A lot of communities have only had local purchasers show up the last few years, and other places people still have to pay to dump. Yes, some restaurants get paid a token amount. No, all restaurants do not have that available. It is not a standard thing. The standard thing was always having to pay to have it dumped, same as other waste.
Not knowable. The NSA doesn't want the world to know the details of successful foreign operations, for obvious operational reasons. They're not going to create risks to the nation in the area of their work, just to keep themselves from looking bad. That should be obvious by now by how bad they look, and that it doesn't seem to influence their work.
The part I find really funny is the claim that they don't even know where the updates came from.
Yeah, haha, we don't use version control either! Oh, wait, yes we do. It is free and saves time and money.
You push out firmware updates without version control?! I guess George just makes a zip file, and emails it to Frank who burns a CD and mails it to the company flashing the EEPROMs... oh wait.
And if you read about how deeply the Russians infiltrated the US nuclear program, then you'll realize that there is no need for outsourcing to enable foreign governments to be responsible for some fraction of the discovered exploits, back doors, side doors, trap doors, and dishonest press releases.
If they don't even have their software under version control, how can we trust them to know what press releases they actually made? Maybe it was planted in their files after they didn't give it, and they never gave it! They can't even trust themselves, if they're paying attention. But I suspect they're paying enough attention to not to be paying attention.
If by ruined we mean, made an anonymous coward mad at.
This is bad for Juniper, which presumably had customers who are now unhappy, but you calling people names doesn't cause money to wander off and sneak out of Silicon Valley. Who are people going to trust if not Juniper? Cisco? Still think this hurts the American tech sector?
What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
In this case it doesn't matter, because the courts are the ones that settle disputes over public records.
Right, the photograph itself, not having been run through an identity-extractor program, is explicitly not a biometric identifier. But whatever the computer software is internally generating in order to make an identification is. The act of automatically identifying people with the machine implies additional steps where biometric identifiers are extracted. As they say, "the proof is in the pudding." Can it identify people, or not?
You can get a new generation Z80 chip from Zilog for under $5, or an 8051 for $1.25. You can have 80s computers on a breadboard now. Load up all your old ROMs!
No, this is for those of us who were already brain-damaged by BASIC in the 1980s.
This is just retro drugs, move along kids, nothing to see here. No, son, that's a... vase with a smaller vase on the side, don't look at that. No, don't look under there.
I started with Apple Basic, not Commodore. But I had a Timex/Sinclair at home. 2K RAM!!!
... other than the photos themselves, no biometric information is "collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained".
Right. The only part that breaks the law is the part that is accused of breaking the law.
Basically what you're saying is just like saying: "Gosh, there is a big flaw in this case, the only thing I stole was the stuff inside the box. I also left the store with a complimentary bag, so since part of what I took wasn't stolen, everything is OK. Right?"
Yes, the photos are the part that contain the "face geometry." That is correct. It is a simple identity issue; is yes the same as no?
And while I appreciate that you aspire to understand technology, you can't hand-wave away from the fact that the success of the software in identifying the individuals in the pictures proves that the pictures contain biometric identifiers that their software identifies. It is collected, clearly. How can they not be collecting the photos in question? Are you suggesting that the photos they collected were only failures, where nobody was identified? And how do they have these photos, if they were not collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained?
The law is in no way premised on a particular type of machine algorithm being used. Perhaps you missed that part. If the photo alone is used successfully to identify the people, then it contains usable biometric data... by definition. If a machine learning algorithm is used to train a system to identify people, then whatever data that system is operating on is the biometric data. Success in identification is full proof. Biometric is not all that complicated a word, after all.
Biometry in general is the statistical study of biological observations. Biometrics includes the whole field of biometry, and specifically, that biometry which is used to identify individuals. You're going to have a really hard time (read: you will fail) making a case that modern machine learning isn't based on statistical techniques, or that photos of faces aren't a type of measurement of those faces, or that identifying the person whose face is in the image based on computer analysis of the image doesn't involve use of "identifiers."
Finally, as to your First Amendment attempt, that fails too. Biometric information about me is not creative or transformative (by definition), is not part of the public discourse (it contains no ideas or opinions), and is not your speech. Not every sound that you can make with your mouth will contain protected speech. It is as absurd as claiming a free speech right to give out somebody else's bank account number.
One of the neat things about hardware; I only need support one time. The documentation won't change, because the hardware doesn't change either; it is all soldered into place.
