but again, I have no idea.
Even if it were a secure boot issue that is also an arbitrary business decision. Secure boot could be a feature only supported on devices with a compatible security chip. It is not a technical decision as "not enough RAM" would be.
"Not enough RAM" is an equally arbitrary restriction -- they could only change the OS in ways that don't use additional system resources.
I am not going to comment other than to say I will allow a "do over" and pretend you never typed that.
I stand by what I wrote.
Its your credibility. You might want to read up on the many decades long trend of operating system development and increasing RAM requirements.
Suppose my guess was right and incompatibility with the new boot features is why the Nexus 5 won't get Nougat; that's just as much of an arbitrary reason as an iPhone 4 not getting iOS 10 because it doesn't have enough RAM. The hardware won't support all the features, so why give a half-assed update?
Not enough RAM destroys the user experience. The lack of a secure boot does not. Android Nougat (7.0) would not be "half-assed" by booting with or without secure boot. It is arbitrary to make this one feature mandatory, it could be optional as it is in the PC architecture and with Windows 10.
You are confusing contributing with leading the project.
Determining what code is written, what new features are developed, is leading the project. Not merging the contributions after ensuring the code is well written. Plus Linus only has control over the kernel, not the operating system as a whole.
Why are you defending google so much? Do you have google stock or some shit? Google is a corporation. Their decisions are based on money nowdays. The original guys are long gone.
I'm defending Google because right now Nexus devices are the only phones that reasonably respect their users' right to unlock the bootloader. I dread living in a world dominated by Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft.
Your secure boot theory sort of undermines your user rights argument. So in your scenario of why the limitation might be justified you can add Google to that domination list.:-)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Android 7 has a new secure booting mechanism, but it's not the same as Intel's SecureBoot that (theoretically) locks the bootloader. You can still unlock the bootloader on Nexus phones. Indeed, Google even advertises that as a benefit.
Then you need to edit your list as Microsoft allows the unlocking of the boot loader as well. Also while Samsung will void your warranty they don't really prevent you from changing the boot loader so they don't really belong on the list either. Only Apple aggressively locks down the boot process and works to prevent user modification.
I don't know and there's no point in baseless speculation. I would guess it would be something like a security chip in the Nexus 5 isn't compatible with the new secure boot mechanism, but again, I have no idea.
Even if it were a secure boot issue that is also an arbitrary business decision. Secure boot could be a feature only supported on devices with a compatible security chip. It is not a technical decision as "not enough RAM" would be.
"Not enough RAM" is an equally arbitrary restriction -- they could only change the OS in ways that don't use additional system resources.
I am not going to comment other than to say I will allow a "do over" and pretend you never typed that.
Nope, Linus still leads the project, and he is employee of non-profit 501(c)(6) trade association
Linus no longer appears on the top contributors list. Developers are overwhelmingly corporate or corporate sponsored. What he merges into the official branch is overwhelmingly corporate directed development.
Why are you defending google so much? Do you have google stock or some shit? Google is a corporation. Their decisions are based on money nowdays. The original guys are long gone.
I'm defending Google because right now Nexus devices are the only phones that reasonably respect their users' right to unlock the bootloader. I dread living in a world dominated by Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft.
Your secure boot theory sort of undermines your user rights argument. So in your scenario of why the limitation might be justified you can add Google to that domination list.:-)
Of course it is "More Professional Than Ever". Its a corporate led project now, not a hobbyist led project anymore. Most of the development is corporate or corporate sponsored, either way corporations guide Linux's development.
... especially when they've released 3 different phones since then...
Its generations not phones that matter. The direct successors to the 5 are the 5X and 6 and the 5X is still a current model. So the 5 is only one generation removed from the current model and has the same screen, same amount of RAM, and only a slightly slower CPU/GPU which is still vastly overpowered for what millions of Android uses typically do.
