Yes
*looks left*
*looks right*
A stroke. Right.

What else is new? These people are a threat, nothing else.

How in the world did cops ever catch bad guys before the advent of the mobile phone?

> Please explain how it raises money with a tax rate that's below the existing corporate tax rate

15% minimum. You're a fool if you think a large corporation pays anywhere near the corporate tax rate. 15% is much more money than these businesses are paying now.

Some of them are so good at the game that they effectively "pay" a negative income tax. To pull the first example from that link; AT&T earned $29.6 and the Feds effectively paid them another $1.2B - effectively a -4% income tax. Under the IRA their tax bill goes from getting paid $1.2B to paying $4.4B

=Smidge=

I wish, and I would welcome it if they did.

However, as one of the foremost SELinux advocates in its early days, I doubt that the government of all places has the capability to do so. Few sysadmins can configure SELinux halfway decently (i.e. beyond the default policies) and the government (outside the military and secret services) isn't a good tech employer.

Also, MS is far more than the OS. With Office and a bunch of other tools, plus lots of custom software made only for Windows, the entrechnment is really, really deep.

Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.

All I see there is a reason to regulate crypto bullshit, if not ban it entirely. Can't afford to be wasting that much energy on fraud.

In any case; No, "it" can't happen... assuming by "it" you mean a return to coal as the dominant power source in the US. That ship has sailed.
=Smidge=

Hold on, what animator gets paid a subsistence level income? Is the studio hiring?

https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

I quote someone else saying: "The PC world might have looked very different today had Kildall's Digital Research prevailed as the operating system of choice for personal computers. DRI offered manufacturers the same low-cost licensing model which Bill Gates is today credited with inventing by sloppy journalists - only with far superior technology. DRI's roadmap showed a smooth migration to reliable multi-tasking, and in GEM, a portable graphical environment which would undoubtedly have brought the GUI to the low-cost PC desktop years before Microsoft's Windows finally emerged as a standard. But then Kildall was motivated by technical excellence, not by the need to dominate his fellow man."

And my comment on that included (removing all the supporting links):
      "We had choices as a society. I saw some of them first hand in the 1970s and 1980s when I started in computing. I bought Forth cartridges for the Commodore VIC and C64. I worked very briefly on a computer with CP/M (although using Forth on it though). The OS choice pushed by the person born with a million dollar trust fund who "dumpster dived" for OS listings won (who did little of the development work himself) -- with an empire built on QDOS which has shaky legal standing as a clone of CP/M which is probably why IBM did not buy it itself. And we were the worse for it as a society IMHO. ...
        But that problematical path would not have been possible without political and legal decisions to base the development of computing around the idea of "artificial scarcity" via copyrights and patents which set the stage for that. We still have choices, and we can still pick different ways forward. [With] the free and open source software movements, we are in a sense returning to older ways of sharing knowledge that were more popular before artificial scarcity was so broadly thought to be a good idea for promoting progress. One should always ask, "progress in what direction"? ...
    Bill Gate's could have spent his lifetime writing free software. That being born a multi-millionaire was not enough for him is a sign of an illness that causes "financial obesity", not something to be emulated. But, in the end, it is not Bill Gates who has destroyed our society as much as all the people who want to be the next Bill Gates and support regressive social policies they hope to benefit from someday. ..
      Those who have the impulse to share and cooperate more than hoard and compete are still stuck trying to navigate the economic mess we have made of today's society through artificial scarcity, the growing rich/poor divide, the diversion of so much productivity into weapons and consumer fads, and so on. The late 1960s and early 1970s when Kildall, Moore and Kay/Ingalls were having their breakthroughs were a more hopeful time in that sense. ...
    Still, the web and HTML5/JavaScript/CSS3 are a new hope for sharing via open standards, and they have been a big success in that sense. I'm moving more of my own work in that direction for that reason (even for all their own issues). Like has been said about JavaScript -- it is better than we deserve considering its history and the pressures that we all let shape it."

So, while you and others who are posting here are no doubt right on technical limits and marketing issues, I would say the "downfall" story is more complex socially than one man and his decisions with one design.

I'll again echo a key point about Gary by someone else quoted at the start: "But then Kildall was motivated by technical excellence, not by the need to dominate his fellow man." We need to build a society and an economy where people who make that choice get more support and respect.

Microsoft? Yes. They are even more corrupt than, say, Intel, but they have better lawyers and are more careful in their bribery.

Ah, sorry. I confused threads and then mixed things together that do not belong together. I was thinking about the compromised MS cloud master key from last year. Obviously my statement is nonsense in the context here. My apologies.

Indeed. Thanks.

As to MS competitors, yes, many are not better. That does not make it OK for Microsoft to be crap. Especially when you think of the damage that, say, Azure going down for few weeks or any Internet-reachable Windows installation getting hacked and becoming non-functional would do. This is in the damage range that can depopulate countries and worse.

All the while you and them are starving...
Unless the have "old school" as a tested (!) BCM measure in place, it is _not_ going to work.

Sorry, no. We are in this position because dumb people like you actively denied the problem for 4 decades.

Yes, that process is definitely there. My take is that more and more people that do not understand the Unix philosophy are getting into Linux and that takes a big toll. Probably many are refugees from Windows that now apply their low-insight mindset in the Linux space. Systemd is one crass example, but all the crap distros like Debian patch into sshd is another. Pure stupidity, grossly bad engineering and prioritization of questionable convenience over security.

That said, Devuan works nicely. That there is a whole distro now with the single selling point of "no systemd" means there are still a lot of people in Linux that actually understand and can do good engineering. As to fragmentation: That is actually far less of an issue than generally claimed. Again, Unix philosophy. Sure, a specific organization should standardize on one distro, but that already fixes the issue.