And these boards are all based on commodity chips. The circuit designs are close to what it is in the data sheets for those chips. If you're "customizing" it, that means running different software, or plugging in different daughter boards. You can do that from the documentation provided by your vendor, or using the documentation by their chip vendor.
Personally, I find the application notes by AVR to be way more instructive than the many howtos and Hello Worlds and IDE starter projects provided with these boards. Most of the ones in the list run linux, and that is the main support that would fit what you describe. And none of the boards are made by major linux vendors; that support is generic and coming from the linux side.
Silly child, when you reply to my comment and engage a conversation with me, you're either talking about what I'm talking about or you're off-topic. If what I write carries zero weight with you... my advice, respond to somebody else.;) (instead of commenting randomly on the internet)
Now, get off my lawn before I turn on the sprinklers.
BASIC lets you do direct hardware access. PEEK and POKE give you direct memory access, and most systems have memory-mapped registers. On the Apple ][ that was the easiest[sic] way to use "high res" graphics; directly writing numbers to the video memory with POKE. In 8th grade I had a splash screen that wrote the whole screen a pixel at a time that way. I mapped the numbers by tracing the source document onto graph paper, and manually digitizing it. The nice thing is, you can make all the dithering decisions according to visual context. The downside, it takes all week for one image. Maybe two if it is color.
My friend has an expensive digital audio workstation, that internally has an old computer inside. It was too loud, you could hear the fan hum over the microphones! lol All we had to do was install a modern power supply. The old ones just ran at a constant speed, which had to be the speed it needed to be at max load. But a DAW doesn't run at max load while recording. (If it runs at max load it is doing post-processing) So a modern power supply runs really quiet, because they control the speed of the fan based on the temperature. This is most of the noise in the old computers. Sometimes there is a loud CPU fan, but a new fan will usually run quieter. After we put the new one in, you can't even hear it anymore. It saved us from having to create a server closet on the other side of the wall!
I thought the Pi was made in Wales? Their national nickname is "China of Europe," right? No?
These products are targeted at people who don't usually want a bunch of "support" from the device maker. They're not well positioned for it, because their natural motivations include PR and things and the CPU designs are mostly based on old tech that is being made to a modern small size resulting in very low power operation. So in that environment, the vendors don't have more knowledge than the community. If you need to rely on them for "support," why are you tinkering with this sort of device in the first place? Maybe it would be more fun if you had expected to have to figure it out. From the engineering side, everything is exceptionally well documented compared to if you're buying discrete components.
If your use case could easily be met with an old PC... you didn't need an SBC. If you need IO pins you can also just use that old PC's "parallel port" with downloadable software. It is funny that you would describe not having a use case for them, and then say "don't get me started." Well gee, Wilbur, wind it up and spin your wheels. No loss either way.
That isn't what these are for. These are "hacker friendly," not "miniature laptops without a screen." As in, single board computer, not miniature personal computer. If you're wanting random-desktop-distro to work, you're wanting a different product. If you're wanting automated distro updates, you're wanting a substantially different product.
These not doing what you ask for... well gosh, that might be a feature since those things work better on a full system.;) These are designed for other uses, ones which benefit from NOT having all that extra computer.
Yep, the web still has linux. Just a little glimpse into the lives of nerds.;)
If you run enough ad blockers and processing-request-deniers and other grumpy stuff, you can have almost all sites either give you the content, or a blank page that can be quickly closed.
Meaning, "well documented, easily programmed and has unused general purpose IO." (By "easily programmed" I mean placing the firmware program onto the chip without spending a bunch of money on expensive hardware programmers)
They're not very buggy because A) they're mostly CPUs from the 80s that are out of patent and require very few external components and B) they're mostly a blank slate, just a CPU and motherboard. But the board doesn't do much, because the CPU (microprocessor) has its own storage and memory.
Generally, it is up to the user to find or write some bugs and install them. It won't do anything until you do that, it won't even blink.
Also, it would probably be eg not ie, because "hacker friendly" could also imply other things. Like having a "DIY" look.
You're not listening, or even talking about the same thing. You know how to play a game, but you don't comprehend the English language well enough to parse out what these nerds are saying, right?
I know your silly game that is programmed to eat as many resources as a system will give up to a single process, and linux doesn't let that sort of process take over the system as heavily. No, you don't have faster graphics. That is just daft. You seem to think your 3d is fast, and also being done in software. No. It is fast because it isn't being done in software. It is the same speed on linux.
