Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Lack of social ability at Microsoft (Score 1) 82

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).

Comment: Re:Why oh Why (Score 1) 82

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.

Comment: Re:Social Networking is a mess (Score 1) 106

by Antique Geekmeister (#48901489) Attached to: Twitter Moves To Curb Instagram Links

> You seriously think the developers decided any of that?

Yes, they often do. Software developers often have to "sell" their projects at planning meetings. They can choose, and do, which features to emphasize.

> Also, there is nothing inherent in the use of javascript that affects security in any way; a site using multiple

It's complexity, and frequent use to cause the client to do anything other than a simple "pull" of content, create profound vulnerabilities.

> But you're wrong in cases where it is done right

These are increasingly rare. The Slashdot "beta" page is a wonderful example of abusively over-aggressive complexity, at the expense of legibility and usability.

> Loading and rendering only the data that needs to change is *much* faster

But this is not what is happening. It's being used to generate "churn" on the page.

Comment: Re: nVidia w/ binary driver works (Score 1) 92

by drinkypoo (#48901225) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: GPU of Choice For OpenCL On Linux?

Well, nothing lasts forever. I, too, hope that someday we will have nVidia cards with open drivers. My understanding is that their geforce line is too patent-encumbered for that to ever happen to them (they pretty much went full-Microsoft during the original Xbox era) but that they more or less own their mobile (as in handheld) GPUs outright, and if they ever become the basis for a desktop product, we might see an open version of those drivers. Nouveau is pretty much unusable for a lot of users, and useless for even more.

Problem is, only a subset of ATI cards are well-supported by the FOSS driver, and the official drivers are poop. When more of the cards are supported and it takes less time for the cards to be supported, maybe I will consider ATI cards again. But every time I do, I regret it deeply...

Comment: Re:Obligatory reminder that an alternative exists (Score 1) 89

by Antique Geekmeister (#48900651) Attached to: OpenSSL 1.0.2 Released

Hard coded may be too strong. They're certainly the mandated defaults at installation time. Extracting them is a laborious and painful manual process, likely to be overwritten by the very next security update in most packages with most installers. Disabling them disables hosts of automated tools which rely on ordinary HTTPS, and there are certainly core software repositories which rely extensively on ordinary root authorities to verify their SSL signatures. These include Github, bitbucket, sourceforge, and many commercial sites. And they are certainly hardcoded in the sense of "these are the signature authorities used by most vendors".

Comment: Re: The fuzzy line between hobby and job (Score 1) 163

That would be a nifty argument if you could first show that force per square inch actually matters, as opposed to total weight.

I don't have to show this, it's common knowledge. We've discussed the fact here repeatedly.

Yet you admit that freight trucks cause the most damage. With its five axels and 18 wheels, a loaded freight truck should be too a Prius what your pickup truck is to a Prius.

But it isn't, because of the massive loads they carry, and the extremely hard tires which are designed pretty much exclusively for tread life and reducing rolling friction.

Comment: Re:What's unclear? (Score 1) 69

by drinkypoo (#48899179) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Did you RTFA? The whole point is that it IS legal to change your mind later, and no amount of promises, or guarantees, or written contracts can change that.

Ok, so I RTFA, and I see "One right that all creators have is to undo copyright transfers and licenses after thirty-five years have passed, under some conditions." [...] "Copyright termination means that any license, including a perpetual public license, can be revoked." But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about making a promise not to sue for use of the work, which is not the same thing as offering a license for the use of the work. If you make an explicit and public promise not to sue, separately from any licensing, that's different from offering a license and then revoking it later. Licensing something for any use is not the same as placing it in the public domain, and promising not to sue for any use seems the only way to effectively actually do that otherwise.

This is a threat to the GPL, the MIT, and other [F]OSS licenses. But it's not a threat to the public domain.

I do think that we should have a public domain registry, where we can explicitly give up our right to a work in perpetuity. But why should we need one? We already have a legal concept which should permit accomplishing the same thing.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 2) 163

Except that's not what's being argued. People can still use their cars as they see fit, they just have to pay more for licensing and insurance, to cover the increased road use and insurance liabilities.

Right, and the question is whether that is actually justified, or whether it's just a revenue generation scheme.

And, Uber isn't a ride-share program where you find people to tag along on your road trip. It's an unlicensed taxi service. I doubt a proliferation of slightly cheaper taxis keeps a non-trivial number of people from purchasing a car of their own.

No, a proliferation of taxis does that. See, under the current system, I can't get a taxi in a timely fashion, so I can't reasonably not have a car.

Comment: Re:The fuzzy line between hobby and job (Score -1) 163

Since road damage is exponentially proportional to vehicle weight, heavier trucks *should* be paying more in fees.

A prius exerts more force per square inch on the pavement than a large pickup, because of the reduced contact area and the increased hardness of the tires. Meanwhile, OTR trucks do vastly more damage than either — as it turns out, passenger vehicles affect the road very little (even hybrids, with their high weight carried on LRR tires) while OTR trucks do pretty much all the road damage.

In conclusion, if the basis for the fee is road damge, then a Prius should pay more than an F-350, but neither one should really pay anything compared to an OTR truck.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 2) 163

Those drivers wouldn't spend as much time on the road,

insurance estimates already account for this by charging for mileage

and would have fewer passengers in the car, if it weren't for their commercial activities.

They don't penalize you for having a family, although then you have more passengers in the car, unless you plan to let some of those family members drive. What's the difference?

As for Uber providing coverage, I did read that at least one did offer coverage for anything the insurance company doesn't cover.

Well, they do, but only while you are carrying a passenger.

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.

Working...