641–650 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think the word "canonical" means what you think it means.
> accepted as being accurate and authoritative. > synonyms: recognized, authoritative, authorized, accepted, sanctioned That's what I meant for it to mean anyway...
How can two different endpoints both be authoritative? What happens if they differ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Said the kid that doesn't remember the SCO-Linux disputes
Alternatively: So freaking old I can't remember something that was still going on last November! https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/appeals-court-ke... The good news is it's nearly time for my spongebath here in Longhorn Vista carehome, and my new nurse is a former Microsoft CEO trying to make ends meet. Nobody had the heart to tell him Google weren't destroyed, so he's been unsuccessfully trying to use Bing…
Your response was great in spite of my snarky comment. Thanks for making the internet a better place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> accepted as being accurate and authoritative. > synonyms: recognized, authoritative, authorized, accepted, sanctioned That's what I meant for it to mean anyway...
In software the "authoritative" aspect of the definition is crucial. How can two different endpoints both be authoritative? What happens if they differ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but he's not immortal. He could get hit by a bus tomorrow. The median CEO in the Fortune 500 lasts only 5 years or so, and he's already in year 4.
Probably want to adjust that metric for stock price ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think Microsoft is handling this really well. What is baffling for me, is how worried some people seem to be. If you understand the Git hosting space, you would know Microsoft tried to compete with GitHub and failed miserably. It is quite clear the value that GitHub provides is data and there is ABSOLUTELY no way Microsoft would want to disturb this. In fact, Bitbucket, GitLab and others should be concerned that…
I'm looking into Bitbucket right now, actually, and "unlimited private repos" is the first selling point listed on their pricing page ( https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing ). What I haven't been able to discover yet is what they charge for public repos, which are all I care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"What if? What if I run an operating system project, IDE project, email client, etc.? MSFT is going to steal or shutdown every type of software that competes with one of their products?" Doesn't add up to me. It doesn't matter. The "what if?" is enough to cause a chilling effect. This will be the effective death of GitHub. I'm certain projects that are all-in on the platform will stick around out of momentum. But ye…
Ridiculous. Please define "anyone" and "major project" and then let's make a bet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose Yes, you can make your own software under any license, GPL has no control over you. But it's not ok to fork a GPL software make internal changes and sell it like you wrote it. If that applied to linux, no hardware vendor would be contributing to linux.
> But it's not ok to fork a GPL software make internal changes and sell it like you wrote it. Not only is that not ok, it's illegal... Who is doing that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask some of the Gnome developers who were around when Nat and Miguel did mono as the open source C# vm and tightly integrated it into gnome over a lot of disquiet what happened next. Nat is a great PR guy, no doubt about that. You may have no issue with his previous behaviour at Gnome when founding Ximian with respect to open source commitments etc. - but you should know about it and decide for yourself.
One of the things I like about HN is that we don't traffic in innuendo. And I don't think this is the right time to begin. If there is something you want to say b/c it's relevant, then say it; if you are afraid to, then share links to the controversy. But to say we should know about something that you can only allude to is not the right way to do this.
It's all there in public, easy to track down if you want to.
I /really/ don't want to summarise it because without a complete understanding of it I will be unfair to someone. It was big and controversial and resulted in serious schisms in the Gnome dev community. Nat and Miguel's company Ximian was bought by Novell who had a software patent deal with microsoft. There was a lot of trepidation over mono because of microsoft's software patents. Miguel de Icaza founded gnome and had those halos. Ximian employed many prominent gnome developers. My understanding is that mono is now not a dependency of Gnome and there was a reasonable amount of rancour about it.
If I post links I'm tacitly endorsing their analysis - which I don't want to do.
With the knowledge that Nat and Miguel essentially spoke as one from being joint founders of Ximian and there wasn't any dissent from other Ximian/Novell employees, useful search strings might something like:
"gnome mono controversy"
"gnome mono patents"
"redhat gnome mono"
I'd also suggest looking for prominent gnome developers from those days and see what they wrote about it in blogs and mailing lists and so on. I think it's entirely reasonable to check someone's reputation, especially when they advance it. The fact that you can and it might well check out as honest, solid, trustworthy and that they are a person of integrity is really, positive. Please note how careful I am being to refrain from besmirching anyone's reputation here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better is relative - especially in one metric: many eggs in one basket make that basket exponentially more attractive to evil actors. Bigger attack surface and whatnot...
Flipside (pro-cloud pov): if the work to protect one egg applies to all eggs, then cloud providers will always hypothetically be able to spend more on security due to economies of scale Essentially, choose your vulnerability: cloud provider single point of failure or in-house lack of resources
Goodbye Github. No way I trust Microsoft with my private code. Hello Gitlab.
OrgName: Microsoft Corporation