I wonder how do you solve the technical problem if there was driver issue in Windows.
When I am facing issue in Windows, I google it, then I got some regedit trick to perform. If that works, that's great. If not, then I need to search for another trick until it works. Since windows command line sucks, I have to hop through different configuration windows to try solving the issue. A very frustrating experience.
Could an average Windows user could able to diagnostic their problem and confidently perform an action knowing it will work? My experience is they just ask their friend, family or ask for immediate solution on social media. If they can't solve it, then maybe just buy a new one.
I think Windows is just as accessible as how many friends and family using Windows.
> I wonder how do you solve the technical problem if there was driver issue in Windows.
This just doesn't happen that often in Windows, at least for the majority of hardware.
Yeah yeah, I know everyone has an anecdote of some graphics card driver update screwing up their multi-monitor setup, or that cheap no-name Chinese headset or camera bought off Amazon that never worked (and which they promptly returned).
But chances are, if you buy a well known branded component at Best Buy or Staples or even online, and you're not running some ancient version of Windows, the drivers will work. At worst, you might have to ask the IT guy at work or your kid who's more tech savvy, and they'll figure it out by downloading the drivers off the OEM's site. They certainly won't need to jump into a command line and compile a patched driver into a kernel like you'll end up having to do on Linux.
The reason for this is because the software engineers who wrote the drivers spent 90% of their time ensuring it would work in "most" versions and configurations of Windows, 9% of their time getting it to work with Mac (maybe), and anywhere from 0% to 1% for Linux.
When I was younger, I really enjoyed the challenge of digging into Linux and learning about how drivers and various subsystems worked. But now... I don't want to spend half my weekend to get a $40 USB camera or headset to work properly. I get paid decent money to write and fix software at work, 50 hours a week, and the novelty of doing it on Linux has long worn off.
Plugged it into a USB 3.0 port on my Windows 10 machine. Hardware not recognized. Clicked, "Search automatically for drivers" (which has maybe worked once, ever), No drivers found.
Went to Google... All the "support" answers that you see from microsoft when you google "drivers for windows 10 xbox controller" provide basic IT support responses and no links to drivers. Found a link on reddit somewhere to a microsoft page where I finally found drivers that worked.
> if you buy a well known branded component at Best Buy or Staples or even online, and you're not running some ancient version of Windows, the drivers will work
Microsoft brand main stream product (over 5000 reviews on amazon), doesn't work out of the box on Windows 10...
I can't say that my personal experience is in line with anything you mention, re "things working out of the box on windows more than mac or linux".
Just buy a piece of hardware that is compatible with Linux and then you get a pain free experience.
I am more productive when enjoying higher IO throughput on linux file system. Windows's program was always unresponsive and hurting my productivity.
Another example is an unknown driver bug could cause Windows system process go up to 100% CPU usage and there are no obvious solution to the problem. I don't think average user like it. They just think computer is generally buggy and accept that. They don't know anything better.
The last paragraph in your response really resonates with me. My time is much more valuable now, than it was when I'd find excuses to tinker with my tools.
Today, I just want my tools to work, and I want to use those tools to get things done.
I think that's misunderstanding of AGPL. For internal use, AGPL does not require to share the proprietary part.
If a company develop an proprietary UI and use Loki as backend, this is not serving Loki directly to customer, so that does not require company to release their code.
It is similar to GPL. Dynamic linking to a GPL software does not require the developer releasing their code.
Only provider serving Loki instance directly to customer required to share the code.
Only Amazon is upset that they cannot just host a popular open source project directly on their cloud. Maybe they could pay a license fee for dual licensing arrangement, which is a better way to support open source startup.
I think this is a misunderstanding of how vague the AGPL actually is.
The key clause is "your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version."
Would putting AGPL software behind a reverse proxy change the fact that you're a user interacting with it remotely? What about a reverse proxy that changes/adds some headers? What about a really smart reverse proxy that reformats some of the output or repackages it or mixes it with things from other data sources? Is that materially different from the API that powers the "proprietary UI" you're describing?
And say you're pretty confident that you're on the right side of things. Can you point to any case law where courts have established precedent about what "interacting with it remotely" means in this context? No? Then to be on the safe side, you'll probably need to maintain a source code repository for your Corresponding Source, remember to update it every time you update a minor version of the service internally, and maintain an info screen in your product with "prominent" links to that source code repository, which likely means it needs sign off from a product team if not a legal team as well. All things that add expense and barriers to entry.
