orra

> XDG comes from the GNOME and KDE crowd, meaning Red Hat/IBM, Trolltech, and maybe Canonical or a few other token companies. Notice the complete lack of real community input or control?

You're completely erasing the community involvement in KDE and GNOME. Moreover, it's grassroots that push utilities to follow the basedir-spec.

> Three, kind of a nitpick, but they adopted the Contributor Covenant CoC which is problematic for people who respect compartmentalization of social spheres. I don't care if there's a dipshit bigot on a dev team as long as he or she keeps it out of the work environment.

Again a misrepresentation. The CoC says to be tolerant of all contributors, and not doxx folks. Hardly burdensome. These are rules which nobody would ban an eyelid in a professional context.

Quite. And if you'll excuse the pedantry, the KJV is patented, under a “letters patent” issued by The King.

I point this out because these days the term patent almost always implies an invention. It's an interesting counterexample.

That's an understandable plea.

I guess the difficulty is Linux is really popular, but it's for hosting containers and cloud services etc. That doesn't lead to an improved Desktop.

That's a long time to hold a grudge. Mozilla Firefox was called Mozilla Firebird for 10 months, nineteen years ago. This was before version 1.0.

I suspect it took as long as 10 months because Mozilla already felt bruised from already having to change the name from Phoenix, due to a trademark dispute from Phoenix Technologies.

Nineteen years is plenty of time to forgive. You might even find the time to try Firebird SQL, instead of complaining about an ancient naming collision.

He wasn't just the Fedora packager of Totem. I am pretty sure he was the upstream Totem maintainer. I had no idea how he managed to maintain so many other packages as well! And apparently on 10% of his work time.

Also, it's before my time but Red Hat were once unpopular for "killing the desktop", by pivoting from Red Hat Linux to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Of course, it turns out that since then they did substantial desktop work, hiring developers of GNOME etc., and sponsoring Fedora. It's a shame they're now cutting that desktop work for real this time.

I'll point out that banning parties who would seek to destroy democracy is part of the German constitution. Article 21. There's no irony here. What is being mooted is something deliberately introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Nazis and World War II, to prevent a reoccurrence.

(I've slightly lost the thread here, so I'm not 100% certain you're disagreeing.)

> I wonder if this has changed since 2014?

Good question. Probably not. LLVM reduced the number of LEAs in 2017. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32277

Also, Golang is gradually reducing the number of slow LEAs. https://github.com/golang/go/issues/21735

> grep '\blea\b' | wc -l

This maybe isn't sophisticated enough? The other links seem to explain two operand LEA isn't so problematic.

Yes, trademark proceedings take similarity and likelihood of confusion into account.

I'm not sure Hashicorp have a trademark here, but the names are awfully close. Think of the pronunciation: I am sure in plenty of localations the words are pronounced identically, let alone very similarly.

> They aren't being disingenuous. You're putting words in their mouth, and then getting mad at them about those words they didn't say.

No, they say open source needs to evolve, the implication this is an evolution (not devolution) of open source.

Their announcement talks about how they spoke to OSS experts. That's not relevant: the experts would simply have said: that's not open source.

Hashicorp several times say the BSL is permissive. Permissive is a well established term in software licensing. No, the BSL is not. The BSD and MIT and Apache licenses are permissive.

Finally there is this claptrap from their FAQ:

> 17. Does HashiCorp still believe in open source? > > Yes. [...]

> Mozilla shows utter disdain for their users with just about every announcement, update, new feature or new restriction

This is absolute hyperbole. Have you forgotten the context? You're on a story about full extension support being implemented, which is exactly what you wanted.

Chrome is, and majorly was, pushed by Google websites. Using one near monopoly to create another.

Also, Firefox never defeated Internet Explorer. You are misremembering that. Firefox once made impressive market gains despite the anticompetitive competitor bundling. That doesn't mean it's feasible to keep doing it.

> But I do think this purist perspective on open source is just going to result in more Snowflakes and fewer Hashicorps, because why bother with this fight?

