I think the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident basically didn't happen sortof proves that the response to it, the lie about what happened, was indeed a sort of conspiracy intended to create a legal basis for war.
I think most people involved have already admitted that they used it as a false pretext for war. It seems to have been well known, even at the time. The Frenchies let the commies take over, and we were going to fix that.
Good theory. It would have been a good place to start your investigation, but it not really valid an analysis.
I recommend actually looking at the details of the recent deal that China signed with Russia. Russia came to them for a deal, and the Chinese just took their existing energy deal, lowered the prices, and "agreed" to a contract locking in that discount for a number of years. That way the Russians get to put a big number on the size of the deal, and the Chinese didn't have to accept any cost to "help" Russia.
China wouldn't do anything to actually help Russia right now. They're on the same general negotiating team for most issues, so they're not calling them out, but China is very much against the sort of thing that Russia did in annexing Crimea. China is actually very diplomatically against the of moving borders, and allowing locals to "rebel" and move a border or create a new political unit. That's why to get a trade deal during sanctions, the "deal" was all discounts for China.
On the issue of Vietnam, lets remember that right after the US withdrew from Vietnam, they fought (and won) a border war with China. Including China in this current dispute is just a funny knee-jerk from media people who never watched The Fog of War. Vietnam also invaded Cambodia, kicked out the murderers, ended the atrocities... and then withdrew without stealing any land or resources. It is not at all obvious that Vietnam would want to move closer to Russia in this current dispute. That would isolate them diplomatically, where they're actually one of the more open and tolerant Communist regimes in the region. Like China, they maintain strong and ever-growing trade relations with the west.
Also lets remember, one of the reasons that Vietnam wanted the subs is to keep an eye on Chinese ships that threaten them over longstanding maritime border disputes. That, and the war they fought with China 30 years ago, are the reasons why they bought subs from Russia instead of China, even thought they use about the same tech.
My proposal, lets admit that Vietnam is just locals who like Communism and not part of some Red Tide, and then lets sell them some good older subs. In return, they'll deny Russia military access used to challenge anybody.
Knowledge is too nerdy for these cowards, they'll just whine and cry, whine and cry, whine and cry. They won't, can't, ever know it is their own fault. If they allowed themselves to discover the cause of the problem, they might have to implement a technical fix. That would be almost nerdy, and so they'd run away.
When he says Americans are pursuing the Nobel, what he doesn't understand is that it is just a cultural difference in what is polite language. In Sweden admitting you dream of the highest award in your field might be presumptuous. In the US, a person without dreams might be presumed to be a dullard without any.
The whole thing could have been explained in a couple minutes by a person from Sociology or Linguistics.
In this case, a day later I finally wondered what it was about, and clicked it. Whoops, no video. I guess luckily for dice, slashdot users would never run linux and flashblock, right? It does play the audio and show me the flashblock icon, but they did some kind of bullshit to capture the pointer, so I can't actually start it.
I listened to 10+ seconds, he starts off describing things as, "this is...." OK, what is? It is a very low quality offering, I guess not surprising if it is the ramblings of Everyman. Which basically translates to "some Homer Simpson guy." If it was worth saying, it would be worth saying in an accessible way. Presumably he doesn't care about producing a good video, and is just doing his own thing. So let him do it. Don't try to make him into a public figure unless he's interested in putting some basic effort into communicating using modern mediums.
While in general I agree with the sentiment, this is slashdot and I would expect you would have implemented a technical solution on the client side to prevent auto-play.
Only the average can make a broad enough claim to even attempt it.
I spent years disabling PulseAudio, because I didn't need the features (yet) and the distros included it before it was really ready for prime-time. But that isn't Lenart's fault, or a deficiency in PulseAudio, that just tells me package managers at distros do mediocre work. Something I always knew, and one of the reasons I value open systems and the availability of choices that comes with that.
It also doesn't imply any of those early bugs still exist, or that it is wrong of distros to choose what software to install by default, or any of the other idiotic things people are saying on this topic. Distros do choose PulseAudio, because they believe it is the best choice. A lot of people are pretending that isn't so, that somebody somehow "forced" them, and that is an insult to the open-ness of the systems.
I always assume that the full range of possible use cases are the... range of use cases being considered.
