There's no "free speech" on television; it's censored all the time (as a matter of course, even.) There's no "free speech" in newspapers; there's no "free speech" on the radio.
These are all commonly censored due to government regulation or when the company running the media outlet determines that broadcasting speech could be detrimental to its own interests.
How, exactly, are Facebook and Twitter any different from any other media outlet that solicits public content, then publishes what it wants? I think you're confusing what it essentially a self-publishing service with a soapbox on a streetcorner. With the latter, you generally do have free speech (within limits), with the former you certainly do not.
- Bottom of page 11: thirty-nine infringing copies of copyright motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting... in the Eastern District of Virginia
- Page 18:The Mega Conspiracy leases approximately 25 petabytes of data storage from Carpathia to store content associated with The Mega Site.
- It also looks like they leased servers in the US from Cogent, Leaseweb. They paid Carpathia $13M US to host Mega files in the US.
- They also used a US-based Paypal account to receive funds and pay the different hosts in the US.
- They made "reward" payments to US residents who provided copyrighted material.
Also, if you asked a plumber if everyone should learn plumbing, or a mechanic if everyone should learn how to fix their car, they would similarly say no -- it's in their vested financial interest to keep the field small.
I don't know why large publications / websites keep giving these people oxygen in the face of such an obvious conflict of interest. Ask a computer science professor from a respected college if THEY think kids should learn these skills and I guarantee you'll get a different answer.
erm, "Will an adult who learns how to play violin in adulthood ever be as good as someone who learned as a _child_?"/. needs post-submission editing abilities =P
Just like music, language skills and art, programmers benefit from learning core computer science skills in early childhood.
Sure, an adult can learn these things. Will they ever be as good? Will an adult who learns how to play violin in adulthood ever be as good as someone who learned as an adult? No.
However, we live in a technology-driven society now, and unlike where the value of the occasional child violin prodigy could be questioned, there is no question that if even one child out of the thousand who take these introductory computer science classes excels at it, the world-changing innovations they could potentially achieve make the entire exercise more than worthwhile.
Vivaldi doesn't seem all that special or unique, but what really put me off was noticing only 3 of their 25 'team members' are women. The rest are all white guys except for a lone asian guy.
I don't expect a great product when there's practically no diversity in the team that's creating it.
