Correct. Breaking is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
If something breaks, it's on me. This is about companies being able to take something away that isn't broken at all, at any time they choose, without any refund.
For any other item that'd be theft and would land them in jail.
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
The way things are headed, the only way people are going to be able to obtain money to pay for those widgets is via social welfare programs.
That's why systemd has been systematically making interoperability with grub and encryption more difficult, in no small part.
Oh cool so they fixed all the problems!
Simplification?
There was no simplification. It was all markedly more complicated and interdependent. That was literally the primary selling point of systemd, aside from "faster boot times".
What are the discreet benefits to the "1000s of containers at scale" scenario you mention which are satisfied with systemd which could not be or were not satisfied with init?
There was not a lack of uniformity before. In fact, it was more consistent and uniform before systemd at a system level.
The only benefit systemd provides is integration with eg. pulse audio - another one of this shmuck's horrible projects - and desktop integration. While that is potentially useful in and of itself, it didn't need to be done in such a massive, integrated, monolithic Microsoft-like fashion.
It'd be nice if people would use all this excess coding capacity as provided by AI to clean up the human written bloat slop they've been churning out for the past 20 years...
If you think software never breaks, I have a bunch of 5.25" disks somewhere that want to have an argument with you.
It's a complete strawman to argue that physical things break. If I buy music, digitally, that won't break and yet nobody sane would expect that the band can at some random time in the future say "we revoke all our music". I can also think of a number of physical things that unless I mistreat them will easily survive me and three generations down the line.
This is not about replacements, it's about taking the product sold away but keeping the money.
And what stops you from making a seperate license to play on the servers provided by the company that is based on good behaviour and/or monthly subscription fees?
This is what the Stop Killing Games movement is also about: Sure, we understand that eventually you wind down the online servers, no problem. But if I paid for a game, why should you have the right to disable it? With no other things I buy can you at any time later come to my house and take them back or disable them. Not with my microwave, not with my shower, not with my lights.
strncpy() was not intended for null-terminated strings at all. It should have been named copy_null_padded_buffer(). Then its operation would have made sense to almost anyone. People wouldn't have minded the longer name much either, because hardly anybody uses null-padded buffers in modern software.
Note that a null-padded buffer that is completely full doesn't have any nulls in it at all. That's why strncpy() doesn't necessarily add a null termination. It also fills the entire destination buffer with nulls after the end of a short copy, which can be very inefficient when used with null-terminated strings.
TL;DR: don't use strncpy(). It doesn't do what anybody thinks it does.
Buy indie games.
It's only the big players who have these delusions.
I'm not saying the right answer is to get a refund. The right answer is to not make the license revokable.
For the theater comparison: If the theatre would invalidate my ticket and throw me out mid-movie, you can be sure that I'd ask for a refund. And in any sane jurisdiction, I'd get it.
Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith
