Therefore the output must be prior art.

Especially administration, but also mqny IT departments tends to be MS centric. It is not enough to decide at management level to switch, but you have root out blockers. Especially in IT, you have to let go of a lot of Windows people, who more or less consciously will work against the transition. On the user side you can easily just say, they have to live with it (or leave the company). And then you have the cost of porting lots of admin tools tied to MS Office.and Windows.

But I still have to try the solutions out and get into my code. All in all, I save time because I don't have to look up solutions around the web myself. But I always have to code it myself, except in one case whete I got it to translate existing (obscure) code to Python - but not error free either, it turned out.

Yeah, but mining was stopped: It wad suddenly forbidden to dig up any uranium, which is plenty and mixed up with rest of minerals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Solution: Force large companies to pay dividens at such a rate they are forced to sell of divisions instead of buying other companies. For instance 1 million USD per 1 billion over a 100 billion evalation limit per day. Not tax, dividens. Automatically. The only thing is the control already done by SEC for public companies, namely independent control of each company claiming to under the 100 billion USD limit.

Unless you are doing Windows apps, of course. WSL2 is made for us wanting Linux in a Windows envionment, but just so unstable that it slows me down with a lot of required restarts. But still, a lot of builds and even running plain C++ code, runs much faster under WSL2 than plain Windows. But maybe the whole future is Mac or Linux for devs making apps for locked down OSes like iOS, Android, ChromeOS and Windows?

computer scientists Java. That is how it is here in Denmark. The engineering schools are still Microsoft centric, while the computer science department always have used Unix.

Or is it the Pope they refer to?

shouldn't be used for irrelevant political issues? I am not claiming there is no problem with discrimination against minorities, and such issues should be addressed, but not from an organisation and grants focused on software. Just as climate organisations shouldn't all the sudden use their grants fighting for Palestine....

Yes, nuclear fission plants generate waste which have to be stored, and no realistic technology can make it disappear. Wings from old wind turbines are also waste, but it is realistic to do something about it, although expensive. But you also need huge batteries, creating their own waste problems - easier to recycle, maybe. If the amount of radioactive waste is very small compared to the energy generated, nuclear can still be considered cleaner, and a much faster way to zero-emission. Ideally, the cost of waste, risks, noise and visual pollution simply have to be paid for up front, and then let the market decide, instead of being a political decision based on feelings. But that is unrealistic:-(

If you simply translate GPL code in another language, the GPL still applies.

If it is for short lived shell utilities, GC might be better, as the process might close before it is ever needed, i.e. calling free is a waste of time, introducing bugs. I agree, I would hesitate to use a GC for anything time critical, but that does hardly apply for the stuff being rewritten here.

That are one of the differences between highest and low end brands. But I am in general wondering about the economics of making things last: Would it be profitable if companies had to pay for all externalities, i.e. environment damage, or wouldn't produce cheap and recycle raw materials still be more profitable?

lwn.net have an article about https://fil-c.org/, which is a C compiler they claim to be able to compile most C code "memory safe". Explicitly, they claim to have compiled much of userspace Linux "memory safe". A lot of the excuse to rewrite to rust is gone, if that really works and is performance enough.

https://fil-c.org/. They claim to be able to compile much of the same code memory safe, so no need to rewrite in Rust. Unless the goal is Rust itself. Or corporate pressure to get rid of GPL - a pressure many in the Open Source community falls for.