Orgs like Hashicorp clearly think they benefit by pretending to be open source.

They could simply stop being disingenuous about their source available proprietary software, and nobody would stop them.

> but is no longer considered FOSS.

It's no longer considered FOSS because it's no longer FOSS.

> Until the attitude changes around what FOSS is, this will keep happening.

That's a weird thing to say. You're happy with it happening, and everybody else using bad definitions won't change that.

Here's a good reason not to install Iceraven:

> No warranties or guarantees of security or updates

In general it's fine for users to fork software to scratch their own itches. But browsers are super security sensitive.

> Mozilla unfortunately had already forfeited the Android browser market to other competitors by not enabling this day one

Er, Mozilla marketshare on Android is low because of Google anti competitively bundling Chrome with the Play Store.

> Why not just put up a warning for extensions that dont work well and let the user decide?

Because the typical user will ignore the warning and install the extension. Then down the line Firefox will be slow and they forget why. Then they uninstall Firefox.

Sure, you can avoid this trap personally. But the statistical behaviour is harmful to a healthy Firefox userbase.

The article says `lea` helps calculate the array relative address on AMD64.

Why does the article say the problem would be tricky on 32-bit? `lea` is an old instruction. Thanks.

It's deeply insidious. From the advert, they recognise that time is valuable:

> Just imagine no commute to the office in the morning and instead, you could have an extra hour of sleep and less friction

Cool, you mean by working from home?

No? Oh, you want me to home at work. Gross. People deserve a life away from work.

A walled garden is when users contribute the data for free, but the data is stuck. No free API access.

'[Old versions] will be open source' would, I think, also be a fair description. Right now it's source available proprietary freeware; in three and a half years it (specifically, the now-current version) will be open source.

For this reason, I think the Business Source License (BSL) (with an Open Source Change License) is less nefarious than the Server Side Public License (SSPL).

True, but to avoid chaos you have a redirect for a while. Send a warning at first, then send an error.

You're vastly exaggerating the costs of changing domains (and setting up a redirect).

I'm glad you mention TLS certificate, because those are an ongoing thing, not something you set up once leave unchanged for 40 years.

The CDLA license feels like NIH... but at least it looks genuinely permissive, as opposed to fake open source.

Curiously, two of the four layers use the ODbL.

> and just ignored the license restrictions because it wasn't directly part of the shipped binary. There's no good way to enforce that.

There's not anything to enforce. The AGPL allows you to run the application for any purpose. (If you modify the source, you have to make the modified source available to all users, including over the network users.)

I can't speak for why SH4 was always unofficial, but from a vibes perspective today, RISC-V feels like an architecture on the up. That probably helps attract more developers, and ultimately it takes people to do the work.

> But what if it is the credit card company you are dealing with?

In general, I find dealing with any big company in writing, much easier than the telephone nightmare you describe. Your call is important to us! Due to unusually high [sic] volumes, the waiting time is half an hour!

Also, in writing, they don't accidentally forget previous conversations. If it has to be escalated to e.g. arbitration, then you have a good record.

If they don't do online messaging, send a tracked letter to their head office. Obviously, that's a pain these days (don't misplace the proof of postage). Thankfully there are companies who print and post letters as a service.

Thank you for the correction. I still maintain the license is obnoxious, but clearly I was wrong about the models themselves.

> (let's not fight about semantics please)

But what you dismiss as semantics is entirely relevant! You're upset that Microsoft and OpenAI gatekeep uncensored models. But Llama 2 has similar content filters, no? And certainly a huge list of license restrictions.

I'm glad the actual open source models are constantly improving.

Yeah, Gnutella was very quickly pulled by AOL. There was no chance to see if Nullsoft would follow through and release the source (which they hinted at with the name Gnu-...).

In the short term there must have been folks unofficially hosting the installer, and probably substituting different bootstrap peers.

Quickly the protocol was reverse engineered and reimplemented, thanks to being text based, and maybe also due to users of IDA.

yup, for a start you can't even train other LLMs with it