Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer • Hacker News Board

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#211

Post by LukeShu » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

Anthony-G wrote: post #210

LukeShu wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disrespect toward Ms. Reynolds, certainly! But Mr. Postel had been in that role for 11 years before Ms. Reynolds joined him (1972-1983). Though it turns out that my history is a little fuzzy on the name itself; though Mr. Postel had been in the role for many years, the earliest reference to the name "IANA" that I can find is from 1988. Regardless of whether they were using the name "IANA" in 1972-1983, Mr. Postel…

Thanks for the historical insight. I hadn’t realised that Jon Postel’s work went that far back. I only came across the Internet in the late nineties – and though I’m aware of the existence of DARPAnet, I don’t really think of the Internet as being a “thing” until the eighties (when most of the common protocol standards I’ve read were written) so I should really find a good book on the subject.

Sadly, I don't have a solid book recommendation about the early Internet.

But, my favorite Internet history book of all time is "IPng: Internet Protocol Next Generation" edited by Scott O. Bradner and Allison Mankin. It's about the development of what would become IPv6, and each chapter is written by a different engineer who was involved in the process. Some chapters were written for the book, and some chapters were publications/reports from the process.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#212

Post by michaelmrose » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #181

michaelmrose wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But in my opinion, in today's society, if you take away the need for people to struggle (which UBI will do) they often end up in a worse mental and physical shape than if you make them suffer a bit. This is exactly the opposite of how people actually work people excel when given support and opportunity to grow. Adversity especially insofar as fear of basic needs being met isn't inspiring it's stunting. Anything else…

> people excel when given support and opportunity to grow. Some people do. Many don't, they'll take that support and rest on it. Plenty of European Countries have UBI for all intents and purposes (free health care, housing, utilities, enough cash money for everything else including entertainment and communication). People don't excel, and plenty don't bother to contribute, because it's not necessary. > We can find su…

I don't think people having their basic needs met is in any way equivalent to winning the lottery. When you win the lottery you can have anything financially that you like for the rest of your life or until you blow all your money. With UBI you can have a minimalistic life devoid of most luxury or ease.

The kind of person who doesn't bother to contribute is probably the kind of person who would be contributing by making fries or checking you out at walmart. These contributions can be replaced by automation and nothing of value will be lost meanwhile some portion of the people will use their time that would have been thrown away at walmart to actually contribute.

If 90% of the team at walmart was replaced by robots and 10% found more meaningful ways to contribute it would be a net gain.

> You're looking at a tiny subset of people that wouldn't stop working (but maybe work on different things) if they won the lottery, and extrapolate from them on to the general population. Not everybody is like that. Any solutions that pretend that they are will fail.

If you offered most people a poverty wage of 2k monthly and netflix and the opportunity to earn 2k + whatever they could earn in addition doing something with their life 90% would chose the latter given the option especially if free education were available to get from A to B. Most people want to feel their life is meaningful. If you don't understand that then you don't understand people in the slightest.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#213

Post by kortilla » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

the-smug-one wrote: post #201

kortilla wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s enormous and you’re forgetting that a huge chunk of that already is income. You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size. That’s every transaction for a good or service. That means to pay for this, not only would there be an extra 20% on income tax for everyone, but there would be a 20% federal sales tax on everything (including homes, surgeries, tuition, etc). “Redistribute fro…

>You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: >To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc…

> No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote:

You can’t print your way to GDP. If you’re suggesting the government just issue the extra money without funding it, you’re just diluting everyone’s existing money because you haven’t increased the production of the economy. Constant issuance of amounts this big needs to be funded or the massive amount of demand for the same fixed amount of goods and services will just cause hyper inflation.

And if you’re arguing that giving people UBI will make them work more and not less (enough to account for the GDP loss), that’s a pretty extraordinary claim that hasn’t been backed up by any ongoing UBI experiments.

> But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol.

I’m not. I’m pointing out the incredible road block for UBI and you’re refusing to address it. It would fundamentally alter the economy to become the highest taxed of any first world countries and we would have the largest monetary entitlements per capita ever. Nothing like this has ever worked, none of the communist/socialist states (even at their peaks) gave out this much in income.

People who are against UBI are concerned with that. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy.

The problem with UBI is that it’s not solving a particular problem so there are no efficiencies to be gained. Like if we wanted to solve housing, we could have the Army go out and build houses at scale and the per house costs could be quite low. No such economies of scale come into play with UBI.

You’ll find more support for federal government built housing and federal government provide food than you will for UBI when the reality sinks in of what you’re asking the middle class to sacrifice.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#214

Post by kortilla » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 9:09 PM UTC

FractalHQ wrote: post #189

kortilla wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To…

The money doesn’t disappear, it goes back into the economy. People use it to buy things they need. Most sane people outside of the 1% don’t just pathologically hoard wealth and jerk off to it.

That doesn’t help. If you don’t fund it you’ve just increased money supply without increasing the goods and services available. In fact, if UBI serves its purpose, a bunch of people will quit their jobs and the supply of goods and services will decline.

