One would almost begin to suspect that there is a vested interest in making Linux appear to be far more vulnerable than the "alternatives" to Linux.

I was alive for Carter, but didn't really notice politics until the rise of Reagan.

Funny you mention the Interstate system. My grandfather worked a large portion of his life putting the Interstate system in in South Dakota. Our government is currently best considering how to monetize the Interstate system by making them into toll roads for non business users.

At this particular point the greed inherent in the elite class has become so firmly entrenched that it would take them wanting to outright hurt themselves to get them to refocus on the greater good. That's the crux of most of our issues. They've preached the idea that anything positive for the greater good is a negative for themselves for so long that they've begun to believe it. It's going to be tough to break through that barricade until their greed begins to impact them directly in a negative way, and something tells me even then they'll simply argue that it's the greedy lower classes causing all the problems.

False. Here in America we vote for the person who will do the least amount of damage to the country. No one running at the national level in our lifetimes has *EVER* been interested in doing the most for the country. They're interested in doing the most for their own pockets, and their sponsors. The rest of the country is only of interest to them insofar as they need those votes the next time around. The power of the vote pales in comparison to the power of the money necessary to get to be presented to the public as a viable option to vote for. We've watched our lawmakers and judiciary encode that fact into law in such a way where bribery and outright purchasing of congressional power (and even judges in some case) is not only legal, but required to keep them doing anything at all. The vote is a simple dog and pony show meant to blame us for the actions of those with the money to actually influence the government. "You voted for this," is a perfect example of someone who believes the smoke and mirrors are the entire story, and completely ignoring the fact that every single person in office that has any influence on the actual direction of the country has been bought and paid for long before they get past whatever filter, be it primary, previous office on a local or state level, or any other hurdle, allows them to run for national office.

The Democrats have done a lot to damage their own public image by simply playing the "we're not as bad as them" game to the fullest possible extent they can. That's the only thing they've run on since Donald Trump became Republican Captain and Commander, and it could be argued for some time before him. "We're only gonna fuck you a little," sounds real good when the alternative is, "WE'RE GOING IN DRY AND HARD, MOTHERFUCKER!" But it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are *STILL* learning the wrong lessons from their defeats. They seem to believe that it's a winning strategy to become *MORE* like the Republicans, rather than less like them. Don't believe me? Look at how Gavin Newsom is rising in their ranks. How? By being an obnoxious twat online, like a knock-off Trump.

It'd be nice if there were a few more Bernie Sanders / AOC types that actually propose true alternatives to, "We need to hand billions to the business class and take the reigns completely off of all business interactions." But there's a reason Bernie was pushed aside during his rise. There's no profit in helping the general population. There's much more profit it allowing the business sector and their owners to ride roughshod over the rest of us. And the politicians willing to help them do it are the ones we get presented with to choose between.

And the sad reality is, I still vote, because I want to at least *TRY* to stop the worst of the worst. It's done me zero good, as I'm in prime MAGA country, and my state always goes red, but at least I can look myself in the mirror and say, "i didn't fucking vote for this assclown."

You sure there's one left? I see little evidence of sapience. Perhaps mindless animal greed sucking up what could be considered sapience if it were channeled in any direction other than, "Gimme that, it's mine."

While I get that, I'm trying to imagine the scenario where you have services running on virtualized Linux boxes and you want to leave VMWare. That, to me, doesn't hit as a "IBM Mainframes are my only choice" situation.

This is IBM trying to advertise that they're still viable, when in reality, nobody is going to move from Linux in VMWare to an IBM mainframe.

Now, it's not *COMPLETELY* outside the realm of possibility that Gartner is simply too unaware to understand that VMWare is/was not the only platform available for virtualizing Linux. They are, after all, notoriously unidimensional in their thinking on tech, and often seem to present information as if they were forced to wear blinders when doing their research. But it's really hard to believe they've remained *COMPLETEL* ignorant of the other possibilities available that are anything other than, "Spend a fortune on VMWare licensing" or "Spend almost as much on IBM licensing + Hardware."

One would almost think they're goal was to promote spending ridiculously too much money to accomplish a business goal.

I think jail time should be reserved for the marketing fuckwad that publishes a press release in a few months claiming every one of those commits as proof that Copilot has one the AI code wars.

I don't know, man. Melinda had to tolerate Bill for quite a while. That may not be worth the total sum of the money she has, but it'd definitely be worth quite a bit more than the average person's net worth.

Don't just let the tech companies decide the curriculum for these courses, or it truly will be indoctrination. Teach the positives, the negatives, and give a balanced view of where we are and where various leaders inside and outside of tech hope things can go. If we allow the tech companies to develop the curriculum without oversight, it will be like going to AI church, the continually preaching of the coming AI God will add to the layer of doom hanging over kids' heads as they stare at a future that won't need them because AI and robotics will do all the work.

Industrializing content creation was bound to eventually come up with a way to industrialize their own industry. Creators annoyed the business side of the content creation business and always have. Whether it be music and real musicians, books and real authors, videos and real videographers (and writers, and lighting experts and all the rest), or audio form news / stories and all the producers required to make them well, including the researchers helping gather the information behind the scenes, all the humans involved have always been seen as a cost center, and an obstacle to pure, unfiltered profit possibilities. Now that AI is good enough to generate slop in all of these realms, the industrialized version of all of these realms are of course obsessing over how quickly they can rid themselves of the human involvement in creating any of these forms of content.

This obsession has led very quickly to creating so much automated content that it's beginning to swamp traditional content creators, who simply will not be able to keep up with the automated creation.

And perhaps in the end, the "industrial" part of the content creation industries will falter and fail under the flood of slop that they are creating. And maybe we can get back to a point where the content itself becomes important again, rather than the quantity of slop that can be generated for clicks. At least, that's what the tiny little hopeful part of my brain is wishing for. More likely, we'll just watch traditional and even modern distribution methods for content choke on the tsunami of slop until there's no distribution methods left, and we'll be back to passing things around on tapes, cds, or notebooks.

That would explain why it's taking the usual financial sector folks so long to understand it.

I'm waiting on the Martian cattle, so we can have butter.

I don't see how that changes his argument. If the people you share a system with can't be trusted to not be an attacker, you (or the computer's owners) have already messed up. Shared system implies trust has already been established for the people who have access. If that isn't the case, somebody missed step 1 in security, "Don't hand out access to people who can't be trusted."

Yeah, my first thought was, "This would be a really cool advisory tool in a civilized society. It'll be used as a doctor / physician's assistant replacement in America's for profit healthcare system."