You're only interested in desktop computers, so rather than meaning "we're talking about..." that just means you're only thinking about a narrow subset of use cases. Therefore, you have nothing to add to what I said, even though to you whatever I said might seem off topic. But it is only off your own personal topic, not the topic of open hardware.
If you want an open desktop system, my assumption is you'd use an existing open MIPS-compatible system, which are available. There was a story a few years ago about RMS finally being willing to own a laptop (he used ones owned by various legal entities before, he wouldn't own them personally because they were unfree) using these. There isn't actually a lack of that thing, and there is absolutely no need for a custom CPU for that. It isn't useful to make personalized hardware changes to the CPU in a general purpose computer. Almost any actual use case of open hardware CPUs is where you have a special purpose need. You're more likely to be putting that chip into an embedded environment, or else on a daughter board.
Lemote sells MIPS evaluation boards for all the subsystems of their motherboards, and if you buy it they are in fact open source. And most of those have multiple FPGAs. If you were actually developing your own open CPU, you'd be using more FPGAs than almost anything else, just for the development process. In many cases you might be using multiple FPGAs to implement parts of your design, and the tests for it.
The value in open hardware isn't that end users can print or fabricate their own stuff. And where there is value in that, the main value is in printing or fabricating non-commodity components. Then when you need something specialized you can do it yourself, or hire whoever you want to do it for you, without a bunch of barriers and gatekeepers. Open firmware: very important. Open circuit layout: very important.
And if you're really ideological and just want a Pure Whatever computer, and don't want to buy one from lemote, you can build something similar to an Apple ][ or Z80 easily these days. And using modern parts, it can run on a small battery.
Yeah, she made the same mistake people often make; they assumed because they're a good person inside, and they weren't trying to steal or kill or anything, that they must not have broken the law, and if they just explained what they did to the police they'll realize she's not a bad person.
And the cop then arrests them, thinking, "gosh, they're not a bad person, they'll probably learn a valuable lesson from all this."
Even if you're ready to plead guilty before they catch you, still.. what you say could affect your sentence. Wait for the lawyer. Didn't do it? Wait for the lawyer. The only time it is useful to talk to the cops is when it is a witness statement. And even then, have a lawyer if you can afford it. If not... know it is a gamble and the victim is often the one cited for something.
To be honest, the people who were first in charge were probably trustworthy but had no authority to grant shares. Then after about 3 years, they started getting weeded out and replaced with people who had no intentions of ever following through but continued to say they would. After three years, they were so far in my debt that I had to let it ride in hopes that it would payoff. I guess it was kind of like gambling. I figure altogether they owe me about $1 million in overtime, COLA, raises and vacation days.
Complete nonsense. If they were too far in debt to pay it off, and you sued them, you'd end up with the whole thing. The reality is unlikely to be thus, though. It is never too late for them to issue real shares to pay off their debt, if you'll accept those shares. Even if they had to split the stock to get it done.
Another reality is that instead of meaning you "had to let it ride," you should have understood that you "had to take legal action immediately."
She also told the truth, and the truth was she broke the law.
She was widely panned for having done that, because everything that she admitted to could have been phrased as a different thing by lawyers, without changing the actual true physical actions she was admitting to.
She basically screwed herself by admitting her intent, which is what they needed to prove, when all they had otherwise was facts about what she actually did; which is not enough to convict under that law.
Gosh, what is the chance if you take away their car they could get another one? Or just borrow one from another drunk at the bar?
Your nonsense about metabolism really sounds like a drunk driver trying to justify it. I'll make it easy for you: if you drank enough to get you over the limit, and drove anyway, you should be shot. Whining about, "gosh, I thought if I just ate and drank some coffee, it would be fine. And then when I realized I was drunk, I had to keep driving, because *waves hands*" just makes you look pathetic.
No, the socially irresponsible thing is drinking, and then driving.
It is that simple. If you're trying to drink right up to where you think the line is, you're already doing it wrong, and driving drunk on purpose.
You're a great example of the cause of the sentiment: drunk drivers are willing to murder people just to be drunkards, so just kill them and they'll be off the road. Nothing of significance is lost.
The Court has been rather clear about that. The right to do a thing does not mean a right to do a thing without rules. Establishing the right means that you can go to court to have them examine the balance between the rule-making concerns of the Legislature, and the rights of the individual. They quite frequently throw out laws that effectively ban things you have a right to do, by writing rules that make doing said thing impracticable. At the same time, they frequently uphold things like background checks where there is a clear rule-making reason for it, and it doesn't prevent the protected activity.