BTW, people in the 1% don’t hoard money, that’s a... financially stupid thing to do. They buy shares in companies and other assets. So there is a lot less money supply trapped up in wealthy peoples’ banks than you would think.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#215

Post by kortilla » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

phh wrote: post #197

kortilla wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality it works nothing like this though. People like to think that all of these companies and downstream projects depend on this maintainer, but realistically they would have no problem switching to a fork or doing it internally. Using his work as-is from upstream is just the path of least resistance. If nobody picks up dhcpd maintenance companies will have no problem carrying forks and more than likely the open…

That's both true and wrong at the same time. Sure all the big companies that relied on dhcpcd will rewrite it. But still the loss of one opensource project has a major impact on the economy. You mention the part of time saved by the company. Sure, but that goes longer than that. For instance, in Android, since Android 6, they stopped using dhcpcd and decided to use their own DHCP client. 5 releases later, Android's D…

This assumes behavior on both sides of the implementation and has nothing to do with open source.

> Sure all the big companies that relied on dhcpcd will rewrite it.

Unlikely. dhclient works just fine and carrying a fork of dhcpd will work just fine.

You’re missing my point. When you work on open source and end up with millions to billions of users, everything you do ends up having a huge monetary impact (guess how much Roy’s bugs have cost the economy in lost time). However, that’s just a side effect of software, not you being some unsung hero.

Tons of people need software that does X. Once one or two people have an open source solution to X, people can just use that and move on. That’s a good thing but it doesn’t mean that those one or two people are critical to anything. If they quit, fail, whatever, downstream dependencies will just swap and move on.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#216

Post by sneak » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #202

sneak wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of freedom is that there is no "should" beyond what the license requires. They are free to act as they choose, and do what they choose, with the software.

We are also free to consider that dickish behavior and criticize it.

Sure, but that's plainly not in the spirit of free software.

I think that we can all agree that blowing people up with bombs is dickish behavior, and yet the software that has been released with otherwise-free licenses that prohibit its use in such bombing systems has been rejected by the free software community as nonfree.

The idea behind free software is that no other party gets to tell you what you can or can't do with it, such as "make money without donating anything upstream", "bomb children", or any other such thing.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#217

Post by kortilla » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #202

sneak wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of freedom is that there is no "should" beyond what the license requires. They are free to act as they choose, and do what they choose, with the software.

We are also free to consider that dickish behavior and criticize it.

Cool, so you’re insulting the developers of open source software. No good deed goes unpunished I suppose.

Developers impose the license. If they don’t want it used by corporations freely it’s trivial for them to say so. You’re implying that the developers are encouraging dickish behavior by doing what they want with their software.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#218

Post by grecy » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 12:46 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #199

michaelmrose wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are objectively wealthy enough that everyone could have a place to live, enough food to eat, free medical care even to the point of expensive cancer treatment, free education if so much of our resources weren't directed towards enriching so few without sacrificing essential items. Even calculations about what is and isn't a reasonable expenditure are inherently polluted with the presumption that the current cost s…

> We are objectively wealthy enough that everyone could have a place to live, enough food to eat, free medical care even to the point of expensive cancer treatment, free education if so much of our resources weren't directed towards enriching so few without sacrificing essential items. I'd love to see your math on this.

At least a dozen counties already achieve basically all of this, today. They have done for a couple of decades. That's plenty of proof.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#219

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 2:53 AM UTC

soneil wrote: post #142

caslon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, you seem to be the only person on the World Wide Web to ever have used that phrase (three times over three years?), but it's such a perfect description of such a common phenomenon that I'm pretty sure its propagation could save hours of time in typing for nerds on the Web.

I'd be wary of colliding with Postel's Law, which I depend on much more often than I'd like. But otherwise agree!

I think that's intentional? Postel's Law is about robustness, as is the "decentralisation" formulation of it.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#220

Post by kelnos » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 3:47 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #174

path411 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated by reddit at this point, but someone would really have to give me a lot of real world evidence counter to not only the examples where UBI and other programs targeted towards the poor have benefited the economy. But even just to counter the pretty basic logic that more productive members of society helps the economy, and more money in the hands of people spending money, not hoarding mo…

The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To…

Despite the "U" in UBI, I would assume these $1k/month payments would phase out at a certain income level. Someone making $20k/month, perhaps even $10k/month, does not need their basic needs propped up.

UBI would likely replace most welfare programs, so that'd just be moving budget around. I'm finding a bunch of numbers for US welfare spending, some of them not really consistent with others, but welfare spending is easily over $1T per year.

I would absolutely be in favor of adding more (higher) marginal tax brackets to help with any further shortfall. That 1%er $34T cash hoard you mention is built through income, which can be taxed more. I'd also be in favor of a wealth tax. Top 1% is probably too wide for something like that, but a sub-5% wealth tax (perhaps taxed progressively, as with income) even on the top 0.1% or 0.01% would likely net a big chunk of change that could be put to useful work, vs. sitting around in some management fund for someone's great-great-great-great-great grandchildren to spend, assuming we haven't collapsed our financial system by then.