If it is truely a big problem, it will be more strengthful to let the denying end to fully deploy their defense. The hope may the system resilient enough not on an irreversable track which has a penalty not bailable.
The flow of capital tends toward a low hydrolic potential from a high end. When the potential is lost, things turn to medicore, people just look around for an exit.
You may present the argument you consider as well excused. My point is that in the area of HVAC and environmental engineering departments in the universities at the time, the "ozone hole" argument was in-disputable. So my metaphor is that, the DMV may propose or just stipulate the best driving protocol for humanoid on a motor vehicle. The contrary motion may need more comprehensive and comprehensible materials to be sound.
As a former HVAC engineering student, I was quite caught by "ozone" in this headline. Sorry, I did not continue with that career for some reason, for good or for bad, now doing an IT job. This ozone thing was talked about almost everyday, not everyday then very often, throughout the four-year study. I think it is a good example of "We did something, so a disaster did not happen". Maybe, also we should learn that we cannot let some people to prove they can create a disaster.
To be fair, I have not had the honor to be a docker customer. But regarding the kernel thing, I have limited IFY. Let's say if you goal is to keep yourself up-to-date with kernel tree, probably you have to compile the kernel DIY. The hardware dependencies and customized kernel config is not that handy. Then if you pick a distro, probably, not sure it is a problem, things like initd sneak into systemd/sysctl brought the element of surprises occasionally. While, to move or not to move, both are forwarding and backwarding.
I think before googlers stopping add dramas to our daily drop sorry typo, job. Maybe I kindaly sort of suggest them dedup the www and provide web-wise random file access.
In the university I graduated, the professor definitely will mark plagiarism and give an F, unless a strict rule of sourcing followed. Most openjdk source has the first line a usual header. Maybe I am a late student of JDK. or may be there the court may prevail an exception. Finally you have to consider yourself what do we mean to contribute to open source?
I think what features this article is exactly what we see the one facet of agileness of its practitioner. The distortion of science and engineering methodology and practice. Before you do a big thing, you have to prove a bunch of small things work as the foundation. Any increment will not be linearly scalable. Finally, what you claim should be strengthened by your data, charts, plots that are verifiable by others.