0 GOSUB 10000 1 INPUT "DO YOU WANT INSTRUCTIONS (Y OR N)?",A$: IF A$#"Y" AND A$#"N" THEN 1: IF A$="Y" THEN GOSUB 30000 2 REF=5: CALL -936 3 INPUT "COMPUTER TO PLAY WHITE(0) OR BLACK(1)",WHO 4 IST=0 5 DIM WC(99),BC(99) 6 DIM V(6),P(26),C(3) 7 DIM KING(16) 8 DIM A(70) 10 DIM M(120),W(120),B(120),I(6) 11 DIM G(100) 12 FOR X=1 TO 120:M(X)=0: NEXT X 14 FOR X=1 TO 99:W(X)=0:B(X)=0: NEXT X 15 FOR X=2 TO 9:X1=10*X:X2=X1+1:M(X1)=7:M(X2)=7: NEXT X 16 DIM STR$(10),FILE$(8),RANK$(8) 17 FILE$(1)="A":FILE$(2)="B":FILE$(3)="C":FILE$(4)="D":FILE$(5)="E":FILE$(6)="F":FILE$(7)="G":FILE$(8)="H" 18 RANK$="12345678" 20 FOR K=1 TO 21:K2=K+99:M(K)=7:M(K2)=7: NEXT K 22 FOR K=32 TO 39:K2=K+50:M(K)=1:M(K2)=-1: NEXT K 23 M(22)=4:M(23)=2:M(24)=3:M(25)=5:M(26)=6:M(27)=3:M(28)=2:M(29)=4 25 FOR K=22 TO 29:K2=K+70:M(K2)=-M(K): NEXT K 30 I(1)=12:I(2)=15:I(3)=10:I(4)=1:I(5)=6:I(6)=6 35 V(1)=1:V(2)=3:V(3)=3:V(4)=5:V(5)=9:V(6)=10 40 P(1)=-1:P(2)=1:P(3)=10:P(4)=-10:P(5)=0:P(6)=1:P(7)=-1 45 P(8)=10:P(9)=-10:P(10)=-9:P(11)=-11:P(12)=9:P(13)=11:P(14)=0 50 P(15)=8:P(16)=-8:P(17)=12:P(18)=-12:P(19)=19:P(20)=-19 55 P(21)=21:P(22)=-21:P(23)=0:P(24)=10:P(25)=20:P(26)=0 60 C(1)=8:C(2)=0:C(3)=3 80 IF WHO=1 THEN 90 85 M(25)=6:M(26)=5:M(95)=-6:M(96)=-5 90 GOSUB 5000 93 FOR II=1 TO 120:W(II)=0:B(II)=0: NEXT II 95 IF WHO=1 THEN 100:T2=0: GOTO 1000 100 REM MAKE MOVE 101 GOSUB 4000 105 Z9=0 110 GOSUB 4200 115 GOSUB 5000: IF WHO=0 THEN 1000 116 M9=M9+1: IF M9>REF THEN 120 117 IF T2>4 THEN 120: IF IST=1 THEN GOTO 120 118 F2=9-F2:T2=9-T2: GOSUB 4200: GOSUB 5000: GOTO 100 120 REM FILL CONTROL ARRAYS 122 N8=0:IST=1 125 FOR X1=22 TO 99:WC(X1)=0:BC(X1)=0: IF M(X1)=6 THEN BKING=X1: IF M(X1)=-6 THEN WKING=X1: NEXT X1 130 FOR X=22 TO 99: IF M(X)<1 THEN 170: IF M(X)=7 THEN 170: GOSUB 8000: IF N9=0 THEN 170 150 FOR X1=1 TO N9:TO=G(X1)-G(X1)/100*100: IF M(TO)>0 THEN 168 164 N8=N8+1:A(N8)=G(X1) 168 BC(TO)=BC(TO)+1 169 NEXT X1 170 NEXT X 172 FOR X=22 TO 99: IF M(X)>-1 THEN 180: GOSUB 8000 173 IF N9=0 THEN 180 174 FOR X1=1 TO N9:TO=G(X1)-G(X1)/100*100:WC(TO)=WC(TO)+1 176 NEXT X1 180 NEXT X 181 GOTO 3000: REM CASTLE LOGIC 182 REM FILL KING CONTROL ARRAY 184 KING(1)=BKING+1:KING(2)=BKING-1:KING(3)=BKING+10:KING(4)=BKING-10 185 KING(5)=BKING+11:KING(6)=BKING-11:KING(7)=BKING+9:KING(8)=BKING-9 186 KING(9)=WKING+1:KING(10)=WKING-1:KING(11)=WKING+10:KING(12)=WKING-10 187 KING(13)=WKING+11:KING(14)=WKING-11:KING(15)=WKING+9:KING(16)=WKING-9 190 V9=-10000:I9=0: FOR X4=1 TO N8:N4=0:F4=A(X4)/100 210 T4=A(X4)-F4*100:F5=M(F4):T5=M(T4) 212 REM FIND MOVES OFPIECE IN PRESENT POSTION. 214 X=F4: GOSUB 8000 225 M(T4)=M(F4):M(F4)=0 235 GOSUB 9000: IF N4<=V9 THEN 255 245 V9=N4:F9=F4:T9=T4 255 M(F4)=F5:M(T4)=T5: 256 Z9=Z9+1: IF Z9>20 THEN Z9=1: TAB 26: VTAB Z9: PRINT F4;" : ";T4;" V= ";N4 259 NEXT X4 270 F1=F9:T1=T9:M(T1)=M(F1):M(F1)=0:F6=F1-F1/10*10-1:F7=10-F1/10:T6=T1-T1/10*10-1:T7=10-T1/10 280 IF WHO=1 AND F1=22 THEN QROOK=1 281 IF WHO=1 AND F1=29 THEN KROOK=1 282 IF M(T1)=6 THEN MKING=1 283 IF WHO=0 AND F1=22 THEN QROOK=1 284 IF WHO=0 AND F1=29 THEN KROOK=1 310 PRINT "FROM ";F6;F7
It annoys me that someone like Poettering, who only had PulseAudio come into use because of the ability distributions had to easily change core operating system components (and wouldn't have had the existing audio-subsystem been entrenched), would then proceed to develop something specifically intended to lock down its own existence and prevent its replacement by something else. It's hypocritical.
