ninefathom

Precisely my thoughts; either they're already violating the attribution requirements of such a license, or it's under Fair Use in which case the question is moot. There's no need to put them doubly into failure of compliance.

I'm not an attorney; I have worked professionally with IP policies and licenses for a number of years. I generally give the following suggestion to developers considering FOSS licenses: once you've put your code under an open license, assume that you no longer own today- you only own tomorrow.

What I mean by that is that once the source code is out there under a given open source license, it's best to consider it a total loss until the next time you change the code. Of course there's always the right to challenge and litigate, but this is often time-consuming, expensive, and an uphill battle. I can't even put a number on how many times I've dealt with teams who love the "warm fuzzy" of creating an open source project, but get apoplectic when they realize that means giving up quite a bit of control over anything published as FOSS (but it's a large quantity).

Having said all of that, I think OP is doing exactly the right thing in reconsidering the license. Maybe an OSI-approved FOSS license is not right for this project and a more restrictive license is appropriate, but personally I think that in the face of this new type of use case, most FOSS licenses should clarify and refine attribution requirements. I'd love to see some further guidance from OSI on this.

Edit: for example, it might become recommended practice to put generic, boilerplate, or non-innovative code under permissive FOSS licenses from day one, but leave extremely novel, innovative, or unique code under a more restrictive license (such as one with more stringent attribution requirements) in a separate module for a time, until credit for the innovation is well-established (after which even the innovation can be published under a permissive license). Not a panacea; simply an early thought.

It combined Zones, ZFS filesystems, Crossbow network virtualization, a modified X11 server, and an auth framework to glue it all together.

I don't know how widely Trusted Solaris was ever adopted, but I know that I haven't seen it in use in many years. Maybe this particular NixOS strategy will gain more traction.

In the same vein as others have stated, the airwaves are just getting too blasted crowded. In all but the most rural areas, even the 5GHz band in the United States is starting to get quite noisy, and I find the constant frequency hopping and "ghost in the machine" network behaviors on WiFi to be much more vexing than simply running a Cat 5e cable- even if I'm terminating it myself.

Edit: directly to OP's observation, bandwidth is not so much of a concern to me as are things like wildly-fluctuating bandwidth and sporadic dissociations.

I'd almost be inclined to suspect that Musk says (privately, to his closest confidants) that he's had very few successes and a great many failures.

Now, on the other hand, if one wanted to say that his public persona is often that of a pompous windbag, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree, though I'd hasten to add that (unfortunate as it might be) one almost has to be a pompous windbag in public to get far in business in contemporary culture. We live in the Era of Outrage, after all; "number of people pissed off" might as well be currency.

Those of us of a certain vintage remember this precise issue with Fortran a couple decades ago, and those out there of a certain further vintage probably remember it with COBOL. So on and so forth back through PL/I, Algol, and so on to the dawn of time.

While there have certainly been consequences of the dearth of COBOL and Fortran devs, ultimately the world has thus far survived. We'll survive the obsolescence of C++ (if indeed that's what this is).

Queue Fry "I'm scare-roused" meme...

In a way, you might say that until now, LED grow lighting was only feasible on a very very large scale, or a very small scale, and the medium-sized local nurseries and greenhouses were just out of luck. Cree seems to have changed that.

Rephrased, just like in cooking, presentation is very important in commercial agriculture and horticulture, too. People hesitate to buy things that don't look like they expect.

Nothing Cree is doing here hasn't been done before in terms of plant growth, but they've made it hella easier to have a horticultural/agricultural LED installation that fits seamlessly into existing business processes with minimal headache.

About. F*king. Time.

Anybody in horticulture or botany knows what a BFD this is. Anybody else... it's major.

Those of you wondering about the green spectrum, try running a commercial greenhouse with fuchsia-tinted lighting. You'll have a paradise of lush, happy plants that never go anywhere (i.e. they won't sell).

As another commenter has already mentioned, there really is something to be said for a business picking one thing- just a single specialty- and doing it really d**ned well.

Maybe Corning can give me some pointers on how to get a modest 3'x3' piece of glass for my coffee table back from my local home improvement store without having it shatter into a million pieces...

Inner insignificant mote of life hurtling through the cosmos: "Wow, I feel so tiny and fragile and humbled."

Long answer: after a long time in the technology sector with a single employer, I felt that I had grown to hate the entire tech industry. I left the sector for a couple of years, working various freelance / self-employment roles outside of tech. Finally, after the prolonged break, I decided to consider going back in, but with some very serious requirements: I had to have highly competitive pay and 100% remote work with a flexible schedule, or I wouldn't go back. After a long hunt I finally landed a role that fits, and I'm actually happy with it.

Why did I go back? The camaraderie. If you leave the tech sector, but you're still passionate about the field, you're going to find that there is a major part of your intellectual life that you don't get to share with other people. In other words, my main motivation to return was not the income, but to get that kind of cerebral interaction again. The high requirements are simply my minimum standard for dealing with all the horrible, soul-draining aspects of the industry (and I'm under no delusion that they've changed).

