Windows and OS X will be Open Source within 5 years
It will not happen. First, there really isn't any significant upside for Microsoft and Apple. It's not going to win over folks not already on board their platform. If Apple suddenly wanted more 'hackintosh' footprint, this could help, but they don't want that, they want to control the entire experience. Even given their limited support of their hardware, they still manage to do things like release an update that screws up a currently-shipping product (iPad Pro). They see the open ecosystem as a huge headache to support, as well as a thankless one margin-wise. For Microsoft, there are two major markets they don't have locked down where their OS can play:handsets and datacenters. The players don't care much about open source, they care about how those systems are managed and/or cost.
Another factor is that such an endeavor for such massive codebases can be very costly or impossible. There's probably third party code without copyright assignment that would need to be identified and an arrangement reached with the copyright holder or work done to remove and write a replacement.
Well, we just have to see what in the world they are teasing (if anything). One *hopes* that if they are trying to declare a device as game changing as the RAZR was, they have something meaningfully interesting up their sleeve rather than something simply banking on nostalgia. Some technology is possible to make some interesting things, will see if motorola returns to leadership and actually releases something first.
Well, everything here is just speculation. It *could* be a stylish 'feature' phone, it could be an android flip phone with number pad, it could be something more exotic and unique. It could be nothing more than a marketing video prodding Millennials to remember when Motorola was *the* hottest thing (to the point of being Apple's go-to-market strategy for mobile at one point).
The money is not in the USA, it wasn't made in the USA
That's not true. For some of the money, yes, but we are talking about these companies managing to get 90% of their cash over there.
First, a lot of these companies change their headquarters overseas in name only, so they aren't technically US companies anymore. Then the US business concerns become some subsidiary of what is nominally a foreign company.
Then they'll take however much profit that would be declared in the US, and offset it with some accounting tricks like saying they needed to license their own brand name from their foreign parent company, which coincidentally totaled just about as much as would have been US profit.
I'm saying that Berkshire is not bullet proof, and no single one of their investments should ever be considered by anyone to be a sure thing, with IBM being a shining example of them making what appears from all indicators a bad call. This is the reason why they have a diversified portfolio in the first place, to let them have less successfulinvestments.
Hell, maintaining the same level will require cool new products. I'm saying that I couldn't imagine a sufficiently cool new product to grow a company that's already so hugely valued.
I personally suspect a decline is in their future, but I'm not willing to short it to put my money where my mouth is. I certainly don't expect growth.
It's not being a failure, it's a simple reality of hitting the ceiling. I would be quite happy to be in that position, to have won *so* hard that there is no further winning possible. It suggests a different set of investment expectations (you are buying into rights to get some of the profits, either as dividends or stock buyback, rather than buying into 'growth' per se).
No, it's just hard to imagine where Apple has to go from here (except staying about the same/keeping up with population growth or down). This doesn't mean they are about to fall, maybe it's a plateau. It's just at some point, there's just no growth to be had.
His track record in tech is not so great. He bought and continues to buy huge chunks of IBM. He basically bought at IBM's peak and IBM's been in a steady decline since.
Apple is another company that seems likely to be at it's peak, or perhaps just past. However this doesn't make it a bad buy necessarily, nor does it mean he necessarily believes in growth. Apple has been paying a healthy dividend, which is the right thing to do for a company that doesn't really have good growth prospects (they are the biggest in the world already, and hard to imagine them finding a mechanism for growth). Not every investor is looking to buy in and then sell, focused on capital gains as a means to investment payoff.
I'm not disputing that there is something wrong with that scenario. I'm just frustrated that the project *thinks* those tests alleviate need for human testing. This is not an anomaly, in most places I see unit tests prominently on display I see the pattern of making too much out of the unit tests.
The CI jobs on this thing take hours. I'm not going to run the checks on my system before letting the system take a crack at them. It's not like my push is even a commit to master, it's staged in a code review for humans to have a chance to look it over while the CI tests are running. Why in the world would I delay getting human feedback in code review to make sure I'd pass unit tests first, when the only potential downside would be it catching a bug in public?
The problem being is that many managers *think* that some magical process can allow shitty programmers to do great work, and then lay off the great programmers to get cheap-o developers because Agile means quality, no matter how bad your workforce is.
Of course this isn't how most of the well-liked software is done, but it's done *all the damn time* in enterprise software land. Leading to a paradox of free and cheap 'consumer' software generally being a *ton* better than equivalent enterprise software packages which generally cost a whole lot more (when equivalents exist).