While I totally understand why he did it -- nobody wants to put a great amount of time into something only to have it superseded -- it flies in the face of open source in general, where you contribute to an evolving 'thing', and that while your specific contribution may not exist in the future, you can be happy that you took part in the evolution of the whole, and not feel the need to stamp your face on it for perpetuity.
It also sets a dangerous precedent. What's going to be locked down next, in the name of stability, or speed, or whatever else (when it's really about someone trying to 'make their mark'?) Do we lock down the file system? Only one file system for Linux, full stop? Do we lock down the network transports? The window manager? The terminal? The command-line applications?
Then what? Do we then create a global committee, made up of people who maintain the existing components (of course), to make decisions about those components and whatever's left into the future?
I mean, yes, I agree in that case something else will surely (and quickly) rise in Linux's place (I mean, who wants to put in the time to help projects who only exist to serve their creator's vanity) but it seems a shame that Linux should end this way.
I think they think that by not allowing you to download the binary they're in the clear. Unfortunately you _are_ downloading it, to the emulator running in your web-browser.
There was a conference down here in Australia on game preservation last year and one of the most discussed subjects was precisely this -- and the conclusion was simply that what archive.org is doing in this context can't be considered as anything other than illegal.
Now whether or not anyone complains or not is something for IA to deal with, but let's not have any confusion that using the site to play games is in no way any more legal than just finding a torrent or an 'abandonware' site and downloading them.
Someone I know has pointed out that Clive SInclair doesn't actually even own the rights to the Speccy; he sold them to Amstrad. So having him as a shareholder may not actually give this mob the right to replicate the likeness or the ROMS.
I'll be interested to see how many rights holders agree to contribute their games for free, especially when the unit itself is being sold for such a tidy profit. I can't imagine it would be very many.
Or maybe they plan on shipping the games of 'uncontactable' (ie those who don't reply) rights holders and 'remove' them if they later turn up and complain? Kind of shifty if this is the case.
It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.
It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.
Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.
At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.
Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.
I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.
It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.
Whether one dislikes systemd or not isn't necessarily because of what it does or doesn't do. The issue for many people (myself included) is simply that it's a monolith that keeps trying to grow larger in an "open" world that was meant to stand for a certain amount of platform agnosticism and component independence.
I realise that systemd can make life easier for some more novice users but to be true to the spirit of the open source community I would expect it to be optional where it can be so. When it starts to intrude into critical areas and make itself mandatory in some releases, that bothers me. It makes me think that the whole business is a sneaky attempt to subvert the Linux kernel and eventually take control of Linux as a whole.
Totally agree. He sees what Linus has and wants it for himself. The problem with that is, as you point out, Linus did what he did because he wanted to run UNIX (well, Minix?) on a POS old PC. Poettering really just wants the fame.
Seriously though, South Australia, while having a reputation for being a "backward" state, is actually one of (if not the) most liberal, progressive states in Australia. Adelaide has a cool startup culture too!
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 2
...or the standards of computer science education in Western countries could improve? We could start with insisting all CS students learn a close-to-the-metal language like C, and not graduating JavaScript specialists.
It's a pretty niche app, but the Slashdot crowd has a pretty large percentage of retro-computer collectors, so I thought it might be worth a mention...
tapDancer is an Android app that encodes.TAP /.TZX and many more and plays the audio out through the headphone jack. You can either direct-connect your device or use a 'cassette CD adapter'.
"Autonomous" mining and logging trucks...
on
Autonomous Trucking
·
· Score: 1
...have been around for years. I know they don't generally share the road (except with hapless interlopers who have to get out of the way) but there's still been much knowledge gleaned there. So the 'science' is already eay more advanced than with autonomous cars, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no "free speech" on television; it's censored all the time (as a matter of course, even.) There's no "free speech" in newspapers; there's no "free speech" on the radio.
These are all commonly censored due to government regulation or when the company running the media outlet determines that broadcasting speech could be detrimental to its own interests.
