I remember when IBM, SGI, Infornix, Oracle, and HP first got involved in Linux. At the time, I included patches from some of them in the Functionally Overloaded Linux Kernel.
I proposed, back then, a simple league table for commercial support of Linux: Every new major feature or software product got so many points, and every bugfix release got a smaller number of points. Kernel features that made it into the mainstream kernel would qualify as goals for, kernel features and products discontinued were goals against. Closed-source contributions got half points, and were also considered goals against.
It would then be obvious which companies were serious and which were piggybacking, and it would also be clear who understood the philosophy, not just the opportunity.
Such a table would have ensured that nobody forgot the companies who contributed. Quite the opposite. There'd be an incentive to encourage the team you supported to improve position in the table.
Of course, no such league table ever happened. I could have maintained such a table without difficulty, but it would require the vendors to openly say what they'd contributed. I couldn't invent one out of thin air.
So I'd say Oracle has to look at themselves, not just the Linux community.
It's possible to conjecture - we know it collided with something massive, so if said body contained very limited radioactive materials, one might expect this to reduce the radioactivity per unit mass.
Is this the answer? Probably not, but it's good enough (I think) to argue that a simple answer is possible.
Being compensated for it means it wonâ(TM)t get wasted and will always have a fair valuation.
Compensation is as cooperative as it comes because nobody can hoard it.
Because capitalism!
Well, here we are.
I was wrong, Erik S. Raymond and you were right.
Imagine a student, Sarah, eager to dive into her digital textbook for a
crucial exam. She opens her laptop, clicks on the textbook file, and is met with a stark message: "Access Denied.
Administrative privileges required." Sarah doesn't have the root password to her own computer- a device she paid for, uses daily, and relies on for her education. The software controlling her system locks her out, treating her not as the owner but as a mere user with limited permissions. This scenario isn't just frustrating; it's a stark illustration of why free software - software that grants users the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute it - is essential in a world increasingly dependent on technology.Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, ensures four essential freedoms: to run the software for any purpose (Freedom 0), to study and modify its source code (Freedom 1), to redistribute copies (Freedom 2), and to distribute modified versions (Freedom 3). These freedoms empower users like Sarah to control their own devices, ensuring they are not at the mercy of proprietary software vendors who restrict access and functionality. Sarah's inability to access her textbook stems from proprietary software that demands a root password she doesn't have, a deliberate design choice that prioritizes corporate control over user autonomy.Proprietary software, like that on Sarah's computer, often locks users out of their own systems. Manufacturers and software companies enforce restrictions through closed-source code, digital rights management (DRM), and administrative barriers, such as requiring root passwords that only the vendor controls. In Sarah's case, the textbook file might be encrypted with DRM, and the operating system- proprietary and opaque - prevents her from bypassing it without administrative access. This isn't just a technical issue; it's a power imbalance. The vendor decides what Sarah can do with her own device, undermining her ability to learn and engage with her education.Contrast this with free software. If Sarah's computer ran a free operating system like GNU/Linux (e.g., Ubuntu or Debian), she would have full access to the system's source code and administrative functions. With root access by default or the ability to set her own password, she could install tools to open her textbook, bypass DRM (if legally permissible), or even modify the software to suit her needs. Free software respects her as the owner of her device, granting her the autonomy to troubleshoot and adapt her tools without external gatekeepers. For a student, this means the difference between studying for an exam and being locked out of critical resources.The broader implications of this scenario extend beyond Sarah's textbook. Proprietary software often restricts access to knowledge, perpetuating inequality. Students in underfunded schools or developing regions, who may rely on older or second-hand devices, are particularly vulnerable. Proprietary systems may require expensive licenses, updates, or specific hardware, creating barriers to education. Free software, by contrast, is typically free of cost and runs on a wide range of hardware, making it accessible to diverse users. Projects like LibreOffice (a free alternative to Microsoft Office) or Calibre (for managing e-books) ensure that students like Sarah can access and study materials without financial or technical barriers.Moreover, free software fosters transparency and trust. With proprietary software, Sarah has no way to know what her computer is doing behind the scenes - whether it's enforcing DRM, collecting her data, or limiting her access intentionally. Free software's open-source nature allows anyone to inspect the code, ensuring no hidden restrictions or surveillance. This transparency is critical in education, where students should focus on learning, not navigating artificial barriers imposed by software vendors.Critics of free software might argue that proprietary systems offer better support, security, or user-friendliness. However, Sarah's case shows how proprietary software can fail users by design. While companies claim their restrictions protect