One thing of note is that this particular acquisition is not DevDiv, it's Azure ML. But Azure ML is, in some ways, even more F/OSS friendly - at least I don't know anyone else in MS running Linux servers in production for user-facing services, and it's where a lot of ex-MSR guys (like, from those labs that were closed) ended up. It's also where all the Python stuff now is.

Then again, after Satya's takeover, there was a strong push from top down to stop treating open source in general and Linux in particular as pariah, in all divisions. In no uncertain language, like "we've been acting stupid about this for a while now and let competitors eat our lunch; time to catch up while we still can". The recent slew of announcements, from .NET Core officially supported on Linux, to most open MS projects migrating to GitHub, is the outcome.

FWIW, I didn't think I'd ever hear a Microsoft lawyer utter the words "GPL is actually kinda cool" while explaining to developers the company's new open source policy in his official capacity. Yet, here we are.

Long and hard? Yes. But this kind of thing makes it worth it (and also shows that, perhaps, it's not quite all that long if you go fast enough).

And Python and R can work together (rpy2), with Python being the glue.

The forked version is still GPL.

There's one other aspect to it that is obvious when you see who the people on MS side talking about this are. It is, effectively, an acquisition by the Azure ML division - the sole purpose of which is to get the "big data" people to come to Azure and pay for burning CPU cycles.

All the same, I'm not sure "Lobbyist Accused of Being Evil" is particularly newsworthy.

That is definitely an advantage of the federal system, but it was not the purpose. The constitution was written that way to prevent the centralized government from becoming too dictatorial. Indeed, if the constitution had given the national government much more power, not all of the states would have joined.

What they propose is not going to happen simply because of this:

He calls for the state government to protect critical infrastructure and sensitive data, relying on outside auditors and experts.

Outside auditors doing anything in CA government? We'll see that only when all else is lost, and people are starting to go to prison.

I'd hazard a guess that it'll be priced like all the previous versions. $49-99 for an upgrade copy, and $79-129(oem) and $129-199 for retail.

If somehow the cost of driving went steeply up, you (and your competitors) can switch to an alternative means of transportation and still keep doing whatever you do for a living.

If the cost of driving went substantially up, then taxis and public transport would also increase in cost. At some level of increase, no I could not do what I do.

That's not the case of uber

Why not? New service, UberRickshaw. Many Uber rides are short enough that would work.

It'a no more ridiculous a thought than you trying to create an arbitrary separation between me driving a friend across town and someone I don't know.

since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure

Which I and my rider pay for regardless of us knowing each other or not.

Well said. I would suggest that not everyone has seen expressive code, though.

That's great, I was hoping you'd have something interesting to say on this point, and you did not disappoint. If I may summarize, I see three main points in your post (maybe this isn't a very good summary):

1) Knowledge of design patterns don't help programmers become better (and may make them worse)
2) GoF the book was not well-researched, they didn't show that the patterns solved a common problem.
3) GoF was not well-researched, they didn't show that the patterns even solve a problem, only that they can be used.

I would add that in my own experience, code rarely fits neatly into the GoF design patterns. Sometimes the problem matches something similar, but rarely the exact pattern. And even when it does match, I usually use a modified version (example, singleton [which I call a global variable] I rarely make an actual singleton. For example, if I have a clipboard class, I make it generic enough to have multiple clipboards, but then designate one of those as the system-wide clipboard or whatever).

btw the organization of your post is solid, that was some nice rhetoric; logical flow from the weakest point to more convincing points until the end where your final paragraph is strongly stated, but feels as though it naturally flows from the rest of your points.

âoeOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis

You could potentially walk, bike, take public transport or a cab to get to your clients.

No, I really can't - mostly I'm driving about 30 minutes at 50-60MPH average to reach them. Considering the fact that as a consultant I get paid by the hour it would cost me vast sums of money to bike to them, and probably an hour longer each way taking any public transport (I've looked into that). A cab is not a bad idea if you live in a city but I'm working between multiple areas and also take very long road trips all the time (partly for business) so it would be stupid to also spend money on a cab when the marginal extra cost of using my car is vastly less.

it's not an absolute requirement for your business

My clients disagree which is why I drive to them. If I don't have a job because I do not drive, it's a requirement.

Your argument is way, way weak. There is no "key difference". The fact is that driving for Uber and driving friends around has zero actual difference in terms of external risk or ability. That's the core argument where you simply cannot distinguish, thus either everyone needs a commercial license or no-one does.

Even as a contractor you may not deduct mileage driving to and from clients as that is considered non-commercial commuting by the IRS

Good thing I listen to my accountant and not idiot AC posters on Slashdot:

One way to avoid the harsh commuting rule is to have a home office that qualifies as your principal place of business. In this event, you can deduct the cost of any trips you make from your home office to another business location.

From one of a billion links that tell you how the world actually works

I mean, what consultant these days is not going to have a home office? Sheesh.

Most states, for example, have a taxi drivers endorsement for their regular drivers license.

Yes they do. The point is that is as stupid as it is unnecessary; it's just a revenue collection scheme and has zero to do with keeping people safe (the supposed intent).

You are not being paid to drive to work. You are being paid for the work you do there.

I am a contractor. I drive to clients, all of my driving to clients is directly related to the job.

I also write iOS applications, sometimes I drive around testing the GPS aspects of the apps. In those cases I am billing while driving.

Why do I need a commercial license tags for that again? How is that in any was reasonable except you simply want more money from me and that seems like a fine angle to use to extract it? It wouldn't make me any safer to have a license where I answer questions about driving tractor trailers. Insurance wise I had damn well better be covered for anyone else getting injured in my car anyway, and insurance is already calculated based in part on miles you drive per year (not to mention Lyft/Uber provide extra insurance on top of what you have).

Why would I need commercial license/tags to drive a few people around few days a week? I already do that with family and friends. Why is is so different when it's someone I don't know at the start?