No your are wrong, after the 5 came the 6, that was the next generation, then the year after they release the 5x & 6p at the same time so that will be the second generation. When they release the updated OS this year they are supposed to release 2 new phones again so that will be the 3rd generation. If each phone was manufactured by the same company I would agree with you on the generation thing, but since they pick a new maker every year, the generation thing really doesn't come into play.
You are speaking of marketing generations, I am speaking of technical design generations. Both the 5X and the 6 are direct descendants of the 5. Both the 5 and 5X are made by LG.
I don't know and there's no point in baseless speculation. I would guess it would be something like a security chip in the Nexus 5 isn't compatible with the new secure boot mechanism, but again, I have no idea.
Even if it were a secure boot issue that is also an arbitrary business decision. Secure boot could be a feature only supported on devices with a compatible security chip. It is not a technical decision as "not enough RAM" would be.
"Your phone isn't running Android 7.0? Wow, what a turd!"
When your phone (Nexus 5) is only one generation different from the currently sold model (Nexus 5X) and has the same screen, same amount of RAM and only a slightly slower CPU then yes, it "stinks". There is no hiding that odor.
iOS haters always say that you should only buy Google approved(tm) Android devices to stay up to day...
iOS fans have said that too for people determined to go Android, that if you want/have to go Android get a Nexus device. Even with this crappy treatment of Nexus 5 users - the currently sold 5X has the same screen, same RAM, and only slightly faster CPU - a Nexus may still be the best option with Android. My understanding is that Nexus 4 running Android 5.1 and Nexus 5 running Android 6.0 will still get patches. They merely don't get Android 7.0, but at least security holes and bugs get patched unlike some Android devices that don't even get that.
... especially when they've released 3 different phones since then...
Its generations not phones that matter. The direct successors to the 5 are the 5X and 6 and the 5X is still a current model. So the 5 is only one generation removed from the current model and has the same screen, same amount of RAM, and only a slightly slower CPU/GPU which is still vastly overpowered for what millions of Android uses typically do.
That line seemed to be the submitter's personal opinion and not backed up by anything in the linked article.
We don't know why Google didn't push an update for the Nexus 5.
The Nexus 4, 5 and 5X all have the same amount of RAM, 2GB. Its damn suspicious that the 4 and 5 are limited to Android 5.1 and 6.0 and only the 5X gets 7.0. The 2012 and 2013 Nexus 7 story made sense, the former had only 1GB RAM, the later 2 GB, so only the later got Android 6.0. Screen sizes are the same on the Nexus 5 and 5X. While the 5X has slightly better CPU and GPU the chips in the 5 are still vastly overpowered for what millions of Android users do.
Is Android 7.0 64-bit only or something? Even so it seems an arbitrary change. I would understand a desire for such a minimum as a software developer but I would concede it improper to make such a change unless something else is going on, for example 2GB RAM no longer supported.
It looks and smells like a business decision. (1) Reducing development, testing and deployment costs. (2) Users are mostly part of a secondary market (buying used phones) that Google does not want to encourage.
I once worked at a company that's normal schedule was 9 hours a day Monday through Thursday and 4 hours Friday morning.
Absenteeism was lower and management happy with these and other metrics. People naturally scheduled offsite things like doctor's appointments for Friday afternoons. But more often they just started their weekend early. People were overwhelmingly happy with the schedule.
Alas California put an end to this. Employees apparently don't have the authority to move a non-overtime hour from Friday to another day of the week and exceed 8 hours in a given day.
Properly managed companies don't have crunch times. Good employees get their shit done on time.
Well, when a good employer does a proper job of estimating the work involved.
I fortunately once had such an experience. I led a five person team on a 14 month project and we only had about two weeks of crunch, and it was relatively minor crunch. It was a small company and I manically kept developers focused on priority features. I did not allow my boss or the company owner to insert their ideas into the current tasks. Its not that their ideas were bad, its that they weren't contractual obligations. We were developing the software for someone else and had a very hard immovable due date, it was software to be physically bundled with a chemistry textbook and a contractual feature list.
