Re: what's the biggest different in data privacy/security between UK and EU?
"The EU actually bothers to enforce the rules."
The EU will continue to have rules.
42400 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I'm retired. I no longer run a business. However if I were running a business I might have had to reconsider location. And if I were an employee of a business that depended on trade with the EU and relied on an adequacy situation I'd be very worried indeed. I'm old enough that I can probably see out my time here without too much personal inconvenience.
My children and grandchildren have dual citizenship (as will have any future great grandchildren) so they have a degree of flexibility.
Brexit was always obviously a matter of removing citizens' rights wrapped up in jingoism and the deliberately misleading* slogan of taking back control. There's not the least surprise in all this going on. It may benefit a few big businesses in the short to medium term. In the long term it will be more and more difficult for them to squeeze profits from the UK.
* In case you still believed that was to benefit you, take a moment to think who it was who was going to get - and has now got - control and what that control achieved. It wasn't and isn't you and it was to provide protection for the individual.
"I wasn't referring to Horizon when talking about the UE trying to punish Britain for leaving."
So you were OT? I know el Reg threads are apt to drift OT. Drift, not take a speedboat.
"I was talking about all the other stuff, which I don't think we need to regurgitate."
In the circumstances it's a bit difficult to work out just what you were talking about.
All the red tape now involved in exports to and imports from the EU? That was there previously. We were inside the red tape envelope previously. We* moved outside. We're now treated exactly the same as non-EU countries always were. Lots of us said it would happen. If its a punishment it's a self-inflicted one.
The ongoing problem with NI? Again, very predictable. The Good Friday agreement required a soft border between NI and the Republic. This was accomplished by NI, as part of the UK, and RI both being in a customs union as part of the EU. The Union (it's signified by the U in UK) required no trade barriers between GB & NI. Those requirements were mutually compatible. So along comes Brexit proposing to remove the UK from the customs union. That created a situation which could not be compatible with both the other two so we have an unstable fudge.
Or were you talking about some other equally foreseeable, self-inflicted consequence of no longer being in the EU for which you which to blame the EU because it's embarrassingly inconvenient to blame the lack of exercise of foresight by leavers. If you were a leaver and now don't like the consequences you have no cause to complain; those of us who weren't have every reason to - about the leavers.
* Some of us unwillingly, of course.
"300km is 185 miles, so at least 2.5 hours - which is definitely comfort break territory, and that usually takes quite a few minutes."
There's a couple of further requirement to add to that - there needs to be a vacant charging point available when you stop for that break and the price of the charge doesn't exploit the monopoly situation of a motorway service station.
Your journey that gets broken after 185 miles is probably largely on the motorway. If you're going to get your 80% charge over the period of a typical motorway stop you'll need to be able to park next to a charging point. In order for that to happen once pure EVs form the bulk of the fleet most if not all of the spaces in a motorway car park will need to have chargers. What's more the overall power feed to the service station is going to have to support all those chargers in use - if not the current is going to have to be limited at each charger and you're not going to get your 80% charge. What's the investment needed to get to that point and when is it going to happen.
As far as I can manage it I always arrange long journeys so as not to have to buy petrol at motorway service stations because of the prices. That's usually feasible. Having to break a long journey to recharge means that using motorway chargers would be almost inevitable. It will take strong price controls to stop them getting their hands in our pockets right up to the shoulder. Hybrids migth go some way to keeping them honest.
"I don't know if our reporter here has had many jobs, but I can guarantee that working extra hours will almost never earn you a pay rise or promotion either, but now you've wasted half your life working extra hard for no benefit."
I think you're confusing being present with working. The idea of quiet quitting is to do one without the other.
As I said above, even ignoring immigration our population has increased because we're living longer but birth rates are falling. That means that the demand for services increases whilst the population supplying those services is shrinking (extending retirement age is unpopular). Household numbers are also increasing because there are more adults living singly.
Whatever your political inclinations those are the demographic trends you have to work with.
What's your solution to balancing those supply and demand factors?
"Perhaps we have issues with NHS, schools and pretty much everything because our population has increased faster than the services? Perhaps cost of living has increased due to the demand for housing, due to the population increasing faster than the housing stock."
You're looking at an issue which has a lot of dimensions to it. Population is increasing partly because we're living longer, something which I personally can only approve of. It's the ageing end of the population which has increased demand for NHS services.
Increased demand for housing stock is partly due to more people living singly, either not forming relationships or those relationships breaking up so there are more but smaller households.
The increased number of singletons, and the smaller family sizes for those having children means that the birth rate has been low for some time and is now actually below replacement rate so that there are fewer locally-born recruits to provide services - including staffing the NHS and it certainly hasn't helped that we haven't been training enough staff for the NHS for years.
"As we recently described, Red Hat goes to extreme lengths to keep old kernels supported and secure."
My takeaway from that talk was that it was about the hoops external contributors had to go through and the testing RH would perform to get external submissions into the long-term supported kernels. The contributors may have been upstream recent kernel contributions to be back-ported or third parties (?H/W vendors) wanting to get things in. Unless I missed something - possible as I found the delivery extremely soporific - there was nothing there about RH providing their own additions.
"can we expect a license change to the Linux kernel along with the multitude of other upstream components Red Hat uses forcing them to make their source code freely available if they want to make use of any future release?"
The Linux kernel has, over the years, had a large number of contributors. All have contributed under GPL2. In order to change it all those contributors would have to be contacted and their consent obtained. Some will not have been on contact with the kernel devs for some time, maybe years, and would have to be traced before they could be contacted. Some will have died and the tracing extended to find their heirs. And some will work for Red Hat. Failing such consent the non-consenting and untraced contributors contributions would have to be replaced. This has been pointed out in every thread relating to this.
Taking all that into account, you tell me - can we expect a licence change?
The copyright owners have rights here. If they think RH are breaking copyright terms then they can take RH to court. Now here's a thing to ponder. There are an awful lot of them. There may even be more of them than RH/IBM have lawyers. What happens if they individually challenge RH? How many fronts can RH fight on?
" If you are using hardware whose vendor only offers drivers for RHEL, or the applications that you need are only supported on RHEL – " then you might be having a bit of a discussion with that vendor right now.
For H/W manufacturers drivers are a necessary means to sell their product, they aren't a product in themselves. If the availability of a say, Debian, driver becomes essential for selling product then a Debian driver will be along in due course. After all, they're both Linux drivers; it's not like they'd be starting from scratch. The reason why there's only RH at the moment is going to be because marketing tell them that's all they needed. Markets can, and do, shift.