now I think there should be a fight against the "close source cloud".
There are multiple open source cloud projects and many corporate providers using these projects. Shop around. Or if you have a decent internet connection, download OwnCloud or Seafile and host it yourself.
Cool. You understood Linus's point. You just failed to understand the problem. But it's okay. Now that you've understood the first sentence quoted in the summary you can enlighten yourself by reading the rest of it.
(And another annoyance - Torvalds sees Snaps and Flatpaks as the "solution" to the package management/distro issue? Really? Yeah, let's just replicate the userland for each application you install to deal with what was a non-issue.)
Yes really. It's the natural end game for an entire system where libraries are maintained and update completely individually and programmers are forced code against a moving target. This shouldn't be a surprise. The whole point of a distribution, and what makes the maintaining of a distribution so difficult is the endless juggling of new versions of software and libraries and the inevitable incompatibilities between them.
If you want the most up to date software where you can happily install without any affect on your system what the vendor provides on they day of release then your only safe solution is a packaging system like Snaps or Flatpaks. The alternative is screwing with your system in ways the distribution maintainer doesn't expect.
The only time I've ever given up trying to repair a Linux system and flat out reinstalled the OS (aside from obvious malicious damage like deleting root recursively) was when someone years ago tried to get the latest version of some CCTV software on their Debian system. The distro version didn't support some feature so they added a repo for the current version, installed it, force updated some libraries, and by the time he was finished X stopped working, and the entire apt database was so screwed up that it was basically impossible to revert to a working system thanks to the library structure of Linux.
Snaps didn't get created in a vacuum. They are a solution to a real problem.
If that's what you took away from that part of the summary then I would have kept it to yourself. Your boss won't be happy you outed yourself as a biased shill so easily.
Good one. Didn't know about the IBM mainframe one, but a current practice from Intel on their high end stuff is to ship Xeons with NVMe RAID that is disabled unless an appropriate $150 dongle is detected on the motherboard. AMD likes telling the world that Threadripper gives you that feature for free.
Not quite. What's you're describing is binning. They aim for the top and then bin the chips with dead cores.
It is however done on CPUs in general. See Intel VROC, a little hardware dongle you plug in on the motherboard that enables the NVMe RAID support in the Xeon CPU, or maybe back in the Clarksdale days where you could buy an upgrade voucher with a certain code in it to enable hyperthreadding on your processor via a utility from Intel's website.
Example, please? I work in high-volume consumer electronics and I've never seen this done.
\
Plenty. Every piece of equipment you sell is tested using a plethora of equipment where functionality is determined by license. HP did it in the 90s, Agilent continued it now, Keysight is still doing it. The difference between their $3000 CROs and their $2000 CROs is either embedded in the firmware or activated via bolt on dongles.
Speaking of dongles do you know one of the differences between AMD's Threadripper and Intel's Xeons? The former supports NVMe RAID in the CPU leading to blazing fast speeds. The latter (named VROC), well for that one you need a tiny little dongle that you plug into the motherboard so the firmware enables this support that is already naturally part the silicon. Well they're all about the dongles now, but in the past you could buy upgrade "vouchers" which allowed you to download and activate software utility on Intel's website to enable hyperthreadding on its desktop processors.
That's not new either. Your UID is low enough so you should remember AMD selling two different processors, one with a multiplier unlock and one that was locked by cutting a set of laser jumpers on the surface of the package. I owned one of those lovely cheaper AMD processors, you know the ones that always ended up with a graphite pencil mark on them to bridge the jumpers and basically increase the value of the CPU by $50-100 depending on model.
But it's not CPUs either. While the modern day QuadroRTX is a world apart from the standard desktop GPU, it used to be identical with features in the desktop GPU disabled via driver support. Man was there a cat and mouse game over that. It was once as easy as forcing the Quadro driver to install. Then NVIDIA locked that out in the GPU BIOS so you needed to flash a custom BIOS to get it to install. Then they tried setting a resistor on the motherboard. Yeah when running my 3D modelling software as a home hobby I could spend $1000 more on a Quadro K5000, or I could just buy a GTX690, bust out the soldering iron, move 2 resistors to the right, and then spend the spare $1000 on hookers,... or you know invest in my future or something.
You know why my Samsung TV doesn't support WiFi via the Samsung WiFi dongle? Because I didn't pay $100 more to have a single line changed in the config file in the embedded software in the TV. To be fair you get different "hardware" for $100 more. You get a $20 WiFi dongle and one of the USB ports on the TV has a sticker on it saying "WiFi" instead of "USB 3". Fortunately a quick Telnet into the TV combined with factory default logins and passwords and I saved myself a cool $80. I do wish I had that WiFi label though.
Though by far the dumbest one I've seen was posted on Hackaday: the Casio fx-82ES. This 20EUR calculator lacks complex numbers which are available on the 35EUR Casio fx-991ES. While early models allowed you to do the AMD trick and use a pencil to bridge 2 pads with graphite (a soldering iron would be a better idea) and make the calculator think it's more expensive, the current model removed those pads. No worry though thanks to a buffer overflow attack you can keep mashing the ( key 7 times + ANS over and over again until the calculator appears to crash, suddenly forgets what it is and now magically has all the complex features of it's older brother, almost twice the price.
Clearly you don't open electronics. Seeing model table showing what model something is on account of what activated already existing features it shipped with it is nothing out of the ordinary: https://cdn.instructables.com/... This calculator hardware is one of 24 possible models depending on where resistors are placed and the colour of the case the hardware is in.
But I've never seen it done, because if you're going to sell in any appreciable volume, the costs "was
How has the scandal been mishandled? It looks like a textbook response of attempting to avoid and shift all blame while doing the bare minimum to appease 3rd parties.
What do they prefer? Full ownership and action? That is the BP / VW way (except for the action bit) and is now a case study in business textbooks of what not to do.
Musk didn't care about the money as much as he cared about the technology getting used. New overlord, new priorities,
Uh huh. This is the guy who was fired from Paypal (circa 2000) because he actually wanted to abandon their existing Linux infrastructure and migrate to Windows servers...
Paypal didn't run on Linux infrastructure. But close.
So - the car still COSTS Tesla the same amount of money to make
No. The retail price and the package is not related to the cost 1:1. You're not paying Tesla for labour and materials. Actually it's quite the opposite. The car will cost less to make due to less downtime / retooling for a different model which has the effect of increasing their margins. This is something that is done by most companies which offer a wide product selection where something is controllable by firmware.
You can only alter a deal if you've had a deal in the first place. This is withdrawing the offer for a deal. No need go crying to your deity about that.
You only need a union if the government is at the mercy of the corporations. In many developed nations we don't need unions as the government is still for the people.
You know how companies declare their profit in their investor meetings? That's a public declaration. Tax based on that.
They do tax based on that. It's not like they are able to give the IRS and SEC two different numbers. Tax evaders are very open about how they invade taxes which is exactly why we know things like that Google use Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich rules when declaring their numbers to the IRS. They declare the same numbers to their investors.
Why do you think that such big stars are required in certain places?
No theory says a star is required. Just a mass. That theory is basic gravitational physics. It's the same theory that has observational shown to be true for how our galaxy and the objects in it interact. It's the same theory that says the mass beyond a certain size can't be a sustained fusion reaction. Incidentally it's exactly the same theory that modeled what a black hole's accretion disc would look like, so the answer you're looking for is not "Perhaps not so many" it's "exactly the same amount". This "perhapse not so many" theory has the name "Classical Physics". You see while the inside of a black hole may be very misunderstood, what it would look like to have a gravitational point with that mass in space is was known with a great degree of certainty.
I have already done that (take a look at my only submission here).
You have done no such thing and quite telling when you've been pointed out the errors in your thinking you've become defensive and walked away. This is why you're a troll, pretending to be sincere. You're not here to learn you're here to argue. Go read a book.
Anyway since you seem to be endlessly arguing against classical physics can you do us all a favour, disprove gravity and float the fuck away.
I am a troll for asking questions to understand better what is theoretically meant to be properly understood (science, you know?) in a place precisely meant to do things of this sort?
Nope, you're a troll for dismissing the responses to you and proceeding to ask the same question over and over again.
No? Then it is not a security guide or rather one that is worthless...
(I assume it does not. In good/. tradition, I have not looked at the documents...)
In the usual tradition, those who have not looked end up being wrong. If you would have looked you'd see that it applies to enterprise only which already has telemetry disabled.
It is absolutely fundamental. If you own the entire stack from the top to the bottom than any rule you set on that stack by it's nature can't distort the wider market.
That is a market monopoly. iOS must and will become separate from the Applications that run on it.
No it's not. There is no market. If you own the hardware, then putting software on it does not make it a "market" monopoly. The "market" is completely unaffected by anything you do.
It is NOT a walled-garden, with whatever 'protections' that currently provides Apple, it is an OS that can run Application Software.
I thought you just said it was a market monopoly and the use of the word must and will seem to imply that the OS and the applications on it are not independent. That's a walled garden. Honestly your post is starting to look like nonsensical ramblings.
I mean Imagine if Microsoft started asking 30% from the application developers for every install instance of every piece of software that is installed on Windows.
They do. Or did you miss the whole Windows RT thing. But you know what would happen? Microsoft would fall afoul of anti-trust laws... for every device except for their Surface line, precisely because their surface line is a closed eco system and they can do whatever the fuck they want on it without distorting the market.
You focus a lot on defining causes, but you seem to have forgotten the exclusive part of antitrust laws is the effects on wider markets.
1) Focusing on one specific product does not determine if someone is a monopoly in market. 2) Being a monopoly is not a prerequisite to falling afoul of anti-trust laws. 3) It owning the app store is not a defense against anti-trust laws.
They have defenses and there's actual reasons why this won't actually fly, but I'll let you actually google the basics before we try and explain the reasoning why the regulator is wrong in this case.
Every time? How many occurrences are we talking about? Tens? Hundreds?
How many times do you want? Pick a globular cluster at random. Measure the visible stars. Put them on a distribution curve. You know what you get? A very smooth curve that suddenly has a hard limit at 150 solar masses beyond which nothing is seen.
So the answer you're looking for is hundreds... in every single place we've ever looked.
What reason IS there to formulate a different theory?
As per all your explanations so far, it seems that all what they found is a galaxy which has probably a very big and bright start in the middle.
Except that based on the science of how a star forms it's not actually possible for a star to be that massive as the internal radiation of a star that massive causes so much pressure as to rip the star apart, something which we have determined through observation (unable to find any stars that size in our galaxy despite the general distribution pointing to many existing in the precise places we looked), and through actual modelling and simulation.
The lifecycle of a star is well described. Too small and it won't sustain fusion. Too large it won't hold together. The size of the star at the moment the core burns out also determines what happens to it. Which is why we also know with some degree of certainty that our sun will not end with an earth shattering kaboom, nor form a black hole when it finally expires.
because it's a point in space that bends everything to itself, even space, time and light.
And it's exactly this phenomenon that produces the signature accretion disc of light that we have not only demonstrated exists in theoretical models, but literally just imaged.
I keep wondering how light passenger cars got the hybrid treatment first and long-haul trucks still haven't
Cost/Benefit. It's easier to electrify / hybridify (not a real word:) ) a passenger car, and the effect of doing it is greater (light duty passenger cars make up the majority of transport related emissions). Additionally there is higher turnover in passenger vehicles.
This is much easier to hit American companies with all sorts of BS, and then give massive penalties.
Is this the same Netherlands that famously provides a tax haven for American companies to the point where the EU has actively slapped them a few times for their unfair practices?
There's wrong. There's damn wrong, and then there's WindBourne.
The key part about Apple is that they have a completely closed ecosystem. There is never an expectation that some 3rd party must be allowed to take part in this ecosystem. The only time anti-trust rulings come into place is if deals exist that either prevent or favour different products or companies over one another *outside your own control*.
MS didn't get screwed because they bundled IE (closed ecosystem). They got screwed because they bundled IE while also ensuring OEMs bundled Windows (distorting an open ecosystem). Google didn't get screwed because they bundled Google search on their Pixel phones (closed ecosystem). They got screwed because they specified in order to use their software on a 3rd party hardware other vendors for specific functions need to be locked out (distorting an open ecosystem).
Slashdot Mirror
now I think there should be a fight against the "close source cloud".
There are multiple open source cloud projects and many corporate providers using these projects. Shop around. Or if you have a decent internet connection, download OwnCloud or Seafile and host it yourself.