It is a different tradeoff. And if I was playing a game, I wouldn't want it to take over the system like that and make any other running process lag. I would have other, more important things also running on the computer. It isn't good or normal for a computer to be running under heavy load. You should have more system resources than you need, you shouldn't be intentionally loading your system to capacity IMO. You might want to consider purchasing a console gaming system if you're doing that.
If I'm doing professional video work, like generating a simulated flyby from a GIS program, I could add a windows partition and view the output there, but guess what? The video quality that a system can do will be exactly the same on both sides. Not only that, but the CPU will be close to 0 while it is playing. Why is that? If you understand computer graphics at all, this is no surprise. The thing that limits framerates in games is NOT simply the "graphics." Duh.
No, having server-oriented multitasking does not slow down our graphics! ROFLCOPTER
We have fast graphics. We don't have many games because we don't have demand for games. Mystery solved! We have more versions of some types of game. But generally speaking, games are a small and non-important part of the things that the tools known as computers can do.
As a software developer, if I wanted better games I'd be writing games. I don't, and I'm not. No, I am not willing to try out most of the games that are available. As a child I mastered numerous arcade games, including Street Fighter 2, which is a game that used to be played by inserting metal monetary units into the front. I also was quite good at Prince of Persia in an even earlier time period. But these sorts of games are not fulfilling entertainment. They are just really mindless entertainment; that isn't bad. But it isn't something all people are expected to enjoy their whole lives, or that they should be expected to care about. If it was my hobby... I'd have a console game system, presumably, and I still wouldn't buy into your complaint.
I should point out that there are actually more chess engines that advertise linux support than that advertise windows support. Games we play, have support. Graphics has lots of support, but we're more likely to be using 3d acceleration for digital modeling, CAD, signal processing, etc.
You just wave your hands and repeat myths. WTF are you talking about a mothership? You don't seem at all aware of what the linux ecosystem contains.
Heck, even if I write a tray app in Gtk, it turns out it will run unaltered on windows. 15 years ago, that and copy-paste had iffy portability. But those problems are fixed. I don't even have to port an app to run it on another platform.
I wouldn't want my windowing system to have less features in order to speed up "games" or other applications that are programmed to consume 100% of the system resources. I want a system that has more network and multi-user features, instead of more mouse-latency features. That isn't a bug. We don't have inferior graphics, we have intentionally different tradeoffs.
Supposed hardware and software incompatibility is caused by people using other systems not knowing what tools we use, and presuming that absence of knowledge is knowledge of absence.
There is not a problem on the linux side, and if it is a problem for the other side, they should just take comfort that they don't have to use it. They chose the thing with more market share, which is by definition the More Popular Choice, so they'll Be OK.
No, those who would "take away" my freedom can kick rocks while I continue making my own software choices. Solved! Victory! That is how easy it is to survive that. Because, freedom.
It is exceptionally paranoid. No, somebody else's software choices do not impact my freedom. That is silly.
And "software freedom" was a failure at what it claimed to be. As "open source" it was all a great success; people who want to use free software, can use it. Success. But it didn't slay embrace and extend, which was one of the major goals. Example: Gnome 3. Another example, mozilla/firefox. Embrace and extend is not only alive, it is most rampant in apparently-free software.
Software freedom doesn't need silly bugbears. All I have to do in order to not have anybody take away *my* freedom is not give it away. Done. Nobody has power to even try.
We already have more extensive hardware support than the proprietary options. Sounds like a myth to me. An old silly one. It was true once upon a time. That was over a decade ago.
I remember the old days, I had to check if a portable music player supported linux. But then USB and bluetooth included standardization. Now everything is either a generic media device that I can connect to, or acts as a generic portable drive. I don't check for compatibility, and I don't have trouble with devices.
Everything is the same. I used to buy Olympus digital cameras because I knew they would have generic USB storage interfaces. That was 15 years ago. By 10 years ago, everybody was using that. By 5 years ago some had switched to being media devices, but using standards.
One of the few things that I need a special driver for is multifunction printer/scanners, but all the brands with even 1% market share are supported.
I could even run most windows software, if I wanted to. Sometimes I do run LTSpice.
MS SQL Server? No problem, linux can do all the odbc abd jdbc stuff.
Even the C code I write compiles fine on windows without any porting. This is the future people. Come up out of the bomb shelter and look around.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of communities have only had local purchasers show up the last few years, and other places people still have to pay to dump. Yes, some restaurants get paid a token amount. No, all restaurants do not have that available. It is not a standard thing. The standard thing was always having to pay to have it dumped, same as other waste.