As someone who uses a Windows desktop a lot, Windows is no saint when it comes to performance going to shit. My Linux system has not gone off to unbearable performance garbage under my particular workload.
Different platforms are currently weak to different things. For you, Linux had a key weakness for your workload. For me, Windows has some weaknesses. The difference being my ability to actually characterize what the OS is doing under Windows is much reduced.
The problem is that a lot of efforts bearing the banner of 'QA/QC' are not really that good, and they embolden bad decisions. At the core of this is a commonly held belief that 100% coverage with unit tests == quality job done. If you just have unit tests, the system and user experience will inherently be taken care of. This phenomenon has led a lot of justified folks to get pissed at the concept of unit tests altogether, even though the practice isn't really bad in and of itself. Some people find it a waste of time, but I think the majority of the vitriol comes from bad quality outcomes from this phenomenon.
You have a way over optimistic view of Agile as generally implemented.
I contribute to a project that has CI going to run unit tests on every commit. Those unit tests take hours to complete. I have not seen those unit tests catch a single bug (other than style formatting issues, which are non-functional). The human testers have. The problem being that people equate hours of test as the sole metric of quality. The quantity of test does not by itself assure quality of test. The other facet of this is the phrase '100% coverage', which I've seen *many* project managers jump up and down all excited. I have seen QA teams *fired* at that milestone, because it's a misleading phrase. When management sees '100% automated test coverage' they think 'Human QA is no longer needed'. They don't understand those unit tests are just as likely to have problems, and almost certainly will not be all-encompassing (in fact unit tests tend to hit the corner cases that the developer *recognized* would be tricky, and had those edge cases in mind as they wrote the code anyway)..
My problem is less that unit tests are a waste of time or that they can't be good, it's that too many advocates of the process oversell the benefit and lead to poor decisions with respect to quality based on overconfidence in the process. The conundrum is that in practice, either you oversell it and cause these bad consequences, or you try to describe it accurately and project management will express frustration on 'wasted effort' in writing unit tests since they can't really replace human testing.
Incidentally, the sentiment that the project burdened by unit tests will be beaten to market is a likely consequence. It's not necessarily a *good* thing, but if 'good enough' hits the market before 'truly good', most will ignore 'truly good'.
So what I find weird is that Summon mode seems like it's a two stage thing:
When parking, it should roll itself into whatever state it's supposed to be in (rolling backward or forward a bit). Did it not do that in this case? The claim suggests that the car did not initially move (if taken at face value, the owner could be lying) and only moved when he wasn't around... later. Summoning I thought would only go *back* to where it was before being told to put itself away. Why should summoning the car cause it to roll into something?
So I think it's either the owner is lying or the car did something very wrong. It should not activate at long range, it shouldn't roll into a position upon summoning it wasn't already in previously on the 'summon' half of the flow. In general, it's a rather silly little feature.
It's just weird that they are holding over a hundred billion dollars in earnings held at all, regardless of what country it lives in. Hoarding 41% of your all-time earnings seems wrong for a 30+ year old company. That suggests a failure to reinvest or return value to shareholders.
Actually, it said 41% of it's *all-time* profit, which is very peculiar. Not revenue.
Basically it's the bucket of money they have awaiting the next 'tax holiday' to repatriate. As you say, the fault lies with the governments allowing/essentially encouraging these shenanigans. A corporation can look at least somewhat good by voluntarily repatriating their money, but in reality their business won't get much out of such goodwill.
He is saying he is *capable* but unwilling to do that because he can't leave the anonymity behind?
If he couldn't leave the anonymity behind, we would have backtracked on his whole claim. Instead he doubles down that he is truthful, but won't prove it to keep anonymity...... I'm truly baffled at who he thinks he's fooling.
The point is the flamebait title is disingenuous, as it wants to paint a picture that OpenSSL is stupid, and the heir apparent for those with that mindset is LibreSSL. Meanwhile, this specific scenario they want to hold up as evidence.... well it's no better than LibreSSL for these. Maybe the argument can be made in other ways, but here it's just bad form.