Just like, driving is a privilege, but walking somewhere is a right. And yet, there are all sorts of rules regulating which part of the roadway you walk on at which time, and when you have to wait and walk later. Walking being a right means they can't ban you from the sidewalk (in most situations), but they can still tell you how you have to do it, within reason.
But nerds are not omniscient. Advertising directly contributes to knowing what is available for purchase. There have been many products I did not know existed but was informed of their existence by advertising. Even when I am actively searching for solutions, unless someone advertised an existing solution in a space in which I would potentially search, I would not know of their solution. So advertising is very crucial for expanding awareness of solutions.
What people have problem with is the constant bombardment of the same ad over and over and over again, or being bombarded with irrelevant ads, and being forced to view ads when there is no problem needing a solution currently.
If my plan is to read all the labels of every tasty-looking cereal on the shelf, and choose the one with the ingredients I most desire to consume, then exposure to advertising doesn't do anything but offer garbage data that would either go unused, or taint my analysis.
Nerds don't have to be omniscient; we plan to gather relevant data in advance, gather that data, and make an analysis.
It is true that if somebody made something and only advertised it, and never put it in a store, and never had it in a price list, and it was never in a catalog I was ordering from, then I wouldn't know about it. Or care to. Products that are not gimmicks and are worth consideration will be on the shelf or in the catalog.
It is not just a "constant bombardment." Advertising is tainted data by purpose and intent. Garbage in, garbage out; that is what they're counting on. But I'm not planning on a garbage purchase, I'm planning on an educated purchase that meets my individualized needs as I understand them.
I may have to read 75 cereal boxes, but I will find what I am looking for. "Ingredients: Whole Wheat"
You could have saved yourself all that typing by just assuming that I understood what you said, and I made a different point as a counter-point.
Instead of trying to understand another perspective, you blithely assume it misses the point.
As far as being "stuck" on developers, the other people that matter are people who make distros. Who also almost all choose PulseAudio.
And then of course end users, who almost all choose PulseAudio even if they don't understand that they have a choice and don't need to run it. And the vast majority of software will simply fall back to an ALSA or OSS interface when it is removed. But that isn't going to happen, because they're too busy crying and calling the developer names to figure out how their computer works, or how to use Linux and other open software to make choices available to themselves.
By the way, using "number of applications" as a metric is silly, since most applications are abandon-ware.
Tools only matter to the tool builders. Oh wait, that means us. LOL
You're not the only ones, btw.
I've been suffering with substandard open CAD since the 90s. I just wish it had the quality of GIMP.
Things are improving. Slowly, on the software side. But I expect some leaps and bounds soon, now that access to manufacturing is opening up.
The companies making money off the movement don't care about these details, they care about what can they tell people to do that they will understand, what will be easier "for dummies." It is great they open their designs, but the value in open designs is the right to copy, not the right to re-manufacture without having to re-draw anything. Effort might be better directed at writing import plugins for the open tools, than pushing companies to use certain formats. There is clear "fair use" in whatever is needed to inter-operate, so file formats from proprietary programs aren't really proprietary unless nobody bothers. I personally don't want any more than the circuit diagram and the right to copy it.
The people who should be pressured over formats IMO is the IC manufacturers, who should do a better job at including open reference designs. There is a strong case to be made that it would help sales.
If you have a reason not to be using a general purpose CPU and doing the work in software, then there is no guarantee that they won't beat that general purpose solution with their FPGA. In which case, you're flat wrong. And since it varies for each case, and in many cases the FPGA will beat the same dollars worth of general purpose solution, we can say you're totally wrong too.
And since you can use the same hardware description to program the FPGA and manufacture an ASIC later, if you end up needing a lot of them, it doesn't cost much other than the cost of having the ASICs made. Whereas if you'd done it all in software, you wouldn't have even started that journey yet, and you'd have to invest the full cost of designing both types of solution.
The real questions are: is the unit cost enough to justify the expense of the FPGA hardware? If so, are there advantages over a software solution for your use case? These same 2 questions be used by a weekend hobby project, a small startup, or a big company. If they're both yes, FPGA should be considered.
If your algorithm benefits substantially from custom hardware logic, then you might save a lot of time and/or money. That is true from the garage all the way to the boardroom. It is a wonderful new world where this is opened up at all levels.
