UPS has the option of just holding it for you at the depot, and I would guess the other major delivery services do too. Through UPS its called "My Choice."
Regardless of the merit (or lack of) of your points, t's quite difficult to take you seriously when you post as an AC.
It annoys me that someone like Poettering, who only had PulseAudio come into use because of the ability distributions had to easily change core operating system components (and wouldn't have had the existing audio-subsystem been entrenched), would then proceed to develop something specifically intended to lock down its own existence and prevent its replacement by something else. It's hypocritical.
While I totally understand why he did it -- nobody wants to put a great amount of time into something only to have it superseded -- it flies in the face of open source in general, where you contribute to an evolving 'thing', and that while your specific contribution may not exist in the future, you can be happy that you took part in the evolution of the whole, and not feel the need to stamp your face on it for perpetuity.
It also sets a dangerous precedent. What's going to be locked down next, in the name of stability, or speed, or whatever else (when it's really about someone trying to 'make their mark'?) Do we lock down the file system? Only one file system for Linux, full stop? Do we lock down the network transports? The window manager? The terminal? The command-line applications?
Then what? Do we then create a global committee, made up of people who maintain the existing components (of course), to make decisions about those components and whatever's left into the future?
I mean, yes, I agree in that case something else will surely (and quickly) rise in Linux's place (I mean, who wants to put in the time to help projects who only exist to serve their creator's vanity) but it seems a shame that Linux should end this way.
I think they think that by not allowing you to download the binary they're in the clear. Unfortunately you _are_ downloading it, to the emulator running in your web-browser.
There was a conference down here in Australia on game preservation last year and one of the most discussed subjects was precisely this -- and the conclusion was simply that what archive.org is doing in this context can't be considered as anything other than illegal.
Now whether or not anyone complains or not is something for IA to deal with, but let's not have any confusion that using the site to play games is in no way any more legal than just finding a torrent or an 'abandonware' site and downloading them.
But what is the Weissman score?
Someone I know has pointed out that Clive SInclair doesn't actually even own the rights to the Speccy; he sold them to Amstrad. So having him as a shareholder may not actually give this mob the right to replicate the likeness or the ROMS.
This could prove interesting...
I'll be interested to see how many rights holders agree to contribute their games for free, especially when the unit itself is being sold for such a tidy profit. I can't imagine it would be very many.
Or maybe they plan on shipping the games of 'uncontactable' (ie those who don't reply) rights holders and 'remove' them if they later turn up and complain? Kind of shifty if this is the case.
If you create the product yourself you don't need an accountant until you sell it.
"If you're not exchanging germplasm, you're cutting your own throat."
That's what I always say too! Except for here it might actually make sense.
It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.
It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.
Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.
At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.
Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.
I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.
It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.
While you may think of your examples as 'advancements', many people (myself included) do not.
Your examples also do not affect the way a headless server boots. systemd does. And not in a good way.
Whether one dislikes systemd or not isn't necessarily because of what it does or doesn't do. The issue for many people (myself included) is simply that it's a monolith that keeps trying to grow larger in an "open" world that was meant to stand for a certain amount of platform agnosticism and component independence.
I realise that systemd can make life easier for some more novice users but to be true to the spirit of the open source community I would expect it to be optional where it can be so. When it starts to intrude into critical areas and make itself mandatory in some releases, that bothers me. It makes me think that the whole business is a sneaky attempt to subvert the Linux kernel and eventually take control of Linux as a whole.
Totally agree. He sees what Linus has and wants it for himself. The problem with that is, as you point out, Linus did what he did because he wanted to run UNIX (well, Minix?) on a POS old PC. Poettering really just wants the fame.