There is not a single Linux "desktop".
Cool. You understood Linus's point. You just failed to understand the problem. But it's okay. Now that you've understood the first sentence quoted in the summary you can enlighten yourself by reading the rest of it.
(And another annoyance - Torvalds sees Snaps and Flatpaks as the "solution" to the package management/distro issue? Really? Yeah, let's just replicate the userland for each application you install to deal with what was a non-issue.)
Yes really. It's the natural end game for an entire system where libraries are maintained and update completely individually and programmers are forced code against a moving target. This shouldn't be a surprise. The whole point of a distribution, and what makes the maintaining of a distribution so difficult is the endless juggling of new versions of software and libraries and the inevitable incompatibilities between them.
If you want the most up to date software where you can happily install without any affect on your system what the vendor provides on they day of release then your only safe solution is a packaging system like Snaps or Flatpaks. The alternative is screwing with your system in ways the distribution maintainer doesn't expect.
The only time I've ever given up trying to repair a Linux system and flat out reinstalled the OS (aside from obvious malicious damage like deleting root recursively) was when someone years ago tried to get the latest version of some CCTV software on their Debian system. The distro version didn't support some feature so they added a repo for the current version, installed it, force updated some libraries, and by the time he was finished X stopped working, and the entire apt database was so screwed up that it was basically impossible to revert to a working system thanks to the library structure of Linux.
Snaps didn't get created in a vacuum. They are a solution to a real problem.
If that's what you took away from that part of the summary then I would have kept it to yourself. Your boss won't be happy you outed yourself as a biased shill so easily.
Good one. Didn't know about the IBM mainframe one, but a current practice from Intel on their high end stuff is to ship Xeons with NVMe RAID that is disabled unless an appropriate $150 dongle is detected on the motherboard. AMD likes telling the world that Threadripper gives you that feature for free.
Not quite. What's you're describing is binning. They aim for the top and then bin the chips with dead cores.
It is however done on CPUs in general. See Intel VROC, a little hardware dongle you plug in on the motherboard that enables the NVMe RAID support in the Xeon CPU, or maybe back in the Clarksdale days where you could buy an upgrade voucher with a certain code in it to enable hyperthreadding on your processor via a utility from Intel's website.
Example, please? I work in high-volume consumer electronics and I've never seen this done.
\
Plenty.
Every piece of equipment you sell is tested using a plethora of equipment where functionality is determined by license. HP did it in the 90s, Agilent continued it now, Keysight is still doing it. The difference between their $3000 CROs and their $2000 CROs is either embedded in the firmware or activated via bolt on dongles.
Speaking of dongles do you know one of the differences between AMD's Threadripper and Intel's Xeons? The former supports NVMe RAID in the CPU leading to blazing fast speeds. The latter (named VROC), well for that one you need a tiny little dongle that you plug into the motherboard so the firmware enables this support that is already naturally part the silicon. Well they're all about the dongles now, but in the past you could buy upgrade "vouchers" which allowed you to download and activate software utility on Intel's website to enable hyperthreadding on its desktop processors.
That's not new either. Your UID is low enough so you should remember AMD selling two different processors, one with a multiplier unlock and one that was locked by cutting a set of laser jumpers on the surface of the package. I owned one of those lovely cheaper AMD processors, you know the ones that always ended up with a graphite pencil mark on them to bridge the jumpers and basically increase the value of the CPU by $50-100 depending on model.
But it's not CPUs either. While the modern day QuadroRTX is a world apart from the standard desktop GPU, it used to be identical with features in the desktop GPU disabled via driver support. Man was there a cat and mouse game over that. It was once as easy as forcing the Quadro driver to install. Then NVIDIA locked that out in the GPU BIOS so you needed to flash a custom BIOS to get it to install. Then they tried setting a resistor on the motherboard. Yeah when running my 3D modelling software as a home hobby I could spend $1000 more on a Quadro K5000, or I could just buy a GTX690, bust out the soldering iron, move 2 resistors to the right, and then spend the spare $1000 on hookers, ... or you know invest in my future or something.