intellectual property or ensure stability, they often prioritize profit over functionality. Free software, supported by global communities of developers, provides robust alternatives. Distributions like Ubuntu offer user-friendly interfaces, and security updates are often faster than those for proprietary systems, as seen with Linux's rapid patch cycles compared to some commercial software.Sarah's predicament also highlights a moral issue: why should anyone be denied control over a device they own? Free software aligns with the principle that technology should serve its users, not control them. By adopting free software, individuals and institutions can reclaim autonomy, reduce costs, and promote equitable access to knowledge. Schools, for instance, could install free operating systems like Linux Mint on student devices, ensuring no one is locked out of learning due to a missing root password.Free software levels the playing field. For students like Sarah, access to resources like the Free Software Foundation (fsf.org) or the GNU Project (gnu.org) provides not just tools but a philosophy of empowerment. By installing a free operating system like Ubuntu (ubuntu.com), Sarah could gain root access to her computer, bypassing the proprietary restrictions that demand a password she doesn't have. She could use open-source tools like Calibre to manage her digital textbooks or LibreOffice to access educational materials in open formats, free from DRM locks (eff.org/issues/drm). These resources, freely available and community-driven, ensure that no student is denied knowledge due to artificial barriers.Proprietary software, by contrast, perpetuates a cycle of dependency. Sarah's locked textbook is a symptom of a system where companies prioritize profit over access, using root passwords and closed code to control users. This isn't just about one student - it's about millions who face similar barriers, from rural schools to developing nations. Free software offers a solution: it's cost-free, adaptable, and community-supported, ensuring that education remains a right, not a privilege gated by corporate keys
.The choice is clear. Free software empowers users to own their technology, access their resources, and shape their futures.
For Sarah, it means opening her textbook and acing her exam.
For society, it means a world where knowledge is truly free.
It has never worked in any empire, it has never worked in any software development team, it has never worked in any rock or metal band. I see very very little reason for saying there "should" be a power struggle, that always ends badly with no exceptions in any domain. C++ has never been in the kernel, so it's hard to see how Rust could defeat it there. Rust is unlikely to replace C because they do different things well - if the Linux devs have half the intelligence they seem to, there will be a natural federation.
And that is the key concept. Linux is, by its very nature, a federated OS kernel, many teams working in their territory but cooperating with other teams working in other territories through a central "government" that happens to have a hereditary god as head of the state machine.
The problem there is that the BSD folk did that, once William Jolitz quit, and found that people followed a very large number of different groups, to the point where none of the BSDs really progressed the way they could, and perhaps should, have done. The scene splintered. One of the most rock-solid, reliable Unix kernels ever devised has, to put it bluntly, not died (despite Netcraft confirming it) but seriously dwindled into a small niche.
You've got to remember, 386BSD came out a year or so before Linux and had X11 running on it by version 0.1 because essentially all the major challenges had already been overcome. It was THE OS to use, for a long time, for most serious geeks, although numbers were seriously cut into when Manchester Regional Computing Centre produced what was possibly the very first Linux distro, using Shoestring as the bootstrap. The MCC distro was easy to install - far easier than any BSD - and although it couldn't do much, it did turn heads. Further, Linux was gelling around a standard framework, whilst BSD by that time was starting to fragment and bicker.
My great fear is that, when Linus finally stops running the show, Linux will suffer much the same fate. There's a LOT of highly-strung egos involved, and a LOT of very rich companies who would far far prefer Linux to be owned solely by them.
*tries to think, but his head explodes from the sheer number of counter-examples.
If I was an investor, I'd be mad at the guy I gave money to for admitting I invested my money in a whole lot of hot air.
Then again, if I was investing in this idiocy, I'd deserve everything I'd get...
I watch Jeopardy at 1.5x on my DVR, it not only takes less time (combined with skipping commercials), but makes it more challenging too.
Most Youtube videos I watch at 1.25x, regular speed is usually "just wrong" slow. But I'll go up to 1.5x depending on the speaker and how long the video is. I don't like to go faster than that, I'd rather start skipping around 5 sec at a time with the arrow keys.
I've even used 0.75x on videos in Japanese, and I can read it well enough that the captions help too.
There are plenty of AIs that can give medical advice, with the proviso that they're giving that advice to a medical professional, and in a very narrow field for which they're trained (e.g. medical imaging to identify artefacts on images that are of interest, or in planning to contour radiation dose delivery etc.).
There are no generalised AIs out there that offer General Practitioner level medical advice that I'm aware of though, and certainly not licensed to do so (which was what I suspect you were getting at).
I really really wood knot want to corner on wooden wheels. They'd turn to Ash and would be a Birch to fix.
Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. -- Bertrand Russell
