Ding Ding Ding!

The correct answer.

/thread

God-bothering won't save you.

There is literally nothing you can imagine that would actually do more to correct income inequality in the US than decoupling from China and other bottom dollar manufacturing hubs.

An artifact of euphemistic language. As opposed to euphemisation: the employment of euphemisms. That's how I'd define it, anyhow.

Actually creating euphemisms? You have me there. There is "bowdlerization," but I don't feel that quite captures what you likely mean.

Yep.

"I am your vengeance."

member?

Thing is, he is avenging. There is a great deal to be vengeful about. And that's your fault. You hurt a lot of people for a long time, and now we are here.

Also, it's not going to get better, for you or I. That's not how this works.

Yes.

And then I thought about it, and researched it. Pretty good neologism, I think. I'm the first to use it, as far as I can tell. I've concluded that it's apt and pithy, and I'm astonished that it's never appeared before.

Academic euphemory for: The shit we peddle doesn't mean anything to anyone.

That's exactly what is happening.

Has your preferred news feeds been telling you Trump is rounding up illegals by the boat load? He isn't. They're going after criminals and activists, mostly.

Ackchyually...

The "suckers" don't care about the price of Japanese cameras. If they want to photograph something they use their smartphones, and those are exempt from tariffs. The only people that care about the price of Japanese cameras are people with lots of disposable income: generally la la land types that think gender confusion is the most important thing in the history of our species.

That mentality right there is the problem. 99.99% of Russians need to feel the pain their strong man is causing others, and change their fucking ways. If 99.99% of Russian want to receive the respect they somehow think they're entitled to, they have to stop Putin. If they could do this before we have to fire nukes at them all, That Would Be Great.

Until then, fuck Russians.

I don't, and I said as much. You don't either. You, meaning all of you.

Someone pointed out that Linux was well established and in the lead among the open source operating systems at the time Oracle decided to adopt Linux as an officially supported platform. That's true, so it isn't a open and shut case at all.

Back then though, FreeBSD had enough following that had Oracle picked FreeBSD instead, and perhaps made an OracleBSD (as they've done with their own Linux distro since,) where would we be now? They could have merged ZFS with no license friction at all. They could have made a free but closed source operating system and all the cost benefits would have still have applied for end users: a zero cost license on commodity X86(-64) hardware.

But that didn't happen, and I still wonder why.

I can't emphasize enough how important Oracle was to Linux, however. Before Oracle, Linux was a non-entity for a lot of people controlling corporate budgets. After Oracle, even if some enterprise wasn't actually running Oracle, Linux became a legitimate choice for many applications. And if they were running Oracle, then a whole world of commodity X86 hardware suddenly became viable. At the time, the only way to run officially supported Oracle on commodity hardware was to use some version of Microsoft NT.

Oracle made it possible to question managers about the costly stacks of "proprietary" UNIX platforms from Sun, HP, Digital, etc., without looking to Microsoft. Other major software vendors followed Oracle's lead to Linux as well. One of the most despised and contemptable software companies in the world made a game changing contribution to Linux. That part I know with certainty. I was there and I watched it happen. I watched Ellison in-person on a stage in San Francisco as he talked up Linux, and Oracle — running on cheap Dell server hardware — was demoed. That opened a lot of eyes, and thousands of IT people went back to their jobs across the US with Linux as a option for their problems.

There is a great deal of BSD/MIT/FreeBSD-alike licensed open source to which people and organizations contribute in various forms. OpenSSH, PostgreSQL, LLVM/Clang, X.Org, Wayland and many others come to mind.

Since your premise is flawed, I can't accept your attribution as to why Linux "won."

That makes me ask why Linux has indeed won. I can't answer that. If you put a gun to my head, I can cite at least one thing I know really mattered, and I don't think you're going to like it. Back in the day, when FreeBSD and Linux and the other open source BSDs were all capturing mind share and growing rapidly, something extraordinary happened. That something was Oracle.

The day Oracle blessed Linux as an officially supported OS, everything changed in the IT business world. It really did. It made hardware vendors reconsider their indifference toward Linux. It made PHBs think about the cost of their UNIX licenses. It legitimized Linux at a fundamental level.

Its still odd to me that Oracle made that choice. The first time I ever ran Oracle on a non-commercial OS, it was on FreeBSD, because FreeBSD had (has?) an SVR4 compatibility layer. That feature meant it was possible to run the X86 Solaris version of Oracle, and it actually worked.

If that's not enough and the gun is still at my head, I'd say it was the development eco-system. Linux was, then, less rigorous in what could be merged and from whom. Linux was able to adapt to more platforms more quickly, and drivers were more complete.