Who cares? If I code for free and release it, people can use it. If I make a boatload of money off my use of the code, and still release it, then people can use it exactly the same.
Open knowledge separates the issues of pay and employment from having access to the shared set of knowledge.
Knowing that, if you're worried about pay, utilize information theory and tie your profit centers to information about specific customers with specific or un-shared needs.
Software is like plow design; it can't be expected to be an important occupational category for very long. When a society is first adopting a new plow technology, there will be a sudden demand for free thinking plow builders to incorporate the technology into local supply chains and adapt it to local needs and crops. But it only lasts half a generation, because those plows can be copied by other blacksmiths, and each one can be repaired for generations.
Human hearing isn't going to change noticeably in the next hundreds years. Eventually consumers will have personal audio players they're attached to, that are neither too big nor too small, that has all the features the user wants, and then we don't need people to be employed redesigning them. There will still be some of that work, just as even established farmers can support a small amount of innovation and customization in plow-building.
Pure software, right now there is a huge amount of feature thrash in everything, but that is driven by the new-ness of computers and the lack of existing consensus. Eventually there will be fairly stable "camps" with different mature platforms that have stood the test of time, feature thrash will reduce, programming jobs will reduce, and software tools will stabilize. Programming will about as creative as being a tax accountant.
The good news is, you can't put the Maker genie back in the bottle. Open hardware based art will grow.
Thank goodness your proprietary religion keeps me from being subjected to the horrors of using your software.
I will say this much, proprietary seems to give better results for absolute beginners, since with Free Software there is no emphasis on that, but instead of tools people already know they need.
The best thing about Open Source was always escaping the crap software that you get when you pay.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident basically didn't happen sortof proves that the response to it, the lie about what happened, was indeed a sort of conspiracy intended to create a legal basis for war.
I think most people involved have already admitted that they used it as a false pretext for war. It seems to have been well known, even at the time. The Frenchies let the commies take over, and we were going to fix that.
Good theory. It would have been a good place to start your investigation, but it not really valid an analysis.
I recommend actually looking at the details of the recent deal that China signed with Russia. Russia came to them for a deal, and the Chinese just took their existing energy deal, lowered the prices, and "agreed" to a contract locking in that discount for a number of years. That way the Russians get to put a big number on the size of the deal, and the Chinese didn't have to accept any cost to "help" Russia.
China wouldn't do anything to actually help Russia right now. They're on the same general negotiating team for most issues, so they're not calling them out, but China is very much against the sort of thing that Russia did in annexing Crimea. China is actually very diplomatically against the of moving borders, and allowing locals to "rebel" and move a border or create a new political unit. That's why to get a trade deal during sanctions, the "deal" was all discounts for China.
On the issue of Vietnam, lets remember that right after the US withdrew from Vietnam, they fought (and won) a border war with China. Including China in this current dispute is just a funny knee-jerk from media people who never watched The Fog of War. Vietnam also invaded Cambodia, kicked out the murderers, ended the atrocities... and then withdrew without stealing any land or resources. It is not at all obvious that Vietnam would want to move closer to Russia in this current dispute. That would isolate them diplomatically, where they're actually one of the more open and tolerant Communist regimes in the region. Like China, they maintain strong and ever-growing trade relations with the west.
Also lets remember, one of the reasons that Vietnam wanted the subs is to keep an eye on Chinese ships that threaten them over longstanding maritime border disputes. That, and the war they fought with China 30 years ago, are the reasons why they bought subs from Russia instead of China, even thought they use about the same tech.
My proposal, lets admit that Vietnam is just locals who like Communism and not part of some Red Tide, and then lets sell them some good older subs. In return, they'll deny Russia military access used to challenge anybody.
Knowledge is too nerdy for these cowards, they'll just whine and cry, whine and cry, whine and cry. They won't, can't, ever know it is their own fault. If they allowed themselves to discover the cause of the problem, they might have to implement a technical fix. That would be almost nerdy, and so they'd run away.
You're not a nerd, you don't even have a slashdot account. How would you know what news nerds want?
Get off the lawn, you're trespassing.
When he says Americans are pursuing the Nobel, what he doesn't understand is that it is just a cultural difference in what is polite language. In Sweden admitting you dream of the highest award in your field might be presumptuous. In the US, a person without dreams might be presumed to be a dullard without any.
