Not really, but I did just notice that Accuweather has a text widget. I saw the widget showing "Rain may form in the next 47 minutes", but opening the app, it reported that rain may form in the next 11 minutes. Not sure why they were that far apart.

Darksky has a meter that catches the eye when looking down at the phone and audible alerts when it's going to rain. That's what really makes the app for me - alerts and indications of rain I didn't know to expect. I am in the market for an app with that functionality. I have only had the other apps for a matter of hours, but the only one I noticed sending an audible alert for rain was Shadow Weather.

The special thing about Darksky for my use was that it would play a chime when rain was imminent in an exact location and had a widget with a bar chart meter showing how heavy the rain would be over the upcoming hour or so in fine-grained increments. It was great for getting an idea at a glance of whether it would be worth it to wait a few minutes for the rain to let up before going outside and when to check if the car windows were rolled up.

So far, I have found Accuweather with a similar 2 hour rain meter, but no widget for it, and Shadow Weather sent a notification about rain and has a "Next hour" rain forecast with a meter that can be opened by clicking on the Next hour text, but doesn't seem to have a widget for the meter, either.

Hopefully it's only a matter of time before one of the other apps adds a home screen widget to fill the void.

Except that it's not that difficult.

I know someone who had covid-19 and then got better and then caught it again a week later. The antibodies don't do shit.

> Your reply was all about this from the point of view of Linux, making it the centre of everything.

It was more from the point of view of a spurned Solaris admin who lost some of his favorite tools after Sun made licensing and process decisions that precluded widespread adoption on the platforms now used by business. The point I was intending make is that had CDDL not been an effective poison pill to prevent Linux cherry picking from OpenSolaris, I expect that Sun would have found other means.

I consider the module situation a trade off - on one hand, vendors supplying binary modules that have to be relinked each time a kernel is updated is a headache. On the other hand, it encourages vendors like Microsoft and VMware to finally contribute hv_netvsc and vmxnet3 source to the kernel rather than only releasing binary modules. Vendors never seem to keep those updated on a timeline that matches when I want to deploy a new release of an OS.

Maybe one day Oracle will be able find it in its heart to license ZFS as GPL like how they did with ocfs2 :-)

Linux was already GPL both in name and in spirit when ZFS was released under CDDL. If Sun had wanted it to be used in Linux, they could have dual licensed it like perl with Artistic/GPL. One of the reasons given for CDDL instead of GPL was reportedly to play keep-away from GNU/Linux so OpenSolaris source couldn't be meaningfully reused there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"According to Danese Cooper [ the one who actually wrote the CDDL ] one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible. Cooper stated, at the 6th annual Debian conference, that the engineers who had written the Solaris kernel requested that the license of OpenSolaris be GPL-incompatible.

"Mozilla was selected partially because it is GPL incompatible. That was part of the design when they released OpenSolaris. ... the engineers who wrote Solaris ... had some biases about how it should be released, and you have to respect that. "

Fortunately for those who do want to use ZFS in an integrated system, FreeBSD has done the work and accepted the licensing ramifications.

As Linus pointed out, Oracle Corporation has the option of GPL licensing the ZFS code. I haven't seen any reports of Linus threatening to go after e.g., Ubuntu for GPL-related issues. Meanwhile, an $8.8 billion case involving Oracle and open source copyright issues is waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court...

On the other hand, after Linus' clear comments of "don't use it" alongside dismissing its overall value, it would appear difficult to make the case that he was contributing in any way to any type of infringement. I much prefer for Linus to err on the side of not overvaluing the worth of something with a dodgy license. Rather than criticizing Linus, perhaps that energy would be better spent lobbying for a usable license for ZFS.

For the typical enterprise use case, ZFS was nice on Solaris to avoid paying Veritas licensing for software RAID and online resizing. On Linux, LVM + XFS has been good enough for that. As much as I liked LiveUpgrade + ZFS on Solaris, I have made peace with what Oracle assuming ownership means for those technologies.

In my experience, btrfs is has been more of an attractive nuisance than anything. While SUSE will field support cases about it in SLES, the level of support is along the lines of "try btrfs.check --repair", and when that destroys the filesystem entirely, to recommend restoring from backup.

ZFS on Solaris was a solid production-grade filesystem. btrfs sounds like it offers similar functionality on paper, but has not been production quality on SLES 15. File checksumming is nice, but it's hard to really get excited about when btrfs balance regularly corrupts filesystems.

I haven't released software under the GPL since RMS's insane rant at the LinuxWorld GNOME press conference about 20 years ago. Sorry, Bruce, I'm not on your side this time.

I haven't viewed Slashdot in some time and happened to pass through and see this news.

Roblimo will be missed. Thanks for all the work you did to further the community here and around open source.

When we get our army of AI soldiers, we'll remember who our friends were. (and weren't)

- Love Canada

As long as it's not BAD FUCKING ROCKET, we'll be ok. =)

The users will be less happy - hell, some will be downright miserable - but they'll be more engaged,

You're right. However, users can choose not to participate on Facebook.

Personally, FB is an addressbook. As long as my addressbook can't downvote my ACCOUNT, who cares?

I don't post much and if I post something that I'm interested in and people downvote, I will ask them what's up because they are people I know. If their explanation is sketchy or rude, unfriend. Problem solved.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

People really need to start growing up and taking their own responsibility regarding their behaviour and mood. If your mood is bad, why is it bad? Are you worn out from running on the FB treadmill of clicking and being possessed by your friends list?

Every human being knows if they are getting sick from toxic things. FB's toxicity is SLOW. It won't kill you right away but it could if the depression or anxiety from whether you will get accepted or not gets bad enough.

Dopamine is what FB is after. It's proven that a 66% negative exposure will double the high you get when you get one upvote or comment.

But FB has had downvote installed for YEARS. It was just internal. If they say they didn't have it then why are so many user posts never seen by ANYONE?

Once the downvote feature is live, the FB feed can go back to realtime posts from all friends. Users could then just lower visibility on friends they care less about.