Re: Misses the point
I'm not sure. The millions offer is coming from slick and determined salesmen who have nothing else to sell to make their quotas, the offers from mere punters.
42500 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"When marketeers understand how the internet works and where their budgets really go, that's when advertising will improve."
The advertising industry will work tirelessly to prevent this. Advertising is the only thing it sells and it will obfuscate to prevent the mugs buying it from understanding. The only thing that helps is blocking.
The entire online advertising industry has fouled its nest and will have to live with the consequences.
Bringing willing buyers and willing sellers together. The trouble with "targeted" and almost all other online ads is that the recipient isn't a willing buyer, most of thetime not even an intending buyer. The advertisers are being conned into parting with good money, the recipients are being pissed off and less likely to buy later but the advertising industry is coining it.
"Centos-stream 8 is just rh8.x/centos-8.x with slightly anticipated upgrades in between minor *point* *releases* of the very same OS version.
It will just receive the single updates when they're ready and stable, instead of having to wait for the next all-encompassing point release."
You make it sound somewhat like Debian Testing vs Debian Stable. However, the people using Debian Testing are making a deliberate choice to run Testing for one reason or another (I've done that myself on occasion). The people running Centos are doing so because it's exactly the same as the the current stable. Not nearly the same. Exactly the same. Their reasons have been expressed quite clearly in many comments.
Hmm. First post. Is the failure to understand the one famously explained by Upton Sinclair?
They don't have to like it. Providing they don't use any RH branding and artwork the licence on their source code allows this. That's why there were several previous clones which were abandoned in favour of Centos. It looks like history wll repeat itself.
They can't, by the way, change the licence because the licence came attached to the components they built RHEL from.
Let's try to explain this without your neoliberal/communist bollocks.
FOSS software is licensed by those who write it under some form of licence (there's more than one, almost certainly more than one will be used by various components of a distro) which enables copying. This is not an accident, it's by design. In case you missed that let me repeat it: this is not an accident, it's by design. If you have comprehension difficulties feel free to read that until you understand it.
That has several consequences.
Firstly the material that Red Hat/IBM construct into RHEL will have come from multiple sources. Although they're a major contributor to Linux and to the many other pieces of software in a distro they're only one. Other people's contributions are used. And remember this is not an accident or mistake on the part of those other contributors, they intended this to happen. Also other distro maintainers also pick from the same smorgasbord of FOSS S/W to construct their offerings.
Secondly, Red Hat/IBM offer the source of RHEL for redistribution. They have to - it was the terms on which they themselves used it which require this.
Now if there's anything which you might possibly regard as cummunistic in this it's the offering of work on those terms. You have to shift "communists" not to those "wanting a free ride" but to those providing the "hard graft".
TL;DR You have at arse about face.
"BT's at the time market-shaking acquisition of EE (a similar combo of fixed and mobile businesses) was waved through in early 2016"
It would have been difficult for them to have done otherwise. It just restored BT to the position they were in before the idiot BT management (tautology alert) of the time decided they didn't really want a mobile network & floated O2 off.
Sometimes (presumed) legitimate businesses seem to go out of their way to look suspicious. It certainly makes life easier for the real phishers.
I just ordered a book on eBay. Apart from the normal communications via eBay they've so far sent two completely unnecessary emails from their own domain via a 3rd party mailer with a 4th party non-read reply address. The first is a long email about their T&Cs - bollocks because eBay's T&Cs apply - with a PDF alleged to be a cancellation form. The second contains PDFs alleged to be their invoice and return slip (any returns would be handled by eBay's system). All for a book costing less than 3 quid.
Either this business, which claims to be one of the largest of its kind in Germany, hasn't got the hang of selling via eBay or they too have been got at.
"a non-trivial chunk of the remainder are low-density terraces with potential for parking"
A short distance away is a stretch of 2-300 metres of Victorian housing. No garages at all nor space to build them. There are cars parked on both sides leaving a one-way at a time slot down the middle. If you're lucky there might be a space partway down where two cars can pass. On the whole people cooperate but I'm not sure what autonomous vehicles would do if thrown into the mix. Of course if road works are in place the council insists on TTLs to manage what the rest of us can cope with the rest of the time; they just do it with extra delays.
It's not an urban side-street, it's an A road, albeit a 4-digit one.
"If you were self-supporting then there would be constant, hourly demands as to why it wasn't fixed yet."
In a well-managed business the constant, hourly demands go to somebody who sees it as their job to absorb those calls and keep them away from whoever's doing the work.
In a less-well managed business the reply to "why" is "because I keep answering bloody stupid calls wanting to know why it's not sorted instead of sorting it."
In in ideal world there's be one call - "Let me know when you're finished. If you need anything or anyone gets in your way, call me.".
Start Rescue are much cheaper. Not had to use them yet myself but turned out in an awful rainstorm on the M6 to sort out my daughter's car. I know how bad it was because we were a few miles in front and had to double back to pick up the grandchildren and take them on to Tebay to get dried out.
"in 1999, when it wasn’t the worst imaginable choice for the job"
It might not have been the worst imaginable choice but any choice locking them in to proprietary software should have been seen as bad enough and Microsoft had already nailed its colours to the mast. How many non-backward compatible variations of .doc were in existence by then?
"argued – or tried to – that actually the European Court of Justice had decided wrongly and that everything was fine"
Why can't these people get it into their heads that it doesn't matter whether they like it? It doesn't matter if they think the court didn't get it right. It doesn't even matter if the court didn't get it right if there isn't a higher court to which they can appeal, which in this case there isn't. The court has ruled on what the law says and that's that.
That would require that security experts join FOSS projects.
The survey suggested that half the people working on such projects are actually paid to do so. The employers sponsoring them might usefully consider seconding any such specialists they have on their staff to spend some time doing this. However some such companies may only be contributing to the extent that specific features of the project benefit them and may be reluctant to pay for something that benefits the project as a whole - including other contributors who may be commercial rivals.
Other projects which can be quite critical to the whole FOSS "ecosystem" have turned out to have very few contributors and generally run on something less than a show-string with no commercial support. That needs some external foundation to step up to support them.
I'd go a step further. The average member of the pulic doesn't want security because it would make the product more difficult to use. Security generally gets traded off for something - convenience, performance, cost, whatever. Right up to the time it becomes obvious it shouldn't have been.
I think whoever suggested the foil was thinking that it would hold the glass together if he bumped into it rather like a laminated windscreen. Before switching to a mirrored plastic I'd take a hammer to a sample to make sure it doesn't shatter too easily. In fact, take professional advice - I'm sure the safety elves must have looked at this.