The whole thing could have been explained in a couple minutes by a person from Sociology or Linguistics.
If you have 5000+ researchers per capita, what species are they?
If they were Vulcans somebody would have noticed. I'm assuming that you're counting the mice as the researchers. I wish.
It sounds to me like science was a little too much fun for your already.
In this case, a day later I finally wondered what it was about, and clicked it. Whoops, no video. I guess luckily for dice, slashdot users would never run linux and flashblock, right? It does play the audio and show me the flashblock icon, but they did some kind of bullshit to capture the pointer, so I can't actually start it.
I listened to 10+ seconds, he starts off describing things as, "this is ...." OK, what is? It is a very low quality offering, I guess not surprising if it is the ramblings of Everyman. Which basically translates to "some Homer Simpson guy." If it was worth saying, it would be worth saying in an accessible way. Presumably he doesn't care about producing a good video, and is just doing his own thing. So let him do it. Don't try to make him into a public figure unless he's interested in putting some basic effort into communicating using modern mediums.
While in general I agree with the sentiment, this is slashdot and I would expect you would have implemented a technical solution on the client side to prevent auto-play.
That said... transcript or it didn't happen
Obviously, you're not "everybody."
Only the average can make a broad enough claim to even attempt it.
I spent years disabling PulseAudio, because I didn't need the features (yet) and the distros included it before it was really ready for prime-time. But that isn't Lenart's fault, or a deficiency in PulseAudio, that just tells me package managers at distros do mediocre work. Something I always knew, and one of the reasons I value open systems and the availability of choices that comes with that.
It also doesn't imply any of those early bugs still exist, or that it is wrong of distros to choose what software to install by default, or any of the other idiotic things people are saying on this topic. Distros do choose PulseAudio, because they believe it is the best choice. A lot of people are pretending that isn't so, that somebody somehow "forced" them, and that is an insult to the open-ness of the systems.
I always assume that the full range of possible use cases are the... range of use cases being considered.
You're only interested in desktop computers, so rather than meaning "we're talking about..." that just means you're only thinking about a narrow subset of use cases. Therefore, you have nothing to add to what I said, even though to you whatever I said might seem off topic. But it is only off your own personal topic, not the topic of open hardware.
If you want an open desktop system, my assumption is you'd use an existing open MIPS-compatible system, which are available. There was a story a few years ago about RMS finally being willing to own a laptop (he used ones owned by various legal entities before, he wouldn't own them personally because they were unfree) using these. There isn't actually a lack of that thing, and there is absolutely no need for a custom CPU for that. It isn't useful to make personalized hardware changes to the CPU in a general purpose computer. Almost any actual use case of open hardware CPUs is where you have a special purpose need. You're more likely to be putting that chip into an embedded environment, or else on a daughter board.
Lemote sells MIPS evaluation boards for all the subsystems of their motherboards, and if you buy it they are in fact open source. And most of those have multiple FPGAs. If you were actually developing your own open CPU, you'd be using more FPGAs than almost anything else, just for the development process. In many cases you might be using multiple FPGAs to implement parts of your design, and the tests for it.
The value in open hardware isn't that end users can print or fabricate their own stuff. And where there is value in that, the main value is in printing or fabricating non-commodity components. Then when you need something specialized you can do it yourself, or hire whoever you want to do it for you, without a bunch of barriers and gatekeepers. Open firmware: very important. Open circuit layout: very important.
And if you're really ideological and just want a Pure Whatever computer, and don't want to buy one from lemote, you can build something similar to an Apple ][ or Z80 easily these days. And using modern parts, it can run on a small battery.
Yeah, she made the same mistake people often make; they assumed because they're a good person inside, and they weren't trying to steal or kill or anything, that they must not have broken the law, and if they just explained what they did to the police they'll realize she's not a bad person.
And the cop then arrests them, thinking, "gosh, they're not a bad person, they'll probably learn a valuable lesson from all this."
Even if you're ready to plead guilty before they catch you, still.. what you say could affect your sentence. Wait for the lawyer. Didn't do it? Wait for the lawyer. The only time it is useful to talk to the cops is when it is a witness statement. And even then, have a lawyer if you can afford it. If not... know it is a gamble and the victim is often the one cited for something.
