No matter how good he is -- he would have had to been fired by almost all companies out there.

Being bluntly honest about that code does or does not live up to standard is not the problem -- just keep it professional. Just eliminate the gratuitous BS that he is known for. Also if it is not up to standard, make it constructive.

I have worked for bought out companies and companies that had leadership changes that were internal and transitional -- they are completely different cases.

When one company is bought out the changes often are more jarring -- especially when one company buying out another company has a different culture. You are merging two companies -- and potentially changing leadership at the same time (leadership that does not know everyone). Leadership transitions from owner/creator to the next generation (of a mature company - which Apple is) from inside the company -- tends to be a slow change. This person is trying to make it look like it is Jeckyll and Hyde -- sounds to me more of a person that felt entitled just because, and is trying to take his revenge and get a little money at the same time. The only thing he will do is destroy his own reputation and marketability.

Tinfoil hat time, maybe they or the government (to which they are beholden to) want access to scan your hard drive and the move towards encrypting file systems is getting in the way... so this is a way to encourage ext4 unencrypted only :o

It seems like a simple contract dispute, the merger was approved on an agreement with Charter with regards to certain obligations. Charter did not meet it's obligations under the agreement, it failed to rectify them after being given time... so the agreement is null and void. I don't see it as much of an issue for the Supreme Court.

I am sort of on the fence on this one but I do believe some of the practices of Google have to change. EU anti-trust laws are there to protect competition - which is slightly different than the US. And in the EU Google is dominant in Android AND search. If you sell an "Android Phone" you are contractually unable to sell a competing phone distribution. You are required to install all the google apps and the play store. Even without all the apps installed, and 'play store' Google still makes a considerable amount of money from the app (they don't pay Apple 3 billion dollars a year to be the default search engine for nothing). Basically, they are doing EXACTLY what Microsoft -- and got whacked by the US government for back when they were dominant in everything. When you are not dominant you can get away with that, when you are - you have to make adjustments. Google can make rather minor changes to comply with the ruling and they will still be dominant.

From the very beginning... Linux (the kernel) was conceived as a UNIX clone...

Linus:

---- my .plan ----
Free UNIX for the 386 - coming 4QR 91 or 1QR 92.

The current version of linux is 0.11 - it has most things a unix kernel
needs, and will probably be released as 1.0 as soon as it gets a little
more testing, and we can get a init/login going. Currently you get
dumped into a shell as root upon bootup.

-- End --

All the "utilities" that sit on top of the "Linux kernel" are gnu based utilities that predate Linux etc. This was not an accident.

So basically there is a proposal to dump existing terminal utilities that are cross-platform and create custom Linux utilities - then get rid of the existing functionality? That would be moronic! I already go nuts remoting into a windows platform and then an AIX and Linux platform and having different command line utilities / directory separators / etc. Adding yet another difference between my Linux and macOS/AIX terminals would absolutely drive me bonkers!

I have no problem with updating or rewriting or adding functionalities to existing utilities (for all 'nix platforms), but creating a yet another incompatible platform would be crazily annoying.

(not a sys admin, just a dev who has to deal with multiple different server platforms)

Patents themselves are a government-issued monopoly to protect the companies from having to compete with others using the results of research without remuneration. It is an invention to try to encourage companies into research and costly development - with the promise that they will have a monopoly for a period of time.

What the government issues, they can revoke if they believe that it was issued in error.

I may have used the wrong words. It is not a government organization, it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech. There are a few non-discriminatory laws that you must abide by, but other than that YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.

BS! You only need that type of organization if you are supporting a large company. Many small video podcasters hosters host their own shows (some dual host with youtube). All a portal is a website on a hosted machine with video. Of course, you have to go out and get your own sponsors (TWiT.tv does this - it is growing). If you are small you don't need all that. If you go through another organization or individual's marketplace then you have to abide by their rules (and some of those could be arbitrary). Youtube just makes it easy to do because you can do it with nothing. You could probably do a cutdown version even in something like Wordpress. There are some much smaller than TWiT who do the same thing so that they have content control and can get their own advertisers.

This is a private business (Youtube) and they have every right to downrank or remove content that they feel is damaging to their brand. If you feel hard done by -- create your own content portal or find another one that feels you are a good fit. They are not entitled to serve as a platform for anyone that they don't feel fits their brand (with the exception of equality laws like discrimination based on gender or race).

There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand. Obviously the shooter fell into that category. Advertisers do not appreciate advertising on videos that would potentially damage their brand. Youtube has every right to downgrade or remove stuff that is damaging to their business. If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).

Having everyone a "full stack" developer does not necessarily benefit or favour the employer. All developers have strengths and weaknesses - and more experience doing one or the other... The natural extension of that is that those that have a strength in server work doing primarily UI work or vice-versa -- will be less efficient than someone whose strength lies on that side. A small employer could benefit from having a backup (even if less efficient) -- being able to step into doing the work that he is less efficient at (better than having no-one). A large employer will benefit from having a pool of senior developers that have full understanding of both sides (as to be able to settle disputes in the best interest of the customer)... But absolutely requiring everyone to be a full stack developer doing both in a large shop is not necessarily the best as far as cost.

Yes, there are full stack developers but as with any developer they may know how to code the full stack -- but they will typically be substantially stronger as a server/ messaging / or UI developer and thus much weaker on the other side. It is always better to have people that have a full understanding and the ability to step in if required (especially as you become more senior) of the full stack. If you have people that are purely silo developers - then you will often get into situations where your UI developer wants the server to take responsibility and your server thinks it is too frivolous for them and should be done in the UI.

Oh, and that does not include the debt they have to roll over on maturity... (more supply).