Yes, but if the lawyers tell Intel that it's employees cannot contribute to the Kernel *as a work requirement* anymore, what does that do to the Kernel?
So I'm waiting for someone at a major corporation that does substantial open source development to file a hostile work environment suit against their company if they are required to do kernel submissions. That would *quickly* result in a change in attitude if a major contributor decided that it was potentially litigiously expensive to contribute.
And I'm talking Intel, IBM, RedHat, or even Google, all with massive presence in the US, where this type of behavior would be considered completely unacceptable.
I'm sorry, this is like working for a vulgar cousin or uncle. Fine for small business and family shops, completely unacceptable outside of that type of environment.
My understanding is that MS is working to integrate powershell based package manager tools like https://chocolatey.org/ with Powershell 5.0.
This quote from the end of the article says it all:
"Lee Goldstein, a clinical instructor in the Harvard Law School legal aid bureau, said that the issue of whether the students were legally qualified to sue, known as standing, could be fatal to the students’ suit, as it was to the earlier suit brought by Mr. Bonifaz and others."
"could be" is a way of putting it politely.
"could be" is a way for lawyers to charge more hours.
I go around saying "Microsoft limits filenames to a ridiculous 8.sqrt(3) format."
Does that make my hatred irrational?
It would if it were sqrt( -3)
Seriously? The three hours of Saturday morning soccer that I'm forced to drag my three kids to killed any sort of opportunity for any TV watching on a Saturday.
[...] bottle of Corona than to cool a bottle of brew-from-sewer.
Um, isn't that the same thing?
Do you suffer painful recrimination? -- Nancy Boxer, "Structured Programming with Come-froms"