Posts by Doctor Syntax 33068 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I think the OP's point, however, is that demand can be subject to short peaks. It would need some form of short term storage to cover those. 1% of that million homes homes having an electric kettle switched on at the same time will take up a substantial percentage of the total output.
"Of course, it's in the interests of exactly zero office software suppliers to make this happen."
The solution, as ever, is to make it in their interest. All it would need would be a few large ITTs to specify open standards and working synchronisation across a few specified platforms.
One of the links ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=494520 ) dealt specifically with NASA attempting to release code in a way which they presumably intended to be open but with wording which just didn't fit any existing OSS environment. Looking at the licence quoted in the bug report it seems possible that a BSD-style licence might have met their intentions.
The essence of a BSD licence is that if the code is distributed in source or binary form the copyright notice be distributed with it - included in the source in the first case. The notice also includes the fullest possible disclaimers. That's not a release of copyright restrictions but it is a fairly minimal restriction.
Up to a point. But the BSD licence, for instance, doesn't meet the FSF's definition of the FOSS subset of OSS (which is the definition in the Haiducek et al paper that the article's about). However the supporters of BSD and similar ("permissive") licences will point out that FSF's definition of "free" is encumbered. They define a diferent subset of FOSS. These groups have viewpoints which are, if not exactly orthogonal, looking at freedom from different angles.
What's more the OSS definition isn't enshrined in statute or common law. The nearest it would get to becoming a legal requirement would be inclusion in contracts if required.
Professionally I've come across code which I could view (and even fed back the results of bug-hunting to its creators) but which was still proprietary and not even the whole of the application. I'd have to count that as open, at least to inspection, although in no way would I include it as open in FOSS, OSS, permissive or public domain contexts.
It seems that NASA has the old Github problem of people wishing to "publish" code without realising that "publication" has unavoidable legal requirements. Unless you actually add a licence to your "public" announcements your material is bound by default copyright restrictions.
"The certificates are for testing the signatures inside executables."
OTOH the executable is the same as it was last week. The problem isn't the executable. It's not even certification. It's the expiry date of the certificate. The solution is to either ensure the expiry date is far enough ahead of expected lifetime when the executable's published or have a sufficiently robust system for enabling update to be installed well in advance and also take into account those systems that are not and will not be connected to the internet.
Oh no they're not.
They remember the days, long before .docx and its friends, when they could regularly upsell you new versions of Office. Not because you needed a new version to write stuff, of course. Because anyone who'd updated sent you files your own copy couldn't read.
They want to get back to the old days when they could force you to buy a licence you don't want. And with Windows that licence means buying a new machine if the old one can't update. The H/W vendors, surprise, surprise, aren't objecting to this.
If there's any stupidity involved it's launching this in the midst of a chip shortage throttling H/W production.
"an OS that gets in your face instead of letting you actually get work done"
This. And the thing that's most effective at getting in your face is change for change's sake.
On Linux I can take an hour or so after a new install to tweak things to my chosen standards and then carry on with business as usual. The idea of being not only forced into the vendors One True UI is bad enough but having that changed every few years is appalling. By some judicious choice of Linux distro I can cruise along with underpinnings that reflect nearly 40 years experience of Unix and Unix-like systems and a GUI with a classic look and behaviour that's just subtly evolved over the last 20 years or so. It's driven by what I want to use it for, not a revolving door or UX "experts" or a marketing need to pimp the UI every few years.
"manipulation to persuade businesses to buy better hardware, because they can't implement an operating system that is efficient."
Another explanation is that new hardware means new Windows licences.
The two are far from mutually exclusive. In fact synergistic is probably nearer the mark.
"Ordinary users want something that does what they need,"
So do I. In my case it's mostly local history research nowadays. I tend to have a lot of documents to hand. My Historical Documents folder alone is 10.8G with 783 files in 63 sub-folders and there are usually a good number of files and folders of work in progress on the desktop. An app-based approach isn't going to cut it - you can't navigate that lot with the Recent files... menu. So I use KDE which allows me control over layout of the desktop.
OTOH someone who wants a UI closer to that of their mobile would prefer Ubuntu's Unity desktop. I'd find it completely unusable.
SWMBO also has KDE but the few apps she uses are links on the desktop. It also has NextCloud client sitting there quietly synchronising a folder with my laptop so I can assemble her patchwork notes PDFs for her to email to her class. This works for her.
A couple of other relatives have Zorin which seems a good all-rounder for general users for a browser, office, PDF viewing, etc.
"Latest" sounds like a human assumption which still needs to be verified by the software.
In this case "latest" was the current version, newly downloaded, installed and run. The possible gap for it to have been outdated was minutes. The conclusion has to be that the update checker was comparing against the wrong thing.
How to miss the point in one easy lesson.
Especially if each fork has a different subset of likes and dislikes.
If I have a particular combination of likes and dislikes - I have a choice of alternatives
This or that site doesn't work well with this or that browser - I have a choice of alternatives
And then we have Linux.....
I don't want anybody pottering about with init - I have a choice of alternatives
I don't like Gnome - I have a choice of alternatives
I don't like KDE - I have a choice of alternatives
I don't like apt I have a choice of alternatives
I don't want bleeding edge - I have a choice of alternatives
I do want bleeding edge - I have a choice of alternatives
I have both Waterfox & Palemoon installed. Waterfox has one annoying characteristic. Every time it's started it complains about not being able to update. Of course it can't, I'm not running it as root. The really annoying thing was that I switched to the latest version of Classic and it still complained. I can only assume it was trying to upgrade to the mainstream version which was presumably more recent. I very seldom use it, preferring Palemoon as my second string browser, Seamonkey being my first.
AFAICS the fraudster's benefit of the SIM swap is access to the 2FA number for that part of banking security theatre. However does it help that you don't have a social media account? Have you got a shadow FB account based on what's been siphoned out of the contacts files of people who have your phone number(s)?
"Frankly, none of you have the right to force medical treatment on anyone. It's down to personal choice."
You're quite right. However none of you have the right to go round infecting people with your viruses. So if you choose to stay unvaccinated, just stay at home. If this costs you your job, remember it was your choice.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
