suitable for 5G, AI, edge computing, AI on the network edge, the metaverse, “and even automobiles.”
Are they telling me it's no good in a laptop?
42649 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"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.
"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.