How, exactly, are Facebook and Twitter any different from any other media outlet that solicits public content, then publishes what it wants? I think you're confusing what it essentially a self-publishing service with a soapbox on a streetcorner. With the latter, you generally do have free speech (within limits), with the former you certainly do not.
Quoted from a comment on HN:
"Not accurate. Read the indictment.
- Bottom of page 11: thirty-nine infringing copies of copyright motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting... in the Eastern District of Virginia
- Page 18:The Mega Conspiracy leases approximately 25 petabytes of data storage from Carpathia to store content associated with The Mega Site.
- It also looks like they leased servers in the US from Cogent, Leaseweb. They paid Carpathia $13M US to host Mega files in the US.
- They also used a US-based Paypal account to receive funds and pay the different hosts in the US.
- They made "reward" payments to US residents who provided copyrighted material.
Mega was running an illegal business in the US."
Also, if you asked a plumber if everyone should learn plumbing, or a mechanic if everyone should learn how to fix their car, they would similarly say no -- it's in their vested financial interest to keep the field small.
I don't know why large publications / websites keep giving these people oxygen in the face of such an obvious conflict of interest. Ask a computer science professor from a respected college if THEY think kids should learn these skills and I guarantee you'll get a different answer.
erm, "Will an adult who learns how to play violin in adulthood ever be as good as someone who learned as a _child_?" /. needs post-submission editing abilities =P
Just like music, language skills and art, programmers benefit from learning core computer science skills in early childhood.
Sure, an adult can learn these things. Will they ever be as good? Will an adult who learns how to play violin in adulthood ever be as good as someone who learned as an adult? No.
However, we live in a technology-driven society now, and unlike where the value of the occasional child violin prodigy could be questioned, there is no question that if even one child out of the thousand who take these introductory computer science classes excels at it, the world-changing innovations they could potentially achieve make the entire exercise more than worthwhile.
Not convinced segregation is the answer here -- if girls aren't "getting it" then a lot of the boys won't be "getting it" either...
Besides, my junior high school computer science class 25 years ago was one-third girls and everybody learned Pascal just fine =P
Vivaldi doesn't seem all that special or unique, but what really put me off was noticing only 3 of their 25 'team members' are women. The rest are all white guys except for a lone asian guy.
I don't expect a great product when there's practically no diversity in the team that's creating it.
... anything. All of it.
Definitely the best of the Xs...
0 GOSUB 10000
1 INPUT "DO YOU WANT INSTRUCTIONS (Y OR N)?",A$: IF A$#"Y" AND A$#"N" THEN 1: IF A$="Y" THEN GOSUB 30000
2 REF=5: CALL -936
3 INPUT "COMPUTER TO PLAY WHITE(0) OR BLACK(1)",WHO
4 IST=0
5 DIM WC(99),BC(99)
6 DIM V(6),P(26),C(3)
7 DIM KING(16)
8 DIM A(70)
10 DIM M(120),W(120),B(120),I(6)
11 DIM G(100)
12 FOR X=1 TO 120:M(X)=0: NEXT X
14 FOR X=1 TO 99:W(X)=0:B(X)=0: NEXT X
15 FOR X=2 TO 9:X1=10*X:X2=X1+1:M(X1)=7:M(X2)=7: NEXT X
16 DIM STR$(10),FILE$(8),RANK$(8)
17 FILE$(1)="A":FILE$(2)="B":FILE$(3)="C":FILE$(4)="D":FILE$(5)="E":FILE$(6)="F":FILE$(7)="G":FILE$(8)="H"
18 RANK$="12345678"
20 FOR K=1 TO 21:K2=K+99:M(K)=7:M(K2)=7: NEXT K
22 FOR K=32 TO 39:K2=K+50:M(K)=1:M(K2)=-1: NEXT K
23 M(22)=4:M(23)=2:M(24)=3:M(25)=5:M(26)=6:M(27)=3:M(28)=2:M(29)=4
25 FOR K=22 TO 29:K2=K+70:M(K2)=-M(K): NEXT K
30 I(1)=12:I(2)=15:I(3)=10:I(4)=1:I(5)=6:I(6)=6
35 V(1)=1:V(2)=3:V(3)=3:V(4)=5:V(5)=9:V(6)=10
40 P(1)=-1:P(2)=1:P(3)=10:P(4)=-10:P(5)=0:P(6)=1:P(7)=-1
45 P(8)=10:P(9)=-10:P(10)=-9:P(11)=-11:P(12)=9:P(13)=11:P(14)=0
50 P(15)=8:P(16)=-8:P(17)=12:P(18)=-12:P(19)=19:P(20)=-19
55 P(21)=21:P(22)=-21:P(23)=0:P(24)=10:P(25)=20:P(26)=0
60 C(1)=8:C(2)=0:C(3)=3
80 IF WHO=1 THEN 90
85 M(25)=6:M(26)=5:M(95)=-6:M(96)=-5
90 GOSUB 5000
93 FOR II=1 TO 120:W(II)=0:B(II)=0: NEXT II
95 IF WHO=1 THEN 100:T2=0: GOTO 1000
100 REM MAKE MOVE
101 GOSUB 4000
105 Z9=0
110 GOSUB 4200
115 GOSUB 5000: IF WHO=0 THEN 1000
116 M9=M9+1: IF M9>REF THEN 120
117 IF T2>4 THEN 120: IF IST=1 THEN GOTO 120
118 F2=9-F2:T2=9-T2: GOSUB 4200: GOSUB 5000: GOTO 100
120 REM FILL CONTROL ARRAYS
122 N8=0:IST=1
125 FOR X1=22 TO 99:WC(X1)=0:BC(X1)=0: IF M(X1)=6 THEN BKING=X1: IF M(X1)=-6 THEN WKING=X1: NEXT X1
130 FOR X=22 TO 99: IF M(X)<1 THEN 170: IF M(X)=7 THEN 170: GOSUB 8000: IF N9=0 THEN 170
150 FOR X1=1 TO N9:TO=G(X1)-G(X1)/100*100: IF M(TO)>0 THEN 168
164 N8=N8+1:A(N8)=G(X1)
168 BC(TO)=BC(TO)+1
169 NEXT X1
170 NEXT X
172 FOR X=22 TO 99: IF M(X)>-1 THEN 180: GOSUB 8000
173 IF N9=0 THEN 180
174 FOR X1=1 TO N9:TO=G(X1)-G(X1)/100*100:WC(TO)=WC(TO)+1
176 NEXT X1
180 NEXT X
181 GOTO 3000: REM CASTLE LOGIC
182 REM FILL KING CONTROL ARRAY
184 KING(1)=BKING+1:KING(2)=BKING-1:KING(3)=BKING+10:KING(4)=BKING-10
185 KING(5)=BKING+11:KING(6)=BKING-11:KING(7)=BKING+9:KING(8)=BKING-9
186 KING(9)=WKING+1:KING(10)=WKING-1:KING(11)=WKING+10:KING(12)=WKING-10
187 KING(13)=WKING+11:KING(14)=WKING-11:KING(15)=WKING+9:KING(16)=WKING-9
190 V9=-10000:I9=0: FOR X4=1 TO N8:N4=0:F4=A(X4)/100
210 T4=A(X4)-F4*100:F5=M(F4):T5=M(T4)
212 REM FIND MOVES OFPIECE IN PRESENT POSTION.
214 X=F4: GOSUB 8000
225 M(T4)=M(F4):M(F4)=0
235 GOSUB 9000: IF N4<=V9 THEN 255
245 V9=N4:F9=F4:T9=T4
255 M(F4)=F5:M(T4)=T5:
256 Z9=Z9+1: IF Z9>20 THEN Z9=1: TAB 26: VTAB Z9: PRINT F4;" : ";T4;" V= ";N4
259 NEXT X4
270 F1=F9:T1=T9:M(T1)=M(F1):M(F1)=0:F6=F1-F1/10*10-1:F7=10-F1/10:T6=T1-T1/10*10-1:T7=10-T1/10
280 IF WHO=1 AND F1=22 THEN QROOK=1
281 IF WHO=1 AND F1=29 THEN KROOK=1
282 IF M(T1)=6 THEN MKING=1
283 IF WHO=0 AND F1=22 THEN QROOK=1
284 IF WHO=0 AND F1=29 THEN KROOK=1
310 PRINT "FROM ";F6;F7
Regardless of the merit (or lack of) of your points, t's quite difficult to take you seriously when you post as an AC.