But what about all the sites running 5 bit RSA keys? They are no longer safe! They need to hurry and switch to another scheme, what other alternative would they have.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows and OS X will be Open Source within 5 years
It will not happen. First, there really isn't any significant upside for Microsoft and Apple. It's not going to win over folks not already on board their platform. If Apple suddenly wanted more 'hackintosh' footprint, this could help, but they don't want that, they want to control the entire experience. Even given their limited support of their hardware, they still manage to do things like release an update that screws up a currently-shipping product (iPad Pro). They see the open ecosystem as a huge headache to support, as well as a thankless one margin-wise. For Microsoft, there are two major markets they don't have locked down where their OS can play:handsets and datacenters. The players don't care much about open source, they care about how those systems are managed and/or cost.
Another factor is that such an endeavor for such massive codebases can be very costly or impossible. There's probably third party code without copyright assignment that would need to be identified and an arrangement reached with the copyright holder or work done to remove and write a replacement.
Well, we just have to see what in the world they are teasing (if anything). One *hopes* that if they are trying to declare a device as game changing as the RAZR was, they have something meaningfully interesting up their sleeve rather than something simply banking on nostalgia. Some technology is possible to make some interesting things, will see if motorola returns to leadership and actually releases something first.
Well, everything here is just speculation. It *could* be a stylish 'feature' phone, it could be an android flip phone with number pad, it could be something more exotic and unique. It could be nothing more than a marketing video prodding Millennials to remember when Motorola was *the* hottest thing (to the point of being Apple's go-to-market strategy for mobile at one point).
The money is not in the USA, it wasn't made in the USA
That's not true. For some of the money, yes, but we are talking about these companies managing to get 90% of their cash over there.
First, a lot of these companies change their headquarters overseas in name only, so they aren't technically US companies anymore. Then the US business concerns become some subsidiary of what is nominally a foreign company.
Then they'll take however much profit that would be declared in the US, and offset it with some accounting tricks like saying they needed to license their own brand name from their foreign parent company, which coincidentally totaled just about as much as would have been US profit.
I'm saying that Berkshire is not bullet proof, and no single one of their investments should ever be considered by anyone to be a sure thing, with IBM being a shining example of them making what appears from all indicators a bad call. This is the reason why they have a diversified portfolio in the first place, to let them have less successfulinvestments.
Hell, maintaining the same level will require cool new products. I'm saying that I couldn't imagine a sufficiently cool new product to grow a company that's already so hugely valued.
I personally suspect a decline is in their future, but I'm not willing to short it to put my money where my mouth is. I certainly don't expect growth.
It's not being a failure, it's a simple reality of hitting the ceiling. I would be quite happy to be in that position, to have won *so* hard that there is no further winning possible. It suggests a different set of investment expectations (you are buying into rights to get some of the profits, either as dividends or stock buyback, rather than buying into 'growth' per se).
No, it's just hard to imagine where Apple has to go from here (except staying about the same/keeping up with population growth or down). This doesn't mean they are about to fall, maybe it's a plateau. It's just at some point, there's just no growth to be had.
His track record in tech is not so great. He bought and continues to buy huge chunks of IBM. He basically bought at IBM's peak and IBM's been in a steady decline since.
Apple is another company that seems likely to be at it's peak, or perhaps just past. However this doesn't make it a bad buy necessarily, nor does it mean he necessarily believes in growth. Apple has been paying a healthy dividend, which is the right thing to do for a company that doesn't really have good growth prospects (they are the biggest in the world already, and hard to imagine them finding a mechanism for growth). Not every investor is looking to buy in and then sell, focused on capital gains as a means to investment payoff.
I'm not disputing that there is something wrong with that scenario. I'm just frustrated that the project *thinks* those tests alleviate need for human testing. This is not an anomaly, in most places I see unit tests prominently on display I see the pattern of making too much out of the unit tests.
The CI jobs on this thing take hours. I'm not going to run the checks on my system before letting the system take a crack at them. It's not like my push is even a commit to master, it's staged in a code review for humans to have a chance to look it over while the CI tests are running. Why in the world would I delay getting human feedback in code review to make sure I'd pass unit tests first, when the only potential downside would be it catching a bug in public?
The problem being is that many managers *think* that some magical process can allow shitty programmers to do great work, and then lay off the great programmers to get cheap-o developers because Agile means quality, no matter how bad your workforce is.
Of course this isn't how most of the well-liked software is done, but it's done *all the damn time* in enterprise software land. Leading to a paradox of free and cheap 'consumer' software generally being a *ton* better than equivalent enterprise software packages which generally cost a whole lot more (when equivalents exist).