You know why my Samsung TV doesn't support WiFi via the Samsung WiFi dongle? Because I didn't pay $100 more to have a single line changed in the config file in the embedded software in the TV. To be fair you get different "hardware" for $100 more. You get a $20 WiFi dongle and one of the USB ports on the TV has a sticker on it saying "WiFi" instead of "USB 3". Fortunately a quick Telnet into the TV combined with factory default logins and passwords and I saved myself a cool $80. I do wish I had that WiFi label though.
Though by far the dumbest one I've seen was posted on Hackaday: the Casio fx-82ES. This 20EUR calculator lacks complex numbers which are available on the 35EUR Casio fx-991ES. While early models allowed you to do the AMD trick and use a pencil to bridge 2 pads with graphite (a soldering iron would be a better idea) and make the calculator think it's more expensive, the current model removed those pads. No worry though thanks to a buffer overflow attack you can keep mashing the ( key 7 times + ANS over and over again until the calculator appears to crash, suddenly forgets what it is and now magically has all the complex features of it's older brother, almost twice the price.
Clearly you don't open electronics. Seeing model table showing what model something is on account of what activated already existing features it shipped with it is nothing out of the ordinary: https://cdn.instructables.com/... This calculator hardware is one of 24 possible models depending on where resistors are placed and the colour of the case the hardware is in.
But I've never seen it done, because if you're going to sell in any appreciable volume, the costs "was
How has the scandal been mishandled? It looks like a textbook response of attempting to avoid and shift all blame while doing the bare minimum to appease 3rd parties.
What do they prefer? Full ownership and action? That is the BP / VW way (except for the action bit) and is now a case study in business textbooks of what not to do.
Musk didn't care about the money as much as he cared about the technology getting used. New overlord, new priorities,
Uh huh. This is the guy who was fired from Paypal (circa 2000) because he actually wanted to abandon their existing Linux infrastructure and migrate to Windows servers...
Paypal didn't run on Linux infrastructure. But close.
So - the car still COSTS Tesla the same amount of money to make
No. The retail price and the package is not related to the cost 1:1. You're not paying Tesla for labour and materials.
Actually it's quite the opposite. The car will cost less to make due to less downtime / retooling for a different model which has the effect of increasing their margins. This is something that is done by most companies which offer a wide product selection where something is controllable by firmware.
You can only alter a deal if you've had a deal in the first place. This is withdrawing the offer for a deal. No need go crying to your deity about that.
You only need a union if the government is at the mercy of the corporations. In many developed nations we don't need unions as the government is still for the people.
You know how companies declare their profit in their investor meetings? That's a public declaration. Tax based on that.
They do tax based on that. It's not like they are able to give the IRS and SEC two different numbers. Tax evaders are very open about how they invade taxes which is exactly why we know things like that Google use Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich rules when declaring their numbers to the IRS. They declare the same numbers to their investors.
Ah, so even more worthless...
Yeah except to the 10s of millions of machines it affects.
Why do you think that such big stars are required in certain places?
No theory says a star is required. Just a mass. That theory is basic gravitational physics. It's the same theory that has observational shown to be true for how our galaxy and the objects in it interact. It's the same theory that says the mass beyond a certain size can't be a sustained fusion reaction. Incidentally it's exactly the same theory that modeled what a black hole's accretion disc would look like, so the answer you're looking for is not "Perhaps not so many" it's "exactly the same amount". This "perhapse not so many" theory has the name "Classical Physics". You see while the inside of a black hole may be very misunderstood, what it would look like to have a gravitational point with that mass in space is was known with a great degree of certainty.
I have already done that (take a look at my only submission here).
You have done no such thing and quite telling when you've been pointed out the errors in your thinking you've become defensive and walked away. This is why you're a troll, pretending to be sincere. You're not here to learn you're here to argue. Go read a book.
Anyway since you seem to be endlessly arguing against classical physics can you do us all a favour, disprove gravity and float the fuck away.
I am a troll for asking questions to understand better what is theoretically meant to be properly understood (science, you know?) in a place precisely meant to do things of this sort?
Nope, you're a troll for dismissing the responses to you and proceeding to ask the same question over and over again.
No? Then it is not a security guide or rather one that is worthless...
(I assume it does not. In good /. tradition, I have not looked at the documents...)
