I've found the project where someone is making money from them tend not to be as open.

I've been an open source contributor and maintainer for 30 years. I was a Linux Kernel subsystem maintainer for a few years (unpaid). I've been paid to work on open source projects too. So maybe I have some first hand experience here, from all sides.

If you are getting paid to do projects, contracting if you will, you must constantly be looking for new work to do. Every day you work puts you one day closer to having no more work. It is a demanding and never ending task to keep the pipeline full. I know this as well from decades of experience.

If an open source project lacks a feature, the maintainer almost certainly knows this already. They are also aware that someone may pay them to add this feature. It's a good way to get work. "One month retainer for general maintenance work, PR review, etc." is very hard to sell. And if you want to get paid, you must first sell. "Add new feature needed for something people want." That's a much easier sell.

If someone outside the project, not paid, submits work to add this feature that is missing, then the insider(s), those people paid to do work, can no longer sell this feature and get paid for it. The contributor has effectively taken their work.

I've found paid maintainers, or open source projects run for a profit by a group of insiders, are far less accepting of outside contributions that projects which are not this way.

It's it possible they have/had some other coins? For instance, mined very early on when it was still possible for one person to mine a coin in a reasonable time.

It could be they created bitcoin for buying illegal goods, money laundering, and/or financial scams and were in those businesses before doing that. So have reasons to remain hidden that aren't related to questions of taxes payed on crypto gains.

The purpose of VS Code is not to help me do my work or be a useful tool. The purpose of VS code is to make money for Microsoft. Mostly for the executives and major shareholders, not such much the peons.

If it ever is a useful tool, it is only a coincidence that this happens to align for a time with primary purpose of making the super rich richer.

It's only a matter of time before Microsoft decides that dropping Linux support is more likely to get people to switch to Windows than to get them to stop paying for anything related to VS Code. And that's exactly what they'll do.

Any more specific examples?

I found this, https://github.com/szymonh/rnd...

But it's easily patchable and common buffer overflow caused by not sanitizing an offset value stored in a packet. Practically every protocol is vulnerable to this kind of thing.

There are sailboats with rigid wings. Largest wing ever made was for Larry Ellison's DoGzilla, the trimaran in the 2010 America's Cup DoG challenge match against Alinghi.

They still can't sail directly into the wind.

Zephyr is owned by the companies that pay to be members. So while it might well become just another Linux, it'll be a Linux where the chip vendors have absolute power.

Add support for a clone device, like a knock-off FTDI chip or the HTU21D sensor? Not if the original vendor has paid for the power to block that.

Don't want to be locked into a driver that depends on a bad and proprietary vendor HAL? Not allowed. It's like giving Nvidia veto power over Nouveau being allowed.

The size of the Linux kernel and userspace has also grown greatly since the first RPi too. Some of the smallest embedded systems I designed with Linux 20 years ago could never work with a 6.4 kernel. The kernel alone wouldn't fit into RAM, much less the rest of their software.

And cheap micro controllers have a lot more flash and ram than they used too as well.

So at some point will the cheapest and lowest power processors grow to the point where they can run Linux acceptably? Or will Linux continue to grow in complexity at a greater rate and this will never happen?

Maybe that was one of the useless MISRA rules? From Assessing the Value of Coding Standards: An Empirical Study:

They don't take kindly to bug reports.

Everyone has a status level next to their name. It's on every issue, PR, and comment to be sure you always know where you stand and where your betters stand.

It creates a Stanford Prison Experiment like atmosphere. A prisoner can't tell a guard they did something wrong. It would upset the order and weaken their status to admit fault to an inferior.

They'll pretend obvious bugs aren't bugs. Then of the fix to the thing that was not a bug yet somehow has a bug fix

Couldn't one set up a fake github that delivers trojaned source when cloned from using ssh? The https clone uses a different authentication system (TLS) so it should be ok, but I don't think the ssh clone will look at the x509 cert.

Of course one would still need to dns hijack or something to get anyone to use the fake site. And the git hashes would be wrong, but most people don't clone a github repo and then check that they have cloned the right sha1 via some side-channel.

Maybe they aren't alkaline AAs? SAFT Lithium-Thionyl Chloride AA cells are 2600mAh @ 3.6V and 17 g. That's pretty high. But the original article from 2022 specified Energizer batteries and I don't think they make Li-SOCI2 cells. They do make Li-FeS2 cells, AA is 3500 mAh at about 1.6 V and 15 g.

Still, that is about 370 Wh/kg for AA Energizer batteries. What would be so much better? 2170 li-ion cells are only about 270 Wh/kg.

And an image found via GIS isn't a new image copyrighted by the person who found it. Is an AI training set image extracted this way a new image? Is any image generated by an AI a new image, free of the copyrights of the images in the training set it was created from?

You also need to team and lawyers and lots of money to patent something. Not everyone has that.

1-click would be a like a 1-engine patent for cars (and motorcycles). "A vehicle which is propelled by a singular engine communicating motive force to a plurality of wheels." It wouldn't mention FWD or RWD, differentials, drive shafts, or even have a picture of any gears. Just the concept of one engine, multiple wheels, and moving. All things already invented by others and being used for the purpose they were invented for.

But Henry Ford wasn't able to patent the concept of a car.

An auto manufacturer isn't able to patent the concept of a car or an engine or wheels that pivot to allow direction to be controlled. But for software, this is allowed. I think it's because lawyers and judges can't see software. An idea patent for "1-engine" wouldn't be accepted. Where are the gears and shafts and cylinders? Those can be seen and they aren't there. It's just an idea, not a machine or a method.

But for software, one can't see it. People who've never created a software system don't comprehend that there is code, algorithms, data structures, design. To them, it's just an idea. The idea of clicking on something to buy it is all they can see on a computer screen. So that's all there is to patent. To them, there's nothing behind that they can see so they can't comprehend it. So software patents are just ideas.

They typically provide only a handful of examples. It's pretty common to write something you think works, and certainly solves every example, but still fails because there is an edge case you didn't think of. Often thinking of all the edge cases is a major part of the problem.

The test cases use to judge entries are never shared. One way to "cheat", is to figure out what the test cases are and then write something that just returns the already known answer. Like if the answer needs to be a two digit number, and the test case we can't solve starts with "what is the", just submit attempts until you guess the correct answer is "42" without ever solving the problem. If you're limited to 10 attempts, make fake accounts to get more.

The automatic online coding competitions where the top entries have managed to solve the problem in "0.00" seconds have usually cheated this way. Their program just regurgitates the known answers to the limited set of test cases.