Not knowable. The NSA doesn't want the world to know the details of successful foreign operations, for obvious operational reasons. They're not going to create risks to the nation in the area of their work, just to keep themselves from looking bad. That should be obvious by now by how bad they look, and that it doesn't seem to influence their work.
The part I find really funny is the claim that they don't even know where the updates came from.
Yeah, haha, we don't use version control either! Oh, wait, yes we do. It is free and saves time and money.
You push out firmware updates without version control?! I guess George just makes a zip file, and emails it to Frank who burns a CD and mails it to the company flashing the EEPROMs... oh wait.
And if you read about how deeply the Russians infiltrated the US nuclear program, then you'll realize that there is no need for outsourcing to enable foreign governments to be responsible for some fraction of the discovered exploits, back doors, side doors, trap doors, and dishonest press releases.
If they don't even have their software under version control, how can we trust them to know what press releases they actually made? Maybe it was planted in their files after they didn't give it, and they never gave it! They can't even trust themselves, if they're paying attention. But I suspect they're paying enough attention to not to be paying attention.
If by ruined we mean, made an anonymous coward mad at.
This is bad for Juniper, which presumably had customers who are now unhappy, but you calling people names doesn't cause money to wander off and sneak out of Silicon Valley. Who are people going to trust if not Juniper? Cisco? Still think this hurts the American tech sector?
What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.
Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
In this case it doesn't matter, because the courts are the ones that settle disputes over public records.
Right, the photograph itself, not having been run through an identity-extractor program, is explicitly not a biometric identifier. But whatever the computer software is internally generating in order to make an identification is. The act of automatically identifying people with the machine implies additional steps where biometric identifiers are extracted. As they say, "the proof is in the pudding." Can it identify people, or not?
You can get a new generation Z80 chip from Zilog for under $5, or an 8051 for $1.25. You can have 80s computers on a breadboard now. Load up all your old ROMs!
No, this is for those of us who were already brain-damaged by BASIC in the 1980s.
This is just retro drugs, move along kids, nothing to see here. No, son, that's a... vase with a smaller vase on the side, don't look at that. No, don't look under there.
I started with Apple Basic, not Commodore. But I had a Timex/Sinclair at home. 2K RAM!!!
*beep* *beep* *beep* looks like we found one
Sorry kiddo, but you refuted yourself.
... other than the photos themselves, no biometric information is "collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained".
Right. The only part that breaks the law is the part that is accused of breaking the law.
Basically what you're saying is just like saying: "Gosh, there is a big flaw in this case, the only thing I stole was the stuff inside the box. I also left the store with a complimentary bag, so since part of what I took wasn't stolen, everything is OK. Right?"
Yes, the photos are the part that contain the "face geometry." That is correct. It is a simple identity issue; is yes the same as no?
And while I appreciate that you aspire to understand technology, you can't hand-wave away from the fact that the success of the software in identifying the individuals in the pictures proves that the pictures contain biometric identifiers that their software identifies. It is collected, clearly. How can they not be collecting the photos in question? Are you suggesting that the photos they collected were only failures, where nobody was identified? And how do they have these photos, if they were not collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained ?
The law is in no way premised on a particular type of machine algorithm being used. Perhaps you missed that part. If the photo alone is used successfully to identify the people, then it contains usable biometric data... by definition. If a machine learning algorithm is used to train a system to identify people, then whatever data that system is operating on is the biometric data. Success in identification is full proof. Biometric is not all that complicated a word, after all.
Biometry in general is the statistical study of biological observations. Biometrics includes the whole field of biometry, and specifically, that biometry which is used to identify individuals. You're going to have a really hard time (read: you will fail) making a case that modern machine learning isn't based on statistical techniques, or that photos of faces aren't a type of measurement of those faces, or that identifying the person whose face is in the image based on computer analysis of the image doesn't involve use of "identifiers."
Finally, as to your First Amendment attempt, that fails too. Biometric information about me is not creative or transformative (by definition), is not part of the public discourse (it contains no ideas or opinions), and is not your speech. Not every sound that you can make with your mouth will contain protected speech. It is as absurd as claiming a free speech right to give out somebody else's bank account number.
What book are they going to throw, "Tahiti On Ten Million Per Day?"
One of the neat things about hardware; I only need support one time. The documentation won't change, because the hardware doesn't change either; it is all soldered into place.