In the usual tradition, those who have not looked end up being wrong. If you would have looked you'd see that it applies to enterprise only which already has telemetry disabled.
'Open' or 'Closed' what does it matter?
It is absolutely fundamental. If you own the entire stack from the top to the bottom than any rule you set on that stack by it's nature can't distort the wider market.
That is a market monopoly. iOS must and will become separate from the Applications that run on it.
No it's not. There is no market. If you own the hardware, then putting software on it does not make it a "market" monopoly. The "market" is completely unaffected by anything you do.
It is NOT a walled-garden, with whatever 'protections' that currently provides Apple, it is an OS that can run Application Software.
I thought you just said it was a market monopoly and the use of the word must and will seem to imply that the OS and the applications on it are not independent. That's a walled garden. Honestly your post is starting to look like nonsensical ramblings.
I mean Imagine if Microsoft started asking 30% from the application developers for every install instance of every piece of software that is installed on Windows.
They do. Or did you miss the whole Windows RT thing. But you know what would happen? Microsoft would fall afoul of anti-trust laws ... for every device except for their Surface line, precisely because their surface line is a closed eco system and they can do whatever the fuck they want on it without distorting the market.
You focus a lot on defining causes, but you seem to have forgotten the exclusive part of antitrust laws is the effects on wider markets.
Sigh. How simple minded you are.
1) Focusing on one specific product does not determine if someone is a monopoly in market.
2) Being a monopoly is not a prerequisite to falling afoul of anti-trust laws.
3) It owning the app store is not a defense against anti-trust laws.
They have defenses and there's actual reasons why this won't actually fly, but I'll let you actually google the basics before we try and explain the reasoning why the regulator is wrong in this case.
Every time? How many occurrences are we talking about? Tens? Hundreds?
How many times do you want? Pick a globular cluster at random. Measure the visible stars. Put them on a distribution curve. You know what you get? A very smooth curve that suddenly has a hard limit at 150 solar masses beyond which nothing is seen.
So the answer you're looking for is hundreds ... in every single place we've ever looked.
What reason IS there to formulate a different theory?
Because it is wrong.
Sorry to get sciencey on you, but ... Prove it.
As per all your explanations so far, it seems that all what they found is a galaxy which has probably a very big and bright start in the middle.
Except that based on the science of how a star forms it's not actually possible for a star to be that massive as the internal radiation of a star that massive causes so much pressure as to rip the star apart, something which we have determined through observation (unable to find any stars that size in our galaxy despite the general distribution pointing to many existing in the precise places we looked), and through actual modelling and simulation.
The lifecycle of a star is well described. Too small and it won't sustain fusion. Too large it won't hold together. The size of the star at the moment the core burns out also determines what happens to it. Which is why we also know with some degree of certainty that our sun will not end with an earth shattering kaboom, nor form a black hole when it finally expires.
because it's a point in space that bends everything to itself, even space, time and light.
And it's exactly this phenomenon that produces the signature accretion disc of light that we have not only demonstrated exists in theoretical models, but literally just imaged.
I keep wondering how light passenger cars got the hybrid treatment first and long-haul trucks still haven't
Cost/Benefit. It's easier to electrify / hybridify (not a real word :) ) a passenger car, and the effect of doing it is greater (light duty passenger cars make up the majority of transport related emissions). Additionally there is higher turnover in passenger vehicles.
This is much easier to hit American companies with all sorts of BS, and then give massive penalties.
Is this the same Netherlands that famously provides a tax haven for American companies to the point where the EU has actively slapped them a few times for their unfair practices?
There's wrong. There's damn wrong, and then there's WindBourne.
Not so fast.
The key part about Apple is that they have a completely closed ecosystem. There is never an expectation that some 3rd party must be allowed to take part in this ecosystem. The only time anti-trust rulings come into place is if deals exist that either prevent or favour different products or companies over one another *outside your own control*.
MS didn't get screwed because they bundled IE (closed ecosystem). They got screwed because they bundled IE while also ensuring OEMs bundled Windows (distorting an open ecosystem).
Google didn't get screwed because they bundled Google search on their Pixel phones (closed ecosystem). They got screwed because they specified in order to use their software on a 3rd party hardware other vendors for specific functions need to be locked out (distorting an open ecosystem).