The core parts of Windows don't behave like that
As someone who uses a Windows desktop a lot, Windows is no saint when it comes to performance going to shit. My Linux system has not gone off to unbearable performance garbage under my particular workload.
Different platforms are currently weak to different things. For you, Linux had a key weakness for your workload. For me, Windows has some weaknesses. The difference being my ability to actually characterize what the OS is doing under Windows is much reduced.
The problem is that a lot of efforts bearing the banner of 'QA/QC' are not really that good, and they embolden bad decisions. At the core of this is a commonly held belief that 100% coverage with unit tests == quality job done. If you just have unit tests, the system and user experience will inherently be taken care of. This phenomenon has led a lot of justified folks to get pissed at the concept of unit tests altogether, even though the practice isn't really bad in and of itself. Some people find it a waste of time, but I think the majority of the vitriol comes from bad quality outcomes from this phenomenon.
You have a way over optimistic view of Agile as generally implemented.
I contribute to a project that has CI going to run unit tests on every commit. Those unit tests take hours to complete. I have not seen those unit tests catch a single bug (other than style formatting issues, which are non-functional). The human testers have. The problem being that people equate hours of test as the sole metric of quality. The quantity of test does not by itself assure quality of test. The other facet of this is the phrase '100% coverage', which I've seen *many* project managers jump up and down all excited. I have seen QA teams *fired* at that milestone, because it's a misleading phrase. When management sees '100% automated test coverage' they think 'Human QA is no longer needed'. They don't understand those unit tests are just as likely to have problems, and almost certainly will not be all-encompassing (in fact unit tests tend to hit the corner cases that the developer *recognized* would be tricky, and had those edge cases in mind as they wrote the code anyway)..
My problem is less that unit tests are a waste of time or that they can't be good, it's that too many advocates of the process oversell the benefit and lead to poor decisions with respect to quality based on overconfidence in the process. The conundrum is that in practice, either you oversell it and cause these bad consequences, or you try to describe it accurately and project management will express frustration on 'wasted effort' in writing unit tests since they can't really replace human testing.
Incidentally, the sentiment that the project burdened by unit tests will be beaten to market is a likely consequence. It's not necessarily a *good* thing, but if 'good enough' hits the market before 'truly good', most will ignore 'truly good'.
So what I find weird is that Summon mode seems like it's a two stage thing:
When parking, it should roll itself into whatever state it's supposed to be in (rolling backward or forward a bit). Did it not do that in this case? The claim suggests that the car did not initially move (if taken at face value, the owner could be lying) and only moved when he wasn't around... later. Summoning I thought would only go *back* to where it was before being told to put itself away. Why should summoning the car cause it to roll into something?
So I think it's either the owner is lying or the car did something very wrong. It should not activate at long range, it shouldn't roll into a position upon summoning it wasn't already in previously on the 'summon' half of the flow. In general, it's a rather silly little feature.
A lot of folks I know have their password in a QR code.
I have to say I enjoy KDE, but it seems plagued by crashes for me.
That black links matter.
It's just weird that they are holding over a hundred billion dollars in earnings held at all, regardless of what country it lives in. Hoarding 41% of your all-time earnings seems wrong for a 30+ year old company. That suggests a failure to reinvest or return value to shareholders.
Actually, it said 41% of it's *all-time* profit, which is very peculiar. Not revenue.
Basically it's the bucket of money they have awaiting the next 'tax holiday' to repatriate. As you say, the fault lies with the governments allowing/essentially encouraging these shenanigans. A corporation can look at least somewhat good by voluntarily repatriating their money, but in reality their business won't get much out of such goodwill.
I can forgive them for ditching support for products that haven't been sold in two decades.
He is saying he is *capable* but unwilling to do that because he can't leave the anonymity behind?
If he couldn't leave the anonymity behind, we would have backtracked on his whole claim. Instead he doubles down that he is truthful, but won't prove it to keep anonymity...... I'm truly baffled at who he thinks he's fooling.
The point is the flamebait title is disingenuous, as it wants to paint a picture that OpenSSL is stupid, and the heir apparent for those with that mindset is LibreSSL. Meanwhile, this specific scenario they want to hold up as evidence.... well it's no better than LibreSSL for these. Maybe the argument can be made in other ways, but here it's just bad form.
But what about all the sites running 5 bit RSA keys? They are no longer safe! They need to hurry and switch to another scheme, what other alternative would they have.