So... productivity has been going up for decades, with purchasing power of average wages steadily declining over the same period.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but this sounds to me like maybe the issue with the economy isn't the hypothetical, average American worker. Maybe the economic issue is actually some outliers in these data sets. Some outliers that contribute little to the productivity metric but disproportionately impact the various economic metrics.

Hrm. Wonder what group of people that might be...

Though I've since gone back into the technology industry, I spent a couple of years happily doing what many in the tech industry might consider "grunt jobs-" physically demanding, low pay, often dirty.

The first thing that I realized is that there is something deeply satisfying about hard manual labor, and the absence of that satisfaction in much of the tech industry is probably the source of some of the industry's most insidious mental health challenges. Many tech workers try to fill in that gap with "extracurriculars" like the gym, running marathons, or weekend camping trips. While all of those things are good and healthy and have their place, I can promise you that they don't fill the same psychological space as a full day of hard manual labor for a paycheck. As such, I make it a point to regularly take my PTO now to spend a day doing labor-intensive side jobs. That might sound crazy, but I can promise that it does wonders for mental health.

The second thing that I've learned is that there's an entire industry built up around trying to ease office workers' mental health issues, and it is both highly profitable and arguably predatory. If one so much as whispers about ditching a gym membership in favor of actually getting paid to do landscaping, or of selling that expensive treadmill in favor of walking dogs for several hours on weekends, be prepared for a veritable army of people to tell you that you're crazy. Surely millions of people can't be wrong, the argument goes. I can promise that you don't need to put a tenth of your paycheck back out into your extracurriculars to get that accomplished, tired-but-rewarded feeling.

Having said that, I don't think that having firmware blobs in the installer should be Debian's hill to die on, and I'm glad they decided to acquiesce to practical necessity. Between wireless NICs and graphics devices, it's just too blasted difficult these days to install a FOSS operating system without binary blobs - good, bad, or ugly, it is what it is, and I respect their ability to recognize when something simply cannot be changed [at this time].

Keep picking your battles, Debian crew - keep fighting the good fight.

Did not happen.

Based on the comments here, I see that I need to clarify two things, as edits are locked.

First, I actually happen to rather appreciate the Rust language itself. It is both powerful and pragmatic, and has quite a bit to recommend it. Even in situations where its addition has been personally very problematic for me (e.g. Firefox), I can still tip my hat to the added value. What I take strong exception to is Rust evangelism, i.e. the idea that Rust and its ecosystem are clearly superior to all other options in a given use case, and any person using other options must be either insane or uninformed. This represents, at best, a very narrow view of the computing ecosystem in the 21st century. My comment is a rebuke of the evangelism, not the language.

Second, the term "rusties" might have (reasonably) seemed like a label that I applied to any Rust developer. This is not the case, and the perception is a result of my failure to clarify. There is a particular class of person whom one meets, with whom any discussion of any technology project inevitably leads to "well you really should write that in Rust." Such folks- overzealous Rust evangelists- are "rusties" in my vocabulary. If that describes you, feel free to take insult if you like. If that doesn't describe you, then my apologies for any misunderstanding.

Yep. The Rust ecosystem is very much a product of the always-connected, move-fast-and-break-things, DevOps-CI/CD-SCRUM-Agile, horizontal scaling world... which is fine right up until the point where it needs to be used outside of that world, at which point all hell breaks loose.

Yep. My thoughts exactly.

C and C++ aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Love them, hate them, want to burn them with fire, they're here for a long, long time.

Leaving that aside, I was still hitting Rust "oh look the developer of this crate on which the entire universe depends still assumes that everything is x86, and one of five operating systems" issues as recently as late 2021. Rusties of the world: your language might be ready to take up the mantle of C- it's you and your ecosystem that I question.

If Rusties want Rust to displace C... simplify your dependency chains. Get a build system that's easily workable without an Internet connection and recent TLS support. Make it easy for beginners to build out Rust infrastructure for OpenVMS on Itanium, Solaris on SPARC, z/OS, MorphOS, GNU/Hurd, and a 20-year-old budget PDA running a custom OS on an SH4 CPU. Make it feasible to get Rust everywhere that C currently is... then we'll discuss getting rid of C. Until then it's just wind.

Rephrased, even the PIs seem to have trouble parsing legalese. That doesn't invalidate the conclusion of the research, but it does highlight the need for some additional peer review.

^^^ that is true enough

"reduces cognitive load"

^^^ that I have doubts about. I expect this would be highly variable between people, which leads to my question about the trade-off.

For those who are newcomers (say ten years or fewer) to the *nix world, it may well be an improvement. For those who have been using the standard-ish tools for 30+ years, learning yet-another-new-utility has a very high cost.

That dilemma would be irrelevant if the person taking backups is the same person doing the restoration (as will often be the case). My concern is along the lines of "what if this becomes a de facto standard?"

The real question in my mind is if the "attic space" of learning a new tool and dragging it around everywhere is worth the convenience versus doing it The Old, Boring, Manual Way(TM). I suppose time will tell...

- RPi 1 B+

- Apple PowerBook G4 (Al)

- Some old Samsung non-Android smartphone, circa 2010 or so

- Older Android-based Amazon Kindle tablets

- Older bargain bin Android tablets (think RCA)

- Pre-iPod MP3 players (think Diamond Rio and similar)