The technical specifications of the flash memory in my USB drive says that it is guaranteed to work for, at most, 100000 (i.e., one followed by 5 zeros) writes. People do not talk about this limitation, but I have seen this limitation written into the technical specifications of the flash memory in many devices.
Actually, that depends on which kind of flash memory it is. I would assume that they would use the newer, cheaper, more robust NAND flash.
100,000 cycles was the low estimate, at least according to Wiki. NAND would have an endurance of 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 erases. Not forever, but that's a big difference. I am also cautiously optimistic of more durable flash before too much longer.
That is not a freedom. The freedom to walk to the end of the street is freedom.
If you cannot get to the end of the street without getting mugged, then you don't have the freedom to walk to the end of the street, as sure as if the police would arrest you for it. In this case, the freedom to do something == the ability to do it.
That said, this is irrelevant--in the case of software, the GPL provides restrictions that are, as liberty-encouraging measures, totally unconscionable.
Only the restriction that you cannot put restrictions on other people. Much like how it is illegal to take someone else's freedoms away. More restrictive, but with the net result of more freedom.
The BSD/MIT/etc. license is the true path of freedom here, and unlike many other paths of freedom is the preferable choice.
The preferable choice? Do you prefer it over a closed license? If so, then why not use a license that keeps other people from forking a project into a closed one?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that depends on which kind of flash memory it is. I would assume that they would use the newer, cheaper, more robust NAND flash. 100,000 cycles was the low estimate, at least according to Wiki. NAND would have an endurance of 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 erases. Not forever, but that's a big difference. I am also cautiously optimistic of more durable flash before too much longer.
If you cannot get to the end of the street without getting mugged, then you don't have the freedom to walk to the end of the street, as sure as if the police would arrest you for it. In this case, the freedom to do something == the ability to do it.
That said, this is irrelevant--in the case of software, the GPL provides restrictions that are, as liberty-encouraging measures, totally unconscionable.
Only the restriction that you cannot put restrictions on other people. Much like how it is illegal to take someone else's freedoms away. More restrictive, but with the net result of more freedom.
The BSD/MIT/etc. license is the true path of freedom here, and unlike many other paths of freedom is the preferable choice.
The preferable choice? Do you prefer it over a closed license? If so, then why not use a license that keeps other people from forking a project into a closed one?