rando289

"It's essential because", huh, small companies are going to pay 10-99,000 fee? I don't think so. small means that is around the same cost as settling, but it has some unknown % chance of working, wheras settling will work 100%.

Yes. If it was an extremely self interested cleanup of only a certain kind of pollution which it would only help with on the condition that other more important kinds of pollution increased or got much less attention, and would lead to much worse long term consequences, and facebook was completelly scummy spamming everyone about "if you don't want this, you want babies to die of pollution."

No mention of why this was rewritten, or any comparison to the existing code...

I looked at the atwood article, which really didn't give useful numbers, except the one citation. I opened that, found the fit number, converted to ~ .5 errors per year and thought, eh, skipping ecc is fine.

I didn't notice this: "From the graph above, we can see that a fault can easily cause hundreds or thousands of per month." Now I want ecc again.

Always thought it was funny how most new msft employees, especially college grads, spent years pirating windows and pirating it for their friends and family. Instead of being pushed, they are rewarded with a nice paycheck, and given thousands of dollars worth of ms software per year for themselves and their families for free.

See fwknop and the history of port knocking.

> use cases of the 0.1% who are actually going to receive the patches

It seems highly unlikely. They are not writing custom ordered security patches. They are selling general security support to whoever can afford it.

"Open source" was designed for the sole purpose of being "clever" wordplay and an effective marketing strategy, so you really can't blame fsf on that one.

Words matter. See "pro life" vs "pro choice", see "terrorist" vs "criminal" see "migrant" vs "alleged refuge", etc. etc.

The tech press are mouthpieces for the big corporations, and all of the big corporations do not want free software messing with their profits, so they use and coin words which align with their interests. It's perfectly natural for fsf to use different words.

Honestly I think hn, and generally internet commenting sucks because it's mostly all arguments. 1 person says something in a blog/article, 90% of top hn comments are criticism & counter argument, 95% of replies are arguments against the parent, on and on and on.

It wasn't an argument that your comment was wrong, so it wasn't a strawman, it was just an example of something. And then you later go on to agree with me that should be supported because it's proprietary and no one else can support it is subjective and changes based on the use case, eg. medical equipment which runs xp.

> they did a lot to put open source on the map

Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined. All while acknowledging that it has mostly the same goals as the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...

If you care about software freedom, do donate to fsf. eff leaves that to fsf and they already have 50x more funding. Of course eff also has much broader and less well defined goals of things like "internet freedom."

Instead just /thinking/, try reading the rest of the gnu site, including the article on android: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html. Or you could buy a book which has most of the articles and had a new updated release a few months ago: http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society-3-pap...

Nice pacemaker you have there, unfortunately, we've ceased supporting the software, and you are too old for a new one to be implanted, so it might break or get hacked and you'll die. How long would you expect us to support it?! And obviously we can't give away our intellectual property!

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/jul/21/software-de...

They didn't post this to hacker news, it's /an/ article on their site thats been there for quite a while, and yes they call out Google elsewhere. For example http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html. gnu.org != whatever some random user posted on hacker news today. Try thinking a little before posting.

You like the FSF? Point #1 fsf makes is that proprietary = wrong/bad/malware, period. Malware is mostly just a synonym. So if point #1 is too far, you really don't get it.

Yup. http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/25/for-the-children/

It's not FUD. Your comment is FUD. The fact is that MS has well tested security patches sitting on their hard drives for software used by lots of people, which they are only selling for prices so high that 99.9% of people won't get it. That is completely different than deciding not to write the patches. And it's also just pointing out another instance of proprietary software and why it's bad, which if that is fud, well the core of linux and gnu are fud too.

> it's just _obvious_ why

Uh, nope. Most people use communication platforms due to network effects: because they were invited to use it, because their friends/coleagues use it. Slack is no different.

> Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who now use Slack weren't using IRC, because Slack offers a lot more.

Wow, going off the deep end here. Unless you are a time traveler, there is no way to not use IRC because of slack, 'prior to slack existing.'

> If IRC were good enough to handle the needs of small software company communication, people would use IRC.

Given A and B, if A were good enough, people would use A... What if B is better? What if both are good enough?

You go on as if your first sentence stands up on it's own. It makes no sense at all.

Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html. They copyright over the code, not "intellectual property."

> I wouldn't be eager to continue on with a project after getting that reception either.

So google's feelings got hurt? Give me a break. Obviously they were primarily motivated by attracting the almighty user attention, and positive pr to their brand, all part of a long term strategy for money, and that didn't work out so well, and they never cared much about doing a public good, or else they would continue to support the over 1 million public domain books they have. Or, if they really cared, they would have put code of their books site out as free software, and helped share their entire collection of public domain books with other organizations.

Here is where you do that: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...

We've overwhelmed it. Instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20150811151807/http://mywiki.woo...

The first command is distinguishing between broken links, and changing the -e to different letters, it can differentiate between 23 different attributes, and act differently depending on each. Your hypothetical examples do not do not have that ability. And, to do what your commands would imply, usually you really can do "some_command *.mp3", it's not hypothetical!

Similar ruby library. not as extensive since ruby has more shell-like features built in http://ruby-doc.org/stdlib-2.2.1/libdoc/shell/rdoc/Shell.htm...

I'm reading various I made company/site/device x able do y, which seems like it would be 100x cooler if it was free for everyone to reuse and learn from. Could y benefit science, government, medicine, or diverse software which doesn't lock users into a platform, respects their privacy and self-determination? If hacker news was free software, what other communities might have sprung up and made the world better?

Unison. Know where your data is. Don't sync oses. Instead, keep their setup in scripts. You can get faster sync if you can say which side is newer by using btrfs snapshot over the network.

I was not weaseling out of it. I explained how it can go either way.

It's really twisting things in order to fit a wierd corporate narrative on FOSS.

"Even companies like GE are helping to fund noncommercial software, having con- tributed $105 million to Pivotal, the home of projects like Cloud Foundry." Uh... they invested for a 10% stake in a for profit company which creates commercially focused free software, among other things. The corporate doublespeak runs deep.

Reminds me generally of orielly's screwy agenda http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler