I don't know if that's a fair reading of the functionality. It seems likely your mistakenly pasted password will generate an autocomplete and the (mis-)matched "spec" command will be sent as the telemetry, e.g., pasting "gi)#(RCS23!_)(U" into your terminal might result in "git" telemetry, not the password itself.
It's one of those things that is just trivial to introduce breaking changes to, though, intentionally or otherwise. And as-is the functionality does share what amounts to the terminal activity in normal cases.
And millions of animal species occupying thousands of ecological niches are being replaced by 10 species across the planet: humans, the animals that humans eat, and the animals humans keep as pets. Even if the quantity of biomass is relatively constant, I think we can all agree that a planet with only humans and cows and chickens is a pretty bleak outcome.
I expect the endgame here is the whole planet is a managed park. We'll still keep Yellowstone and Serengeti looking as is, but there won't be any true wilderness.
There is nothing unsustainable about this, but I agree that it is quite dull.
They're doing the fun part (coding) for free. It's well-known that developers don't like writing documentation (esp "properly" which is ill-defined and for some definitions can be a much larger task than writing the code in the first place); in fact, does anyone enjoy writing docs as much as an engineer enjoys writing code?
So this makes total sense to me. As a user of free software, you can choose: a) pay for a commercial package with comes with docs; b) use free software, and pay for the docs in the form of a book (perhaps waiting a few years until lots of people want to do the same); c) use free software and figure it out from breadcrumbs the developer left in whatever forums they use; d) (c) but then step up and write some docs.
Too many people think that free/libre software is supposed to be like commercial software, only better, but it's not the case. It's definitely better in the "libre" way, and of course cheaper in the "price" way, but it's usually not packaged for easy consumption, nor is the developer going to do a bunch of work they don't enjoy for other people who don't want to pay them for it.
> Too many people think that free/libre software is supposed to be like commercial software, only better, but it's not the case.
"It's free so shut up" only works if being free has no consequences. Software is all social, and we pretend that it isn't. Cutting the legs out from underneath commercial software has consequences. Crowding a headspace with entrants has consequences for the next person considering doing the same thing. Implying you have something worth other people's time to look at has consequences.
You figure out how to solve all of those problems and you can be above reproach. Until then, if you can't do it moderately right, then don't do it at all (or keep it to yourself).
> people could make money from those who didn't like free.
Does GPL ever work this way? In practice, GPL discourages corporate (=widespread) adoption, driving down the quality of open-source software, and creating the market for paid closed-source software (which is often worse than open-source software, but packaged better). I'd love to see cases where a GPL-dev successfully negotiates a reasonable "cost-plus" arrangement with a company for a non-free license.
My org is currently evaluating several PDF generation (as well as general BI reporting software) solutions. Several of the options we're considering offer a free AGPL version and a paid commercial version. AGPL is a deal breaker for several members of my team (though not for me) so they would prefer the paid versions of the AGPL software.
So at least in my experience, yes dual-licensing can work
> In practice, GPL discourages corporate (=widespread) adoption, driving down the quality of open-source software
On the contrary, GPL tends to be associated with software from the era that predates the new "social coding" phenomenon. The tendency of folks whose first contact with OSS was GitHub and who are most likely to choose the MIT License usually give us brittle, highly niche devops boondoggle that is the byproduct of their responsibilities at their dayjob and that gets abandoned a couple years after being pushed out to GitHub (when the creator realizes the futility of trying to convince other programmers churning out corporate boondoggle that they or their company should pay the creator for their contribution to the mudpie).
and i believe this is because most GPL software doesn't provide enough value over the cost. But for MIT style licenses, there is zero cost, and thus, adoption must be high by the laws of supply/demand!
In other words, the excess value provided by the software under an MIT license is extracted and kept by the corporations using it. GPL licenses forces some sort of non-monetary compensation in the form of contributions, and thus, the corp cannot extract and retain the full value of the software (and hence, they correctly decide to make a cost/benefit analysis, and choose the most profitable decision).
> GPL licenses forces some sort of non-monetary compensation in the form of contributions, and thus, the corp cannot extract and retain the full value of the software
No, this is false.
- You can use a GPL library without making changes and contributing anything upstream
- You can use a GPL library internally and make changes without contributing anything upstream
- You can use a GPL library, make changes and distribute it to 3rd parties and, only in that case, you simply have to share the changes with the 3rd parties. [Not with upstream]
> You can use a GPL library without making changes and contributing anything upstream
which is fine - your usage of GPL software doesn't affect anyone else. If you decide to charge for it, that's OK too - since if the market exists for such software, the price would equalize to the break-even point of the cost of production.
> You can use a GPL library internally and make changes without contributing anything upstream
If it's "internal", aka, not visible to the outside world, then that's fine too. There's no effect from anyone else's perspective.
> You can use a GPL library, make changes ... share the changes with the 3rd parties
This is the point i was trying to make - in this case, where you make changes, you have to share it. Even tho it's just the 3rd party, this 3rd party has the right to distribute these changes. And anyone that has access to the software is also the 3r party.
So, in other words, if you have visible effects to the outside world with your (changed) GPL software, you are effectively bound to contribute those changes for free, or relicense with the owner to hide those changes.
I have never worked at an organization that does not use GPL software in some way. It discourages shipping GPL components/dependencies in binaries which is the whole point of the license.
> A cloaca is the posterior orifice that serves as the only opening for the digestive, reproductive, and urinary tracts of many vertebrate animals.
> All amphibians, reptiles, birds, and a few mammals have this orifice, from which they excrete both urine and feces.
> Mating through the cloaca is known as cloacal copulation, commonly referred to as cloacal kiss.
> The cloacal region is also often associated with a secretory organ, the cloacal gland, which has been implicated in the scent-marking behavior of some reptiles, marsupials, amphibians, and monotremes.
Generally these rules are institutional policy which are there for legal or security reasons. In a 1000-person organization, preventing 990 of them from installing malware is more important than allowing 10 of them to be more productive. A middle-manager does not have the ability to change that policy.
That might be, but extrapolating a few anecdotes about demand pressure (e.g., increased purchases of beds) all of which seem to be related to short term disruption caused by the pandemic, into a story about inflation seems a little sensational.
Human psychology is a thing. If you point a team at a growing pile of bugs that no one has wrapped their head around, then the team will feel demoralized, overwhelmed, and unmotivated. But if someone does wrangle the bug list and produce a plan and strategy for tackling them, then there is hope and mission and maybe you can even get buyin from management for more resources--maybe not headcount, but even just easing the roadmap for a year in pursuit of Quality.
The difference between "nobody has gone through this entire list" and "somebody has gone through this entire list" is huge.
No, it's like raising a baby using advice your parents wrote down for you because they were parenting remotely. "Peer review" is your stepdad quickly skimming through your mom's PR and saying 'sure looks good'.