It annoys me that someone like Poettering, who only had PulseAudio come into use because of the ability distributions had to easily change core operating system components (and wouldn't have had the existing audio-subsystem been entrenched), would then proceed to develop something specifically intended to lock down its own existence and prevent its replacement by something else. It's hypocritical.
While I totally understand why he did it -- nobody wants to put a great amount of time into something only to have it superseded -- it flies in the face of open source in general, where you contribute to an evolving 'thing', and that while your specific contribution may not exist in the future, you can be happy that you took part in the evolution of the whole, and not feel the need to stamp your face on it for perpetuity.
It also sets a dangerous precedent. What's going to be locked down next, in the name of stability, or speed, or whatever else (when it's really about someone trying to 'make their mark'?) Do we lock down the file system? Only one file system for Linux, full stop? Do we lock down the network transports? The window manager? The terminal? The command-line applications?
Then what? Do we then create a global committee, made up of people who maintain the existing components (of course), to make decisions about those components and whatever's left into the future?
I mean, yes, I agree in that case something else will surely (and quickly) rise in Linux's place (I mean, who wants to put in the time to help projects who only exist to serve their creator's vanity) but it seems a shame that Linux should end this way.
I think they think that by not allowing you to download the binary they're in the clear. Unfortunately you _are_ downloading it, to the emulator running in your web-browser.
There was a conference down here in Australia on game preservation last year and one of the most discussed subjects was precisely this -- and the conclusion was simply that what archive.org is doing in this context can't be considered as anything other than illegal.
Now whether or not anyone complains or not is something for IA to deal with, but let's not have any confusion that using the site to play games is in no way any more legal than just finding a torrent or an 'abandonware' site and downloading them.
Someone I know has pointed out that Clive SInclair doesn't actually even own the rights to the Speccy; he sold them to Amstrad. So having him as a shareholder may not actually give this mob the right to replicate the likeness or the ROMS.
This could prove interesting...
I'll be interested to see how many rights holders agree to contribute their games for free, especially when the unit itself is being sold for such a tidy profit. I can't imagine it would be very many.
Or maybe they plan on shipping the games of 'uncontactable' (ie those who don't reply) rights holders and 'remove' them if they later turn up and complain? Kind of shifty if this is the case.
If you create the product yourself you don't need an accountant until you sell it.
It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.
It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.
Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.
At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.
Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.
I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.
It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.
While you may think of your examples as 'advancements', many people (myself included) do not.
Your examples also do not affect the way a headless server boots. systemd does. And not in a good way.
Whether one dislikes systemd or not isn't necessarily because of what it does or doesn't do. The issue for many people (myself included) is simply that it's a monolith that keeps trying to grow larger in an "open" world that was meant to stand for a certain amount of platform agnosticism and component independence.
I realise that systemd can make life easier for some more novice users but to be true to the spirit of the open source community I would expect it to be optional where it can be so. When it starts to intrude into critical areas and make itself mandatory in some releases, that bothers me. It makes me think that the whole business is a sneaky attempt to subvert the Linux kernel and eventually take control of Linux as a whole.
Totally agree. He sees what Linus has and wants it for himself. The problem with that is, as you point out, Linus did what he did because he wanted to run UNIX (well, Minix?) on a POS old PC. Poettering really just wants the fame.
I live here, it's awesome =)
Seriously though, South Australia, while having a reputation for being a "backward" state, is actually one of (if not the) most liberal, progressive states in Australia. Adelaide has a cool startup culture too!
...or the standards of computer science education in Western countries could improve? We could start with insisting all CS students learn a close-to-the-metal language like C, and not graduating JavaScript specialists.
It's a pretty niche app, but the Slashdot crowd has a pretty large percentage of retro-computer collectors, so I thought it might be worth a mention...
tapDancer is an Android app that encodes .TAP / .TZX and many more and plays the audio out through the headphone jack. You can either direct-connect your device or use a 'cassette CD adapter'.
https://play.google.com/store/...
...have been around for years. I know they don't generally share the road (except with hapless interlopers who have to get out of the way) but there's still been much knowledge gleaned there. So the 'science' is already eay more advanced than with autonomous cars, for example.
...think that was ever going to last? C'mon now... really?