To be honest, the people who were first in charge were probably trustworthy but had no authority to grant shares. Then after about 3 years, they started getting weeded out and replaced with people who had no intentions of ever following through but continued to say they would. After three years, they were so far in my debt that I had to let it ride in hopes that it would payoff. I guess it was kind of like gambling. I figure altogether they owe me about $1 million in overtime, COLA, raises and vacation days.
Complete nonsense. If they were too far in debt to pay it off, and you sued them, you'd end up with the whole thing. The reality is unlikely to be thus, though. It is never too late for them to issue real shares to pay off their debt, if you'll accept those shares. Even if they had to split the stock to get it done.
Another reality is that instead of meaning you "had to let it ride," you should have understood that you "had to take legal action immediately."
She also told the truth, and the truth was she broke the law.
She was widely panned for having done that, because everything that she admitted to could have been phrased as a different thing by lawyers, without changing the actual true physical actions she was admitting to.
She basically screwed herself by admitting her intent, which is what they needed to prove, when all they had otherwise was facts about what she actually did; which is not enough to convict under that law.
Gosh, what is the chance if you take away their car they could get another one? Or just borrow one from another drunk at the bar?
Your nonsense about metabolism really sounds like a drunk driver trying to justify it. I'll make it easy for you: if you drank enough to get you over the limit, and drove anyway, you should be shot. Whining about, "gosh, I thought if I just ate and drank some coffee, it would be fine. And then when I realized I was drunk, I had to keep driving, because *waves hands*" just makes you look pathetic.
No, the socially irresponsible thing is drinking, and then driving.
It is that simple. If you're trying to drink right up to where you think the line is, you're already doing it wrong, and driving drunk on purpose.
You're a great example of the cause of the sentiment: drunk drivers are willing to murder people just to be drunkards, so just kill them and they'll be off the road. Nothing of significance is lost.
It might work just to amputate their arms, too.
The Court has been rather clear about that. The right to do a thing does not mean a right to do a thing without rules. Establishing the right means that you can go to court to have them examine the balance between the rule-making concerns of the Legislature, and the rights of the individual. They quite frequently throw out laws that effectively ban things you have a right to do, by writing rules that make doing said thing impracticable. At the same time, they frequently uphold things like background checks where there is a clear rule-making reason for it, and it doesn't prevent the protected activity.
Just like, driving is a privilege, but walking somewhere is a right. And yet, there are all sorts of rules regulating which part of the roadway you walk on at which time, and when you have to wait and walk later. Walking being a right means they can't ban you from the sidewalk (in most situations), but they can still tell you how you have to do it, within reason.
But nerds are not omniscient. Advertising directly contributes to knowing what is available for purchase. There have been many products I did not know existed but was informed of their existence by advertising. Even when I am actively searching for solutions, unless someone advertised an existing solution in a space in which I would potentially search, I would not know of their solution. So advertising is very crucial for expanding awareness of solutions.
What people have problem with is the constant bombardment of the same ad over and over and over again, or being bombarded with irrelevant ads, and being forced to view ads when there is no problem needing a solution currently.
If my plan is to read all the labels of every tasty-looking cereal on the shelf, and choose the one with the ingredients I most desire to consume, then exposure to advertising doesn't do anything but offer garbage data that would either go unused, or taint my analysis.
Nerds don't have to be omniscient; we plan to gather relevant data in advance, gather that data, and make an analysis.
It is true that if somebody made something and only advertised it, and never put it in a store, and never had it in a price list, and it was never in a catalog I was ordering from, then I wouldn't know about it. Or care to. Products that are not gimmicks and are worth consideration will be on the shelf or in the catalog.
It is not just a "constant bombardment." Advertising is tainted data by purpose and intent. Garbage in, garbage out; that is what they're counting on. But I'm not planning on a garbage purchase, I'm planning on an educated purchase that meets my individualized needs as I understand them.
I may have to read 75 cereal boxes, but I will find what I am looking for. "Ingredients: Whole Wheat"
You could have saved yourself all that typing by just assuming that I understood what you said, and I made a different point as a counter-point.
Instead of trying to understand another perspective, you blithely assume it misses the point.
As far as being "stuck" on developers, the other people that matter are people who make distros. Who also almost all choose PulseAudio.