And these boards are all based on commodity chips. The circuit designs are close to what it is in the data sheets for those chips. If you're "customizing" it, that means running different software, or plugging in different daughter boards. You can do that from the documentation provided by your vendor, or using the documentation by their chip vendor.
Personally, I find the application notes by AVR to be way more instructive than the many howtos and Hello Worlds and IDE starter projects provided with these boards. Most of the ones in the list run linux, and that is the main support that would fit what you describe. And none of the boards are made by major linux vendors; that support is generic and coming from the linux side.
Silly child, when you reply to my comment and engage a conversation with me, you're either talking about what I'm talking about or you're off-topic. If what I write carries zero weight with you... my advice, respond to somebody else. ;) (instead of commenting randomly on the internet)
Now, get off my lawn before I turn on the sprinklers.
BASIC lets you do direct hardware access. PEEK and POKE give you direct memory access, and most systems have memory-mapped registers. On the Apple ][ that was the easiest[sic] way to use "high res" graphics; directly writing numbers to the video memory with POKE. In 8th grade I had a splash screen that wrote the whole screen a pixel at a time that way. I mapped the numbers by tracing the source document onto graph paper, and manually digitizing it. The nice thing is, you can make all the dithering decisions according to visual context. The downside, it takes all week for one image. Maybe two if it is color.
New power supply.
My friend has an expensive digital audio workstation, that internally has an old computer inside. It was too loud, you could hear the fan hum over the microphones! lol All we had to do was install a modern power supply. The old ones just ran at a constant speed, which had to be the speed it needed to be at max load. But a DAW doesn't run at max load while recording. (If it runs at max load it is doing post-processing) So a modern power supply runs really quiet, because they control the speed of the fan based on the temperature. This is most of the noise in the old computers. Sometimes there is a loud CPU fan, but a new fan will usually run quieter. After we put the new one in, you can't even hear it anymore. It saved us from having to create a server closet on the other side of the wall!
I thought the Pi was made in Wales? Their national nickname is "China of Europe," right? No?
These products are targeted at people who don't usually want a bunch of "support" from the device maker. They're not well positioned for it, because their natural motivations include PR and things and the CPU designs are mostly based on old tech that is being made to a modern small size resulting in very low power operation. So in that environment, the vendors don't have more knowledge than the community. If you need to rely on them for "support," why are you tinkering with this sort of device in the first place? Maybe it would be more fun if you had expected to have to figure it out. From the engineering side, everything is exceptionally well documented compared to if you're buying discrete components.
If your use case could easily be met with an old PC... you didn't need an SBC. If you need IO pins you can also just use that old PC's "parallel port" with downloadable software. It is funny that you would describe not having a use case for them, and then say "don't get me started." Well gee, Wilbur, wind it up and spin your wheels. No loss either way.
That isn't what these are for. These are "hacker friendly," not "miniature laptops without a screen." As in, single board computer, not miniature personal computer. If you're wanting random-desktop-distro to work, you're wanting a different product. If you're wanting automated distro updates, you're wanting a substantially different product.
These not doing what you ask for... well gosh, that might be a feature since those things work better on a full system. ;) These are designed for other uses, ones which benefit from NOT having all that extra computer.
Yep, the web still has linux. Just a little glimpse into the lives of nerds. ;)
If you run enough ad blockers and processing-request-deniers and other grumpy stuff, you can have almost all sites either give you the content, or a blank page that can be quickly closed.
Signal quality relies heavily on filtering.
Meaning, "well documented, easily programmed and has unused general purpose IO." (By "easily programmed" I mean placing the firmware program onto the chip without spending a bunch of money on expensive hardware programmers)
They're not very buggy because A) they're mostly CPUs from the 80s that are out of patent and require very few external components and B) they're mostly a blank slate, just a CPU and motherboard. But the board doesn't do much, because the CPU (microprocessor) has its own storage and memory.
Generally, it is up to the user to find or write some bugs and install them. It won't do anything until you do that, it won't even blink.
Also, it would probably be eg not ie, because "hacker friendly" could also imply other things. Like having a "DIY" look.
You're not listening, or even talking about the same thing. You know how to play a game, but you don't comprehend the English language well enough to parse out what these nerds are saying, right?
I know your silly game that is programmed to eat as many resources as a system will give up to a single process, and linux doesn't let that sort of process take over the system as heavily. No, you don't have faster graphics. That is just daft. You seem to think your 3d is fast, and also being done in software. No. It is fast because it isn't being done in software. It is the same speed on linux.