The conversation usually went "That's a great idea, and it will only take a day or two, but it has to go on the end of our features to implement list. Its not core functionality. We can't risk being late or missing one of our contractual features so the contractual features have to be at the top of the list." The boss and owner were usually disappointed but persuaded. While they did not have software development backgrounds they were otherwise intelligent and reasonable people. Yes at other companies I probably would have been fired. As I said, an admittedly fortunate experience.
Hope this becomes a trend. I would love the option to work for 20 or 30 hours/week even for half the money. I've always felt like I had to choose between 40-50 hour weeks or nothing.
Sounds like typical part-time software development work, the sort I had during most of my undergraduate and my graduate school days. Working 25-30 hours a week at real companies, albeit usually small ones, although my hours were somewhat dependent upon class schedules in undergraduate days.
Its great Amazon is doing this but is it really something new and different in the "industry"?
Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).
I was naively thinking this was a selfish and futile attempt to protect developed world labor from reality. You know, I still think that is the case. The developed world doesn't need additional barriers, it needs economically healthier societies that among other things treat their employers better.
Again, you display a reading comprehension problem, arguing against a policy not being suggested. Again, from my original post: "some sort of reciprocal system seems to be needed. On a per nation basis low barriers to trade in both directions, high barriers to trade in both directions, but not low barriers in one direction and high barriers in the other."
Clues: (1) per nation basis (2) same level of barriers in both directions, i.e. "reciprocal".
These days, China has substantial value as a consumer. It makes sense to keep some (but not all) of your manufacturing where you have a billion consumers.
Seriously, that has been proven false decade after decade after decade for over a century now. Perhaps two centuries. Look at jet engines. Western manufacturers were enticed to "share" technology and manufacturing techniques to get a part of the Chinese market. And now:
"China's cabinet may soon approve an aircraft engine development program that will require investment of at least 100 billion yuan ($16 billion), state-run Xinhua news agency quoted unidentified industry sources as saying.
China is determined to reduce its dependency on foreign companies like Boeing Co (BA.N), EADS-owned Airbus EAD.PA, General Electric Co (GE.N) and Rolls Royce Plc (RR.L) for the country's soaring demand for planes and engines." http://www.reuters.com/article...
Such a reciprocal system needs to take into account that one party is a lot poorer than the other. The current system of mostly free trade helps those poorer countries become a lot less poor. I think you need to do better than that.
Who says that can not be a consideration? Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).
None of that changes the fact that Germany has heavily invested in robotics and not suffered. Manufacturing jobs don't need to be low level work. Technical jobs supporting the robotics industry don't necessarily get counted as manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not seeing evidence of your corporate control, rather Linus accepting contributions.
That's a semantics problem. Go back to the first post where the situation is better characterized as the development of Linux is being guided by corporations now, not hobbyists.
er, Linux is just the kernel.
No, Linux is an overloaded name that can refer to the kernel or the operating system as a whole. And it is used in both ways by many Linux advocates and enthusiasts. Context usually makes it quite clear which is being used.
In this discussion's context,
You can't weasel your way out of this one. The summary is about Linux, then the discussion was about Linus and his Linux. Stop trying to make this about GNU.
Re-read, I didn't bring up GNU, I'm the one replying GNU isn't relevant since they have nothing against corporate sponsored.
And to get back to my point, Linus is not that relevant anymore. Corporations, not Linus, are directing the development of Linux. Linus just reviews and merge's in their changes in one part of the Linux operating system, the Linux kernel. Their changes being what they are submitting themselves or what their financially supported external developers are submitting.
er, Linux is just the kernel.
No, Linux is an overloaded name that can refer to the kernel or the operating system as a whole. And it is used in both ways by many Linux advocates and enthusiasts. Context usually makes it quite clear which is being used.