And then of course end users, who almost all choose PulseAudio even if they don't understand that they have a choice and don't need to run it. And the vast majority of software will simply fall back to an ALSA or OSS interface when it is removed. But that isn't going to happen, because they're too busy crying and calling the developer names to figure out how their computer works, or how to use Linux and other open software to make choices available to themselves.
By the way, using "number of applications" as a metric is silly, since most applications are abandon-ware.
Only a few things on that list are proprietary.
Never agree to adopt proprietary food or water. You do not want to know what happens when it is time to renew your subscription.
Only accept foodstuffs using an open interface.
Tools only matter to the tool builders. Oh wait, that means us. LOL
You're not the only ones, btw.
I've been suffering with substandard open CAD since the 90s. I just wish it had the quality of GIMP.
Things are improving. Slowly, on the software side. But I expect some leaps and bounds soon, now that access to manufacturing is opening up.
The companies making money off the movement don't care about these details, they care about what can they tell people to do that they will understand, what will be easier "for dummies." It is great they open their designs, but the value in open designs is the right to copy, not the right to re-manufacture without having to re-draw anything. Effort might be better directed at writing import plugins for the open tools, than pushing companies to use certain formats. There is clear "fair use" in whatever is needed to inter-operate, so file formats from proprietary programs aren't really proprietary unless nobody bothers. I personally don't want any more than the circuit diagram and the right to copy it.
The people who should be pressured over formats IMO is the IC manufacturers, who should do a better job at including open reference designs. There is a strong case to be made that it would help sales.
If you have a reason not to be using a general purpose CPU and doing the work in software, then there is no guarantee that they won't beat that general purpose solution with their FPGA. In which case, you're flat wrong. And since it varies for each case, and in many cases the FPGA will beat the same dollars worth of general purpose solution, we can say you're totally wrong too.
And since you can use the same hardware description to program the FPGA and manufacture an ASIC later, if you end up needing a lot of them, it doesn't cost much other than the cost of having the ASICs made. Whereas if you'd done it all in software, you wouldn't have even started that journey yet, and you'd have to invest the full cost of designing both types of solution.
The real questions are: is the unit cost enough to justify the expense of the FPGA hardware? If so, are there advantages over a software solution for your use case? These same 2 questions be used by a weekend hobby project, a small startup, or a big company. If they're both yes, FPGA should be considered.
If your algorithm benefits substantially from custom hardware logic, then you might save a lot of time and/or money. That is true from the garage all the way to the boardroom. It is a wonderful new world where this is opened up at all levels.
Hey new guy, don't click links, it isn't safe. Don't read the summaries either, because Snow Crash + goase = all your base
Who cares? If I code for free and release it, people can use it. If I make a boatload of money off my use of the code, and still release it, then people can use it exactly the same.
Open knowledge separates the issues of pay and employment from having access to the shared set of knowledge.
Knowing that, if you're worried about pay, utilize information theory and tie your profit centers to information about specific customers with specific or un-shared needs.
Software is like plow design; it can't be expected to be an important occupational category for very long. When a society is first adopting a new plow technology, there will be a sudden demand for free thinking plow builders to incorporate the technology into local supply chains and adapt it to local needs and crops. But it only lasts half a generation, because those plows can be copied by other blacksmiths, and each one can be repaired for generations.
Human hearing isn't going to change noticeably in the next hundreds years. Eventually consumers will have personal audio players they're attached to, that are neither too big nor too small, that has all the features the user wants, and then we don't need people to be employed redesigning them. There will still be some of that work, just as even established farmers can support a small amount of innovation and customization in plow-building.
Pure software, right now there is a huge amount of feature thrash in everything, but that is driven by the new-ness of computers and the lack of existing consensus. Eventually there will be fairly stable "camps" with different mature platforms that have stood the test of time, feature thrash will reduce, programming jobs will reduce, and software tools will stabilize. Programming will about as creative as being a tax accountant.
The good news is, you can't put the Maker genie back in the bottle. Open hardware based art will grow.
You're the one who missed my point, and now is going in circles talking about it.
Up your game, figure out what you're replying to. I won't say "first" because it is too late for that.
Thank goodness your proprietary religion keeps me from being subjected to the horrors of using your software.
I will say this much, proprietary seems to give better results for absolute beginners, since with Free Software there is no emphasis on that, but instead of tools people already know they need.
The best thing about Open Source was always escaping the crap software that you get when you pay.