Kata1yst @ Kata1yst @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

323

Joined

2 yr. ago

Whataboutism? Really? That's the game we're playing?

Sure, okay, I'll bite.

Edward Snowden: He's a hero, no doubt in my mind. But from this perspective, no one has attacked him since his departure from the US. Formal requests have been made to extradite him and they've been turned down. Once on foreign soil the US respected Russian sovereignty.

Julian Assange: Okay personally I find Assange to be a piece of shit, but that aside, the extradition process has been followed legally.

Chelsea Manning: Broke the law. And while her initial imprisonment situation was absolutely concerning, it was legal. The legal process was followed, and the sentence given was far short of the maximum. Her sentence was commuted by a sitting president. No foreign governments were involved, so no sovereignty was violated.

Drake and Binny: Always were on US soil. No foreign involvement whatsoever. They were raided and Drake was changed with crimes. He received probation and community service. Once again, the legal process was followed and no foreign sovereignty violated.

Boeing Whistleblowers: What the fuck is this arguement? You think the US is happy one of it's biggest military manufacturers and transportation providers has serious quality issues? You think the US is taking action against the whistleblowers? Be serious.

Basically: you're saying the US charges people who violate the laws around information handling as criminals. Yes, that's true. Now, I personally am sympathetic to most of these cases. I assume you are too. Whistleblowers should be better protected, but at the same time some information, like the names and personal information of government assets abroad, reasonably should be protected. It's a delicate balance, and one I think the US could greatly improve.

However, these are not similar to the cases in question. The cases in question are actions by governments on foreign soil or against US citizens. This is an enormous violation of sovereignty, legality, and due process. That's the issue at hand.

They even literally have a section of the article that says they "see Fair Software as an alternative model to the free and open source software model", and they think it's superior because the "developers can profit".

Newsflash: the developers usually see fractions of those cents while most of the money goes to the management and shareholders of the company that employs them. Hmm, doesn't seem fair to me.

Also, developers can and do profit from FOSS in many ways, but the most popular models are with commercial support, SaaS offerings, and additional functionality (like providing a web interface, clustering manager or other external piece of the puzzle to solve the problem at scale in enterprise).

Like you said so succinctly: propaganda website to make rug pullers like Elastic and Hashicorp look better.

I host my own to avoid running into timeouts, fairly easy

MRSA infection following hospital admittance for Pneumonia. That shit is serious and way more prevalent than people think, it's just that it usually kills people who are already terminally ill.

Unlikely to be an assassination. But not impossible. Either way, looks very bad.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/glass-lewis-recommends-investors-vote-against-three-boeing-directors-2024-04-30/

The recommendation to shareholders from the independent advisor who proxies Boeing is to vote out several board members who are responsible for safety and QA. Crazy to see at a Fortune 100.

Accurate, but not bad, yes. It turns out standardized base systems and ABIs are important to an ecosystem.

Linux tried the disorganized free-for-all for two decades, and what we got was fragmented "Ubuntu admins", "debian admins", "redhat admins", "suse admins", and a whole shitload of duplicated effort in the packaging ecosystem, only for half the packages out there to be locked to Ubuntu or RHEL. So the corporate interests, and a fair number of the community efforts, centralized their problems and solutions into a small standardized suite in Mesa+Wayland+systemd+Pipewire+flatpak, etc

The result is a ton more interoperability, a truly open ecosystem where switching your distro doesn't mean hiring different people and using different software, and a lot more stability and maturity.

And hey, if a user or distro wants to do their own thing, they can make and own their niche, same as before. Nothing lost.

It's been kind of wild to watch over the past 15 years or so, makes me very hopeful for the next 15.

No no you don't understand. The evil corporate overlords abused their power to force a choice on a developer, even though that choice was objectively the right choice and the developer was throwing a tantrum.

This is truly awful. We must not let evil corporations, no matter their credentials, expertise, and decades of beneficial partnership with open source, tell immature and short sighted developers how to develop.

Quad9

Yes, this in particular is something they need to bring the hammer down on now before others see this as a valid strategy. After the first 10s penalty he was out of the points and obviously consciously decided that if he was out any way, more penalities wouldn't sting as much as his team bringing home another zero point weekend.

It was egregious and unsportsmanlike. And I say this as someone who generally likes KMag.

I use FreshRSS. Can't say I love the interface, but with the open and standardized API, there are dozens of beautiful front ends to choose on any device.

For real? Damn it that's going to be painful.

If you're trying to use it as a workstation or a laptop, you won't find much compelling. It's built with the intent to act as a server. In fact, as a web server or networking server it's second to none.

Administrating BSD is lovely. It's well documented and everything is very stable, understandable, and predictable.

“We had a huge chunk of our engineering staff spending time improving FreeBSD as opposed to working on features and functionalities. What’s happened now with the transition to having a Debian basis, the people I used to have 90 percent of their time working on FreeBSD, they’re working on ZFS features now … That’s what I want to see; value add for everybody versus sitting around, implementing something Linux had a years ago. And trying to maintain or backport, or just deal with something that you just didn’t get out of box on FreeBSD.”

I still hold much love for FreeBSD, but this is very much indicative of my experience with it as well. The tooling in FreeBSD, specifically dtrace, bhyve, jails, and zfs was absolutely killer while Linux was still experiencing teething problems with a nonstandard myriad of half developed and documented tools. But Linux has since then matured, adopted, and standardized. And the strength of the community is second to none.

They'll be happier with Linux.

I was actually surprised to find out QUIC is fairly close to being default.

Wikipedia

HTTP/3 uses QUIC, a multiplexed transport protocol built on UDP.

HTTP/3 is (at least partially) supported by 97% of tracked web browser installations (thereof of 98% of "tracked mobile" web browsers), and 29% of the top 10 million websites.

Thank you! I was like, where are the supporting vertebrates?

You found one video supporting your viewpoint. Kaspersky's role in Russian intelligence has been an open secret since the mid 2010s. This is Facebook Anti-Vaxxer "research" methodology.

No, I'm not conflating "a" with "b". I'm using stability exactly as it's used in physics.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/CollegePhysics/CollegePhysics1e(OpenStax)/09%3AStaticsandTorque/9.03%3AStability

My point is, it's a completely valid use of the word. And yes, so is reliable, though I think "reliable" fails to capture the essence of the system changing but maintaining it's state, hence why we don't study "reliable systems" in physics.

I recommend picking something else to be pedantic about.

Amazingly, for someone so eager to give a lesson in linguistics, you managed to ignore literal definitions of the words in question and entirely skip relevant information in my (quite short) reply.

Both are widely used in that context. Language is like that.

Further, the textbook definition of Stability-

the quality, state, or degree of being stable: such as

a: the strength to stand or endure : firmness

b: the property of a body that causes it when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion to develop forces or moments that restore the original condition

c: resistance to chemical change or to physical disintegration

Pay particular attention to "b".

The state of my system is "running". Something changes. If the system doesn't continue to be state "running", the system is unstable BY TEXTBOOK DEFINITION.

Both are widely used in that context. Language is like that.