If I am the only person using and maintaining the source for hardware I developed my self, then it would perhaps still be maintained, even if it is obsolete.
You're describing a vendor actively maintaining a product in active use. That by its nature means it's not obsolete.
I'm curious what's considered an "obsolete CPU architecture" if a Powerbook 100 is still supported.
The question is "obsolete" for who? Obsolete depends on who defines it.
Obsolete due to lack of users and lack of working hardware? Obsolete due to lack of vendor support? Obsolete due to lack of maintainers?
Ultimately in every traditional version of obsolescence one group decides quite arbitrarily when something becomes obsolete and it has nothing to do with the orderly discontinuation of products in a linear timeline.
Before you look at it on terms of percentage of library maybe consider looking in terms of percentage of costs. If I were an investor I would be alarmed at this considering the expense.
The endgame is to marginalize desktop Linux as much as possible.
Errr. No. No one at Microsoft gives a crap about the Linux desktop. It barely registers a blip on market share figures. On the other hand they do care quite a bit about Linux being used in 1/3rd of back end instances on their Azure cloud and are trying to give customers a way of using ${APPLICATION} without leaving the Windows environment.
I have a better question: Why would you think there is any perceptible difference between well virtualised systems on different hosts? I have an even better question: Why would you even bother talking about virtualising when we are talking about running binaries written for Linux on Window's kernel?
Oh and if you have performance questions about that you'll be happy to know that except for I/O which is quite bottlenecked on WSL, WSL runs raw computing operations faster than any virtualised option including using both Windows and Linux hosts, although Xen does come close.
I believe it. In other news there has been an infinite% increase in the amount of US Pentagon reports on Slashdot since Friday. Seriously the Russians better lift their game.
Basically, anything Trump flavored has had a pretty heavy tilt in its moderation, towards the pro-Trump.
That is something called observation bias. Like seriously, Slashdot moderating with a pro-Trump bias? Are you living in one of those states that recently legalised weed, because that would explain a lot.
That is baseless prediction. We're talking about observations here, such as the 2000% increase in US media coverage (propaganda?) related to the airstrike since Friday.
Indeed, tell me your Facebook name and I'll send you an event invite so we can meet.
Oh and if that wasn't snide enough just remember I'm currently in Italy, but meeting in real life is easy right so it should be just as easy to catch up in Milan for a coffee as it is to have this conversation right?
The world of social network is not as simple as the proponents of alternatives always make it out.
There's likely a reason for that; to get permissions it would not get on a PC.
Are you using Lynx? On a modern browser you can consider yourself lucky that this post doesn't turn on your webcam and start recording your Slashdot session.
You're misusing the logical fallacy argument, we're talking established protocols here, not adding something that wasn't there already.
No we're talking about using established protocols in way that were unintended. You said there was a use case. I'm still waiting to hear that use case without you coming up with a circular argument for that use case.
The use case is, as said already, FTP server is likely to have less overheads.
No it doesn't because we're talking about serving FTP within HTTP which means you either have a HTTP server or a HTTP server AND and FTP server. So the FTP server adds needless overheads when you already require a HTTP server to serve a page. No one anywhere in this thread, in any Slashdot reply, in TFA, or at Mozilla is talking about using FTP for it's purpose of transferring files, something that Firefox will continue to do just fine.
The only misuse you came up with was marginal performance. It is nonsensical to reduce protocol coverage based on that alone.
That's the only one I mentioned here, TFS mentions breaking multiple security additions to the HTTP protocol, I already said not only is FTP+HTTP not a resource improvement, but actually a resource drain on your server. Then there's the technical downsides of FTP active not working behind NAT on one side, FTP passive not working on virtualised hosts, so aside from all the downsides it doesn't even actually fucking work on much of the internet.
There is still plenty of room in the world for mixed protocol delivery.
Indeed. When there's a use case that makes sense and it doesn't screw things up and add pointless overhead we should definitely implement mixed protocol delivery. We have created a lot of mixed protocols to fulfil a variety of use cases.
Use cases...
You come up with one yet? Or do I need to link to you the definition of a circular argument?
Take personal responsibility for your own social life.
Social media doesn't take away any personal responsibility any more than the telephone or a newspaper advertisement did. Your social life still needs to be built on information whether you see an advert for an event on TV or on a poster glued to the side of a building, or get invited to a party through an SMS.
A lot of people fundamentally don't realise that a large part of social media doesn't offset meeting people in fleshy person, and actually provides even more opportunities to do just that.
