And you waste a load of shotgun shells that are going to be extremely valuable in the post apocalypse.
GPL doesn't restrict people from using the software any way they want.
Yes it does. I just downloaded a copy of Gnu Readline. I want to use it as in my new proprietary application that will make me $$$$$. Does the licence restrict me from using it in that way? Yes. That is by design and I do not criticise the developers for making that decision.
Which matters - let me know how trying to run Apple on non-apple hardware without paying for a license goes, in comparison to a GPL'd OS.
That is also by design and I do not criticise Apple for making that choice.
The idea that many eyes make all bugs shallow is a myth. Even most programmers don't bother auditing the open source code they download. I bet most of them don't really look beyond the API documentation.
Also, OpenSSL is one of the worst code bases you'll ever set eyes on. It's poorly documented and so complex, it'll make your eyes bleed.
I have a better idea: how about just keeping things how they are. People using mobile phones to take a photo of a stack trace + register dump mostly works reliably (barring wobbly hands).
Add a bit of OCR software and you have a system that can both be read by humans without the aid of special software and by computers to produce textual output with a bit of special software (you need a bit of special software anyway for QR codes, so you don't lose anything).
Bitcoin transactions will not be free in the long term. Once all the bit coins are mined, the people verifying the transactions will have to charge a fee unless they are using a bot net.
I keep hearing the "git is better than svn at handling conflicts" meme, but of course neither handles conflicts at all. A conflict is a file where the tool can't figure out how to merge two versions and therefore has to offload it to a human.
I've also heard on the Internet that git is better than svn at doing merges, but everybody I know who has used both git and svn in real production environments says the opposite.
In my company we use svn. I did consider moving us to git or - more likely - Mercurial (the hg user interface is more similar to svn so that would make the transition easier), but I found out that it is really easy to make a directory both an svn working copy and a git/hg repository just by using setting ignore properties so I can do local commits and still have a central svn repo.
I'm not an expert on any compiler code, but I thought that gcc was actually comparatively new, as it used to be called "egcs", and was different from what used to be "gcc", and was a newer project. At some point, the gcc team decided to simply adopt egcs as the new gcc and dump the original as it was too old and crufty.
If you call 1997 new, then yes it was new. Except that egcs was based on a gcc snapshot.
Why is this a bad way? You're writing the month first, which doesn't change often, then your writing down the day which does change often. It makes perfect sense.
So you Americans put the year first then...
I don't understand the business model of renting hashing out to people. Either its profitable so you effectively lose money by renting it out,
Not true. It might be profitable for people elsewhere but not for you or for people who already have a data centre to put the mining rigs in, but not for you.
or its not profitable so noone in their right minds would rent it off you!
And you can't sell kit to people not in their right minds because.... ?
I'm Slashdot and so's my wife.
If the "new site" had been designed by competent programmers,
And you think the old one was?
Except it was. You know, given that Alan Turing kind of designed the thing.
No he didn't, it was designed by Tommy Flowers.
Colossus wasn't Turing complete either.
No. Colossus was programmable but it wasn't Turing complete.