"Flutter may fritter away CPU cycles"
I don't think it's alone in this.
40560 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"These seem to have vanished. So we use Excel as the next best thing"
I think you may have swapped cause and effect.
And, of course, all these things are not only possible using FOSS, they're being used daily by "average users" who've been moved over to them by folk hereabouts who got fed up of supporting friends and family on Windows.
"You will never get wide-scale buy in from the business community to use Linux on the Desktop due to the retraining costs and lost productivity every time a bad design decision takes the desktop over a cliff."
Taking the UI of anything, not just the desktop, over a cliff seems to be industry standard procedure yet Windows shops give Microsoft a free pass in this.
"That's what facilities like Dinorwig are for."
Yes, I know. What we need is a supply of old slate mines to build a few more.
There's one local reservoir perched on a hillside with another, bigger one a few hundred feet below that could be used like that although the angling club that uses the upper one might be miffed if their water & fish suddenly drained away.
I also came across an idea for using weights in redundant coal mine shafts in a similar way although I wonder if the total capacity of that would be enough to do any good or even enough to make the installation pay for itself.
Once upon a time computers occupied large rooms. In the early days they needed a good stock of spare valves to be kept on hand. Nowadays you can put a far more powerful one in your pocket. It's called technological development. You may have heard of it. It enables things to be made smaller, better and more reliable.
One of our problems is that the naysayers had their way for a long time. We're now way behind where we should have been in terms of development and in the meantime we've been shoving huge quantities of carbonaceous fossil materials up power-station chimneys for decades so that (a) our descendants won't have those available as non-fuel industrial raw materials when they need them and (b) people are, if you haven't noticed, starting to worry about the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
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.