Yes that wasn't directed at you but rather the general reading population. It's amazing how disproportional the power of SWAT teams are compared to the situations they are sent in to diffuse. *sigh*
The use case is that someone has a need to deliver content over FTP.
Your logical fallacy is: Circular Argument! Now try to come up with a use case for delivering content over FTP within a HTTP site without that use case being "But someone may need to!!!"
doesn't remove the fact that someone may wish to deliver that way
I thought you were talking about a use case. If someone "may wish to" without a use case, all the while delivering a poor solution, then I will continue to call them out for the morons they are.
once the browsers include a way to do that they should continue to
Cars can be used for gassing yourself. Therefore cars should keep having an internal combustion case because someone may wish to gas themselves. What you are saying was a quirk and never a function, and where it was used it has no use case and is detrimental to users. No browsers should not continue to appease people who misuse their features stupidly.
otherwise they have removed functionality that may leave some users surprised
And the internet is a better place for it. Hopefully some web developer loses their job as a result. You seem very defensive about this topic. Are you one of these people who did something stupid without understanding what you were doing and without a use case?
Regardless of you choice delivery protocol preferences.
The sad thing is that this makes the most sense out of everything you have said so far, and it is completely gibberish, and not actually a proper sentence.
You are in a SWAT team. You have been trained for a gunfight.
So what you're saying is that SWAT shouldn't exist and you should let normal police diffuse a situation rather than turning America into a warzone complete with that level of weaponry?
That's just it. Comparing it to Alexa is silly considering the incredible value Alexa can provide through online shopping. They are sold at a loss to drive more sales through Amazon. What can Apple hope to achieve if they are compared against that?
As much as I like shitting on Apple, their market share with the Home Pod is bigger than Google's Home Max which is about the only product directly comparable.
Here in Germany they have been compulsory for all coal power plants since the early 1980s.
And the follow up question is: Where did that get you. Germany has the same pollution problem as Australia, only more of it (higher population) and concentrated in an even smaller landmass. Point is, coal plants are absolutely horrid even with all the bells and whistles attached. The best option may be everything + CCS but that has been an epic failure everywhere it was attempted, most recently being next door in the Netherlands with the government currently considering suing Uniper for the failed promise to deliver a clean coal power plant.
I wish our car industry would be controlled just as strictly
The car industry is starting to be controlled, just a tad slowly. Also they are being targeted on two fronts, production and the consumer as well. I was at TUV Nord only 2 weeks ago to get a umweltplakette for my windscreen (I don't actually live in Germany but I drive there enough that I was worried I may get a fine). Yeah it's a small effort to get some of the older nasties off the road but at least it's a start.
Now the specific case you may be referring to is a more difficult one given who a major shareholder of VW actually is (Niedersachsen). And while it would be nice for the German government to effectively fine itself even more, you just know they won't further damage one of their largest industries. That said even they are starting to wake up. As bad as they are, at least VW have both all electric and hybrid offerings and more comming. The same can't be said for the barely minimum effort US car makers are bringing to the table.
All in all you're still miles ahead of the USA and Australia, and at least your politicians are somewhat progressive (the finance minister in Australia recently took a piece of coal into parliament telling everyone they shouldn't be afraid of it, and we all know where Trump stands. )
We have been demolishing coal plants at a great rate which has given us power that costs 26c/kWh.
Oh honey, our price skyrocketed long before we started demolishing coal plants. Deregulation along with an expectation that the power doesn't go out even in huge storms did that for us. Learn a bit of history.
It may release more CO2, but that isn't "polluting the hell" out of anything.
Oh yeah I forgot CO2 was the harmless one. For the record we are talking about a small power station here, one that had horrible efficiency and even failed to meet it's own benchmarks for the environment. It was *the single biggest* emitter of CO2 per unit of energy produced in the country.
So yes, it is polluting the hell out of everything.
I mean what could possible go wrong with stopping 1 small group of ppl while allowing others to grow far bigger in their emissions.
Those *other* people you quoted are currently the largest investors in solar, nuclear, and green technologies. They have curbed emission increases an order of magnitude faster than most of the west.
I think you best get your own house in order before you start looking out the window and realise the grass is greener next door. But I get it, coal won't jobs itself.
Slashdot Mirror
If I am the only person using and maintaining the source for hardware I developed my self, then it would perhaps still be maintained, even if it is obsolete.
You're describing a vendor actively maintaining a product in active use. That by its nature means it's not obsolete.
I'm curious what's considered an "obsolete CPU architecture" if a Powerbook 100 is still supported.