In this discussion's context, Linux is corporate directed whether you are referring to the operating system or the kernel.
The GNU utilities (not corporate) and other open source wares ...
You also misunderstand the nature of corporate directed. If the developers of a GPL project are funded by a corporation then that corporation will have a lot to say about the direction the code heads in. That is inherently part of the FSF world view, want a feature, pay for it to be developed. That is one manifestation of corporate directed.
Microsoft has made it clear that Windows 10 phones won't allow the OS to be changed due to SecureBoot in the near future.
I was referring to Windows 10 PCs, Windows 10 phones never entered my mind for some reason. :-) You were referencing Intel and Secure Boot so that got me thinking PC architecture. Isn't the Android thing Verified Boot and hasn't it been around since Android 4.4?
Samsung allows you to unlock the bootloader, but they frown on it. I don't doubt that they'd perma-lock it if they could.
Actually I have no doubt they could make it much harder if they wanted to and deter many of the mildly curious.
I don't know and there's no point in baseless speculation. I would guess it would be something like a security chip in the Nexus 5 isn't compatible with the new secure boot mechanism, but again, I have no idea.
Even if it were a secure boot issue that is also an arbitrary business decision. Secure boot could be a feature only supported on devices with a compatible security chip. It is not a technical decision as "not enough RAM" would be.
"Not enough RAM" is an equally arbitrary restriction -- they could only change the OS in ways that don't use additional system resources.
I am not going to comment other than to say I will allow a "do over" and pretend you never typed that.
I stand by what I wrote.
Its your credibility. You might want to read up on the many decades long trend of operating system development and increasing RAM requirements.
Suppose my guess was right and incompatibility with the new boot features is why the Nexus 5 won't get Nougat; that's just as much of an arbitrary reason as an iPhone 4 not getting iOS 10 because it doesn't have enough RAM. The hardware won't support all the features, so why give a half-assed update?
Not enough RAM destroys the user experience. The lack of a secure boot does not. Android Nougat (7.0) would not be "half-assed" by booting with or without secure boot. It is arbitrary to make this one feature mandatory, it could be optional as it is in the PC architecture and with Windows 10.
You are confusing contributing with leading the project.
Determining what code is written, what new features are developed, is leading the project. Not merging the contributions after ensuring the code is well written. Plus Linus only has control over the kernel, not the operating system as a whole.
Why are you defending google so much? Do you have google stock or some shit? Google is a corporation. Their decisions are based on money nowdays. The original guys are long gone.
I'm defending Google because right now Nexus devices are the only phones that reasonably respect their users' right to unlock the bootloader. I dread living in a world dominated by Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft.
Your secure boot theory sort of undermines your user rights argument. So in your scenario of why the limitation might be justified you can add Google to that domination list. :-)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Android 7 has a new secure booting mechanism, but it's not the same as Intel's SecureBoot that (theoretically) locks the bootloader. You can still unlock the bootloader on Nexus phones. Indeed, Google even advertises that as a benefit.
Then you need to edit your list as Microsoft allows the unlocking of the boot loader as well. Also while Samsung will void your warranty they don't really prevent you from changing the boot loader so they don't really belong on the list either. Only Apple aggressively locks down the boot process and works to prevent user modification.
I don't know and there's no point in baseless speculation. I would guess it would be something like a security chip in the Nexus 5 isn't compatible with the new secure boot mechanism, but again, I have no idea.
Even if it were a secure boot issue that is also an arbitrary business decision. Secure boot could be a feature only supported on devices with a compatible security chip. It is not a technical decision as "not enough RAM" would be.
"Not enough RAM" is an equally arbitrary restriction -- they could only change the OS in ways that don't use additional system resources.
I am not going to comment other than to say I will allow a "do over" and pretend you never typed that.
Nope, Linus still leads the project, and he is employee of non-profit 501(c)(6) trade association
Linus no longer appears on the top contributors list. Developers are overwhelmingly corporate or corporate sponsored. What he merges into the official branch is overwhelmingly corporate directed development.
