131–140 of 199 posts
I would be very curious to know if the data are stored on their own data center or Microsoft's.
- [0] https://www.edps.europa.eu/press-publications/press-news/pre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Open source without commercial companies contributing would be much more of a fringe thing. My conjecture is that open source is polished enough for most customers to use when there are commercial interests implied. Linux on the server is a resounding success, Linux desktop not so much.
Even on the server you're better off with the custom cloud offerings than using an off-the-shelf image. That is the thing, what really won on server and embedded was UNIX/POSIX, and while GNU/Linux is the cheapest and more flexible way to achieve that, it isn't the only one, and the best experience is anyway with vendor custom distributions with their special sauce, not the pure FOSS one.
I think one can attribute many things to the success of Linux (incl. POSIX) but it's not about one single thing and the whole shouldn't be discounted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ARM is only successful on mobile devices and Apple hardware. Your "only" is funny. That is by far the biggest computing market worldwide.
Until phones get to replace laptops and desktops, it doesn't matter much.
I work in the health sector at a company with nearly 1,000 employees. In our IT department, we rely on a wide range of proprietary software and spend substantial amounts on Oracle, MS SQL, and other licenses. I’ve been trying to convince management that PostgreSQL could be a solid alternative for many of our use cases, but it’s consistently dismissed as “not an option.” Meanwhile, we continue to pour money into Oracl…
Imagine if you had to compete producing widgets in a market landscape where some hyper-conglomerate would source and distribute all power, define and install all plug standards and, in addition, produce and rent any widgets that saw consumer traction. For decades this is what has come to pass as normal in this domain.
Openness (of varying degrees), standards-adherence, interoperability and competitive markets are connected attributes. In this context open source is an extreme productivity multiplier. Maybe the most potent such development in modern human history. Entities that adopt open source would collectively out-compete in innovation and usefulness any proprietary offering. But for this mechanism of sharing knowledge to thrive and reach its full potential there has to be a real market for digital technology.
As much as it pains me to say it, it's true. I use predominantly open source software on all my computers with some small exceptions. I used to rely on some cloud services because of the convenience and nothing else. But leaks started becoming way too common and what I can say about all places that I've worked at, data is handled really badly. If you pair that with some OSINT skills, you can learn pretty much anythin…
>If you pair that with some OSINT skills, you can learn pretty much anything about anyone from a single leak. If you need more anxiety, just think about the hottest technology right now that is capable of relating massive amounts of data instantly :-) SQL isn't ready for AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They sell me by convincing me that everything just works, and when it doesn't they'll be there to fix it. and they'd tell you to pay up 10x, or lose this stability in the future; If it was an open source software, you will have the option to go to a competing vendor.
Is there a single example of multiple vendors selling support for the same open-source piece of software, where I can just hire a different vendor if I no longer like my current one, without changing anything major in my operations? You could say that Canonical and IBM RedHat compete on offering Linux support, but the reality is that it's not that much harder to switch from RHEL to Ubuntu than switching to any other…
Another elephant in the room is that many of the popular open source projects are funded by big tech. Hard to be an alternative when you serve the same master.
It's more of a symbiotic relationship. The open source community depends on commercial support. Essentially all of the bigger projects indeed get a lot of their contributions from the companies that use, build, and depend on these projects. It's how the software world can collaborate with their competitors on the things they don't compete directly on. This isn't charity, they are literally using more OSS software tha…
I don't think this is actually true:
1. The Google codebase is on the order of billions of lines of code, not millions.
2. It's basically all written in house, from the threading libraries and core standard libraries up. The parts that are open source (e.g. Linux, OpenJDK) are very small compared to the code they've written themselves.
ChromeOS and Android are open source, but they aren't even close to being the bulk of their codebase.
If Linux had never existed they'd have found some alternative, probably either a bulk licensing deal with a proprietary UNIX vendor or they'd have used Windows as the closest cheap Intel based alternative. Then they'd have put funding into developing their own in-house serving OS a lot earlier.
Source: I worked there.
> Chrome is open source because webkit was open source because Apple forked KHTML from the KDE project.
Chrome is open source for strategic reasons and because the executives in charge wanted it to be. There's no particular reason it has to be open. Safari and Edge aren't.
The problem is that docker compose starts 20 containers and the fans go full bore just because you wanted to try a new wiki or notes app. The complexity of relatively simple software is getting insane.
I am one of the 10 users[1] in the world that uses Docker Swarm (container orchestrator like Kubernetes or Nomad), and I disagree with that statement. I have over 25 containers running (including Jellyfin, Nextcloud, Gitea, TeamSpeak, ...) and it barely uses 10GB of RAM (Jellyfin is eating up more than half of this). Most of my Compose files contain 2 services (1 for app + 1 for database), but some contain 3 and some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even on the server you're better off with the custom cloud offerings than using an off-the-shelf image. That is the thing, what really won on server and embedded was UNIX/POSIX, and while GNU/Linux is the cheapest and more flexible way to achieve that, it isn't the only one, and the best experience is anyway with vendor custom distributions with their special sauce, not the pure FOSS one.
What benefits do the vendor distros provide? The downsides include at least increased vendor lock-in. I think one can attribute many things to the success of Linux (incl. POSIX) but it's not about one single thing and the whole shouldn't be discounted.
It is no different than using managed Kubernetes, or doing everything from scratch instead.