The question is "obsolete" for who? Obsolete depends on who defines it.
Obsolete due to lack of users and lack of working hardware?
Obsolete due to lack of vendor support?
Obsolete due to lack of maintainers?
Ultimately in every traditional version of obsolescence one group decides quite arbitrarily when something becomes obsolete and it has nothing to do with the orderly discontinuation of products in a linear timeline.
Before you look at it on terms of percentage of library maybe consider looking in terms of percentage of costs. If I were an investor I would be alarmed at this considering the expense.
The endgame is to marginalize desktop Linux as much as possible.
Errr. No. No one at Microsoft gives a crap about the Linux desktop. It barely registers a blip on market share figures. On the other hand they do care quite a bit about Linux being used in 1/3rd of back end instances on their Azure cloud and are trying to give customers a way of using ${APPLICATION} without leaving the Windows environment.
I have a better question: Why would you think there is any perceptible difference between well virtualised systems on different hosts? I have an even better question: Why would you even bother talking about virtualising when we are talking about running binaries written for Linux on Window's kernel?
Oh and if you have performance questions about that you'll be happy to know that except for I/O which is quite bottlenecked on WSL, WSL runs raw computing operations faster than any virtualised option including using both Windows and Linux hosts, although Xen does come close.
statement that we're supposed to take as fact.
I believe it. In other news there has been an infinite% increase in the amount of US Pentagon reports on Slashdot since Friday. Seriously the Russians better lift their game.
Basically, anything Trump flavored has had a pretty heavy tilt in its moderation, towards the pro-Trump.
That is something called observation bias. Like seriously, Slashdot moderating with a pro-Trump bias? Are you living in one of those states that recently legalised weed, because that would explain a lot.
So... what???
This obsession is insane.
I predict a 3000% increase in Rickrolling.
That is baseless prediction. We're talking about observations here, such as the 2000% increase in US media coverage (propaganda?) related to the airstrike since Friday.
Indeed, tell me your Facebook name and I'll send you an event invite so we can meet.
Oh and if that wasn't snide enough just remember I'm currently in Italy, but meeting in real life is easy right so it should be just as easy to catch up in Milan for a coffee as it is to have this conversation right?
The world of social network is not as simple as the proponents of alternatives always make it out.
Linus Torvalds was able to leverage the enthusiasm of the Internet to make Linux exist
No he wasn't. He brought Linux together all on his own without external help. Once he did so the enthusiasm of the internet made Linux popular.
There's likely a reason for that; to get permissions it would not get on a PC.
Are you using Lynx? On a modern browser you can consider yourself lucky that this post doesn't turn on your webcam and start recording your Slashdot session.
Trunks are for elephants.
You're misusing the logical fallacy argument, we're talking established protocols here, not adding something that wasn't there already.
No we're talking about using established protocols in way that were unintended. You said there was a use case. I'm still waiting to hear that use case without you coming up with a circular argument for that use case.
The use case is, as said already, FTP server is likely to have less overheads.
No it doesn't because we're talking about serving FTP within HTTP which means you either have a HTTP server or a HTTP server AND and FTP server. So the FTP server adds needless overheads when you already require a HTTP server to serve a page. No one anywhere in this thread, in any Slashdot reply, in TFA, or at Mozilla is talking about using FTP for it's purpose of transferring files, something that Firefox will continue to do just fine.
The only misuse you came up with was marginal performance. It is nonsensical to reduce protocol coverage based on that alone.
That's the only one I mentioned here, TFS mentions breaking multiple security additions to the HTTP protocol, I already said not only is FTP+HTTP not a resource improvement, but actually a resource drain on your server. Then there's the technical downsides of FTP active not working behind NAT on one side, FTP passive not working on virtualised hosts, so aside from all the downsides it doesn't even actually fucking work on much of the internet.
There is still plenty of room in the world for mixed protocol delivery.
Indeed. When there's a use case that makes sense and it doesn't screw things up and add pointless overhead we should definitely implement mixed protocol delivery. We have created a lot of mixed protocols to fulfil a variety of use cases.
Use cases...
You come up with one yet? Or do I need to link to you the definition of a circular argument?
Take personal responsibility for your own social life.
Social media doesn't take away any personal responsibility any more than the telephone or a newspaper advertisement did. Your social life still needs to be built on information whether you see an advert for an event on TV or on a poster glued to the side of a building, or get invited to a party through an SMS.
A lot of people fundamentally don't realise that a large part of social media doesn't offset meeting people in fleshy person, and actually provides even more opportunities to do just that.