Why are you defending google so much? Do you have google stock or some shit? Google is a corporation. Their decisions are based on money nowdays. The original guys are long gone.
I'm defending Google because right now Nexus devices are the only phones that reasonably respect their users' right to unlock the bootloader. I dread living in a world dominated by Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft.
Your secure boot theory sort of undermines your user rights argument. So in your scenario of why the limitation might be justified you can add Google to that domination list. :-)
Of course it is "More Professional Than Ever". Its a corporate led project now, not a hobbyist led project anymore. Most of the development is corporate or corporate sponsored, either way corporations guide Linux's development.
... especially when they've released 3 different phones since then ...
Its generations not phones that matter. The direct successors to the 5 are the 5X and 6 and the 5X is still a current model. So the 5 is only one generation removed from the current model and has the same screen, same amount of RAM, and only a slightly slower CPU/GPU which is still vastly overpowered for what millions of Android uses typically do.
No your are wrong, after the 5 came the 6, that was the next generation, then the year after they release the 5x & 6p at the same time so that will be the second generation. When they release the updated OS this year they are supposed to release 2 new phones again so that will be the 3rd generation. If each phone was manufactured by the same company I would agree with you on the generation thing, but since they pick a new maker every year, the generation thing really doesn't come into play.
You are speaking of marketing generations, I am speaking of technical design generations. Both the 5X and the 6 are direct descendants of the 5. Both the 5 and 5X are made by LG.
I don't know and there's no point in baseless speculation. I would guess it would be something like a security chip in the Nexus 5 isn't compatible with the new secure boot mechanism, but again, I have no idea.
Even if it were a secure boot issue that is also an arbitrary business decision. Secure boot could be a feature only supported on devices with a compatible security chip. It is not a technical decision as "not enough RAM" would be.
"Your phone isn't running Android 7.0? Wow, what a turd!"
When your phone (Nexus 5) is only one generation different from the currently sold model (Nexus 5X) and has the same screen, same amount of RAM and only a slightly slower CPU then yes, it "stinks". There is no hiding that odor.
iOS haters always say that you should only buy Google approved(tm) Android devices to stay up to day ...
iOS fans have said that too for people determined to go Android, that if you want/have to go Android get a Nexus device. Even with this crappy treatment of Nexus 5 users - the currently sold 5X has the same screen, same RAM, and only slightly faster CPU - a Nexus may still be the best option with Android. My understanding is that Nexus 4 running Android 5.1 and Nexus 5 running Android 6.0 will still get patches. They merely don't get Android 7.0, but at least security holes and bugs get patched unlike some Android devices that don't even get that.
... especially when they've released 3 different phones since then ...
Its generations not phones that matter. The direct successors to the 5 are the 5X and 6 and the 5X is still a current model. So the 5 is only one generation removed from the current model and has the same screen, same amount of RAM, and only a slightly slower CPU/GPU which is still vastly overpowered for what millions of Android uses typically do.
That line seemed to be the submitter's personal opinion and not backed up by anything in the linked article. We don't know why Google didn't push an update for the Nexus 5.
The Nexus 4, 5 and 5X all have the same amount of RAM, 2GB. Its damn suspicious that the 4 and 5 are limited to Android 5.1 and 6.0 and only the 5X gets 7.0. The 2012 and 2013 Nexus 7 story made sense, the former had only 1GB RAM, the later 2 GB, so only the later got Android 6.0. Screen sizes are the same on the Nexus 5 and 5X. While the 5X has slightly better CPU and GPU the chips in the 5 are still vastly overpowered for what millions of Android users do.
Is Android 7.0 64-bit only or something? Even so it seems an arbitrary change. I would understand a desire for such a minimum as a software developer but I would concede it improper to make such a change unless something else is going on, for example 2GB RAM no longer supported.