It is a different tradeoff. And if I was playing a game, I wouldn't want it to take over the system like that and make any other running process lag. I would have other, more important things also running on the computer. It isn't good or normal for a computer to be running under heavy load. You should have more system resources than you need, you shouldn't be intentionally loading your system to capacity IMO. You might want to consider purchasing a console gaming system if you're doing that.
If I'm doing professional video work, like generating a simulated flyby from a GIS program, I could add a windows partition and view the output there, but guess what? The video quality that a system can do will be exactly the same on both sides. Not only that, but the CPU will be close to 0 while it is playing. Why is that? If you understand computer graphics at all, this is no surprise. The thing that limits framerates in games is NOT simply the "graphics." Duh.
No, having server-oriented multitasking does not slow down our graphics! ROFLCOPTER
We have fast graphics. We don't have many games because we don't have demand for games. Mystery solved! We have more versions of some types of game. But generally speaking, games are a small and non-important part of the things that the tools known as computers can do.
As a software developer, if I wanted better games I'd be writing games. I don't, and I'm not. No, I am not willing to try out most of the games that are available. As a child I mastered numerous arcade games, including Street Fighter 2, which is a game that used to be played by inserting metal monetary units into the front. I also was quite good at Prince of Persia in an even earlier time period. But these sorts of games are not fulfilling entertainment. They are just really mindless entertainment; that isn't bad. But it isn't something all people are expected to enjoy their whole lives, or that they should be expected to care about. If it was my hobby... I'd have a console game system, presumably, and I still wouldn't buy into your complaint.
I should point out that there are actually more chess engines that advertise linux support than that advertise windows support. Games we play, have support. Graphics has lots of support, but we're more likely to be using 3d acceleration for digital modeling, CAD, signal processing, etc.
You just wave your hands and repeat myths. WTF are you talking about a mothership? You don't seem at all aware of what the linux ecosystem contains.
Heck, even if I write a tray app in Gtk, it turns out it will run unaltered on windows. 15 years ago, that and copy-paste had iffy portability. But those problems are fixed. I don't even have to port an app to run it on another platform.
I wouldn't want my windowing system to have less features in order to speed up "games" or other applications that are programmed to consume 100% of the system resources. I want a system that has more network and multi-user features, instead of more mouse-latency features. That isn't a bug. We don't have inferior graphics, we have intentionally different tradeoffs.
Supposed hardware and software incompatibility is caused by people using other systems not knowing what tools we use, and presuming that absence of knowledge is knowledge of absence.
There is not a problem on the linux side, and if it is a problem for the other side, they should just take comfort that they don't have to use it. They chose the thing with more market share, which is by definition the More Popular Choice, so they'll Be OK.
No, those who would "take away" my freedom can kick rocks while I continue making my own software choices. Solved! Victory! That is how easy it is to survive that. Because, freedom.
It is exceptionally paranoid. No, somebody else's software choices do not impact my freedom. That is silly.
And "software freedom" was a failure at what it claimed to be. As "open source" it was all a great success; people who want to use free software, can use it. Success. But it didn't slay embrace and extend, which was one of the major goals. Example: Gnome 3. Another example, mozilla/firefox. Embrace and extend is not only alive, it is most rampant in apparently-free software.
Software freedom doesn't need silly bugbears. All I have to do in order to not have anybody take away *my* freedom is not give it away. Done. Nobody has power to even try.
We already have more extensive hardware support than the proprietary options. Sounds like a myth to me. An old silly one. It was true once upon a time. That was over a decade ago.
I remember the old days, I had to check if a portable music player supported linux. But then USB and bluetooth included standardization. Now everything is either a generic media device that I can connect to, or acts as a generic portable drive. I don't check for compatibility, and I don't have trouble with devices.
Everything is the same. I used to buy Olympus digital cameras because I knew they would have generic USB storage interfaces. That was 15 years ago. By 10 years ago, everybody was using that. By 5 years ago some had switched to being media devices, but using standards.
One of the few things that I need a special driver for is multifunction printer/scanners, but all the brands with even 1% market share are supported.
I could even run most windows software, if I wanted to. Sometimes I do run LTSpice.
MS SQL Server? No problem, linux can do all the odbc abd jdbc stuff.
Even the C code I write compiles fine on windows without any porting. This is the future people. Come up out of the bomb shelter and look around.
Look before you click! If you see .ru and you're interested in English language content, you're usually in the wrong place. ;)