Yes that wasn't directed at you but rather the general reading population. It's amazing how disproportional the power of SWAT teams are compared to the situations they are sent in to diffuse. *sigh*
The use case is that someone has a need to deliver content over FTP.
Your logical fallacy is: Circular Argument! Now try to come up with a use case for delivering content over FTP within a HTTP site without that use case being "But someone may need to!!!"
doesn't remove the fact that someone may wish to deliver that way
I thought you were talking about a use case. If someone "may wish to" without a use case, all the while delivering a poor solution, then I will continue to call them out for the morons they are.
once the browsers include a way to do that they should continue to
Cars can be used for gassing yourself. Therefore cars should keep having an internal combustion case because someone may wish to gas themselves.
What you are saying was a quirk and never a function, and where it was used it has no use case and is detrimental to users. No browsers should not continue to appease people who misuse their features stupidly.
otherwise they have removed functionality that may leave some users surprised
And the internet is a better place for it. Hopefully some web developer loses their job as a result. You seem very defensive about this topic. Are you one of these people who did something stupid without understanding what you were doing and without a use case?
Regardless of you choice delivery protocol preferences.
The sad thing is that this makes the most sense out of everything you have said so far, and it is completely gibberish, and not actually a proper sentence.
You are in a SWAT team. You have been trained for a gunfight.
So what you're saying is that SWAT shouldn't exist and you should let normal police diffuse a situation rather than turning America into a warzone complete with that level of weaponry?
That's just it. Comparing it to Alexa is silly considering the incredible value Alexa can provide through online shopping. They are sold at a loss to drive more sales through Amazon. What can Apple hope to achieve if they are compared against that?
As much as I like shitting on Apple, their market share with the Home Pod is bigger than Google's Home Max which is about the only product directly comparable.
They should have released it without Siri.
So a shitty single speaker faking stereo around the room? If I wanted over priced junk like that I'd buy Bose.
Here in Germany they have been compulsory for all coal power plants since the early 1980s.
And the follow up question is: Where did that get you. Germany has the same pollution problem as Australia, only more of it (higher population) and concentrated in an even smaller landmass. Point is, coal plants are absolutely horrid even with all the bells and whistles attached. The best option may be everything + CCS but that has been an epic failure everywhere it was attempted, most recently being next door in the Netherlands with the government currently considering suing Uniper for the failed promise to deliver a clean coal power plant.
I wish our car industry would be controlled just as strictly
The car industry is starting to be controlled, just a tad slowly. Also they are being targeted on two fronts, production and the consumer as well. I was at TUV Nord only 2 weeks ago to get a umweltplakette for my windscreen (I don't actually live in Germany but I drive there enough that I was worried I may get a fine). Yeah it's a small effort to get some of the older nasties off the road but at least it's a start.
Now the specific case you may be referring to is a more difficult one given who a major shareholder of VW actually is (Niedersachsen). And while it would be nice for the German government to effectively fine itself even more, you just know they won't further damage one of their largest industries. That said even they are starting to wake up. As bad as they are, at least VW have both all electric and hybrid offerings and more comming. The same can't be said for the barely minimum effort US car makers are bringing to the table.
All in all you're still miles ahead of the USA and Australia, and at least your politicians are somewhat progressive (the finance minister in Australia recently took a piece of coal into parliament telling everyone they shouldn't be afraid of it, and we all know where Trump stands. )
We have been demolishing coal plants at a great rate which has given us power that costs 26c/kWh.
Oh honey, our price skyrocketed long before we started demolishing coal plants. Deregulation along with an expectation that the power doesn't go out even in huge storms did that for us. Learn a bit of history.
There have been scrubbers for that for almost a century.
And where are they?
It may release more CO2, but that isn't "polluting the hell" out of anything.
Oh yeah I forgot CO2 was the harmless one. For the record we are talking about a small power station here, one that had horrible efficiency and even failed to meet it's own benchmarks for the environment. It was *the single biggest* emitter of CO2 per unit of energy produced in the country.
So yes, it is polluting the hell out of everything.
I mean what could possible go wrong with stopping 1 small group of ppl while allowing others to grow far bigger in their emissions.
Those *other* people you quoted are currently the largest investors in solar, nuclear, and green technologies. They have curbed emission increases an order of magnitude faster than most of the west.
I think you best get your own house in order before you start looking out the window and realise the grass is greener next door. But I get it, coal won't jobs itself.
You forgot sunscreen.