It looks and smells like a business decision. (1) Reducing development, testing and deployment costs. (2) Users are mostly part of a secondary market (buying used phones) that Google does not want to encourage.
Yes this was quite a while ago. Glad some common sense eventually prevailed.
I once worked at a company that's normal schedule was 9 hours a day Monday through Thursday and 4 hours Friday morning.
Absenteeism was lower and management happy with these and other metrics. People naturally scheduled offsite things like doctor's appointments for Friday afternoons. But more often they just started their weekend early. People were overwhelmingly happy with the schedule.
Alas California put an end to this. Employees apparently don't have the authority to move a non-overtime hour from Friday to another day of the week and exceed 8 hours in a given day.
Properly managed companies don't have crunch times. Good employees get their shit done on time.
Well, when a good employer does a proper job of estimating the work involved.
I fortunately once had such an experience. I led a five person team on a 14 month project and we only had about two weeks of crunch, and it was relatively minor crunch. It was a small company and I manically kept developers focused on priority features. I did not allow my boss or the company owner to insert their ideas into the current tasks. Its not that their ideas were bad, its that they weren't contractual obligations. We were developing the software for someone else and had a very hard immovable due date, it was software to be physically bundled with a chemistry textbook and a contractual feature list.
The conversation usually went "That's a great idea, and it will only take a day or two, but it has to go on the end of our features to implement list. Its not core functionality. We can't risk being late or missing one of our contractual features so the contractual features have to be at the top of the list." The boss and owner were usually disappointed but persuaded. While they did not have software development backgrounds they were otherwise intelligent and reasonable people. Yes at other companies I probably would have been fired. As I said, an admittedly fortunate experience.
Hope this becomes a trend. I would love the option to work for 20 or 30 hours/week even for half the money. I've always felt like I had to choose between 40-50 hour weeks or nothing.
Sounds like typical part-time software development work, the sort I had during most of my undergraduate and my graduate school days. Working 25-30 hours a week at real companies, albeit usually small ones, although my hours were somewhat dependent upon class schedules in undergraduate days.
Its great Amazon is doing this but is it really something new and different in the "industry"?
Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).
I was naively thinking this was a selfish and futile attempt to protect developed world labor from reality. You know, I still think that is the case. The developed world doesn't need additional barriers, it needs economically healthier societies that among other things treat their employers better.
Again, you display a reading comprehension problem, arguing against a policy not being suggested. Again, from my original post: "some sort of reciprocal system seems to be needed. On a per nation basis low barriers to trade in both directions, high barriers to trade in both directions, but not low barriers in one direction and high barriers in the other."
Clues: (1) per nation basis (2) same level of barriers in both directions, i.e. "reciprocal".
These days, China has substantial value as a consumer. It makes sense to keep some (but not all) of your manufacturing where you have a billion consumers.
Seriously, that has been proven false decade after decade after decade for over a century now. Perhaps two centuries. Look at jet engines. Western manufacturers were enticed to "share" technology and manufacturing techniques to get a part of the Chinese market. And now:
"China's cabinet may soon approve an aircraft engine development program that will require investment of at least 100 billion yuan ($16 billion), state-run Xinhua news agency quoted unidentified industry sources as saying. China is determined to reduce its dependency on foreign companies like Boeing Co (BA.N), EADS-owned Airbus EAD.PA, General Electric Co (GE.N) and Rolls Royce Plc (RR.L) for the country's soaring demand for planes and engines."
http://www.reuters.com/article...
Such a reciprocal system needs to take into account that one party is a lot poorer than the other. The current system of mostly free trade helps those poorer countries become a lot less poor. I think you need to do better than that.
Who says that can not be a consideration? Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).
None of that changes the fact that Germany has heavily invested in robotics and not suffered. Manufacturing jobs don't need to be low level work. Technical jobs supporting the robotics industry don't necessarily get counted as manufacturing.