I think the AGPL is great for services like Grafana's UI itself, where there's likely to be a "human gap" between the software and anyone outside your organization. But things like Loki that are designed to power other proprietary systems that may well be touched by end users through a computer network, where Loki's output may have influence or side effects on the output the user sees? I don't think it's nearly as clear what liability that entails.
(Obligatory: Not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice.)
Most companies who use Grafana or Loki as part of some deployment would use an unmodified version, so the only AGPL specific clause, which you cite, would not apply and is irrelevant.
This kind of hand-wringing is what the naysayers were doing with GPL software in the 90s. That the GPL would never fly in business because lawyers would get hung up in "what if" interpretations that were never the intent or spirit of the GPL in the first place.
Not really. GPLv2 had more sensible legal language, even if that turned out to burn FSF intentions at times, but over time lawyers started digging in more into "derivative software" clause. Also a lot of the naysayers were fueled by RMS himself doing whack a mole by forcing projects to adopt GPL in not nice manner (and I'm not talking about them using something big or critical from GPL project).
TL;DR FSF is heavily responsible for the "GPL is viral" message sticking.
Sure! Saying that the parent’s “develop an proprietary UI and use Loki as backend” is a slippery slope to “user sees data that incorporates data served from Loki” which I am arguing could be interpreted as data that would require the developer to maintain a source repository for Loki under the AGPL.
I see now and yes the AGPL seems vague in that regard.
If it's anything like dynamic linking and GPL that could be considered okay even if it's not the intention of the licensee. Seems like the license should be more explicit about what "interacting with" entails.
Not everyone agrees on this point [1]. One relevant quote: "This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works."
Whether or not dynamic linking constitutes a "derived" work is still an open question, legally speaking. Obviously the FSF has their own thoughts on this, but it's unclear how an actual court would rule.
That may be true, but a state of ambiguity is as good as saying its covered by GPL ... no organisation is going to look at that and say "that's fine, let's use it".
In fact, state of ambiguity is the worst for everyone because neither will users be able assume they can exercise their free software rights. So everyone loses.
The difference between the AGPL and traditional GPL is simple: The AGPL seeks to close a "loophole" that allows a company or organization to modify GPL'ed software and use it to provide a service — but without actually distributing changes. So a company can take a package like, say, WordPress and modify the software significantly to sell a service — but hold back changes because it's not technically "distributing" or "propagating" the software. The AGPL goes a bit further and says that if the program is "intended to interact with users through a computer network" and if the version that you received gives users "the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code," you have to maintain that functionality and distribute the modified version.
1. the software is conveyed in a "User Product", and
2. that conveyance occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of that product is transferred to the recipient.
A "User Product" is defined as 'either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling'.
In other words, it only covers software that is installed on actual physical hardware when that hardware is sold (or rented, etc) to the consumer.
For a sale of a service, it is completely out of scope.
This is probably the most misunderstood clause in GPLv3, with people thinking that it some sort of general anti-DRM clause. Almost everybody, for example, thinks that it is why you can't have GPLv3 code on the Apple app store, but because it only applies to conveyances that are part of the transaction by which you acquire your iPhone or iPad it in fact does not apply to software purchased later from the app store. Apple's app store DRM is perfectly compatible with GPLv3.
The incompatibility between the app store and GPL is that the license agreement for the app store says you won't redistribute the app or reverse engineer it. GPL does not allow adding additional license restrictions like that, and so you can't satisfy both the app store license and GPL.
This might be the case. However there is an additional risk and process component:
- you might not want to risk because you don't have lawyers etc in your company.
- even if you have lawyers etc in your company, if there are 2 alternatives one which is just an MIT license, you'll probably go for that one because you don't want to have a 1.5 month review of the use of this AGPL licensed alternative.
In general things like this https://github.com/xdspacelab/openvslam/wiki/Termination-of-... (repo with 3k stars), an effort terminated because of some traces of GPL code MIGHT be somewhere in there comes to light. Even though Grafana etc are mostly tools, for my startup I would probably not risk any of this (for my own sake and also for any kind of due diligence in case it ever gets acquired)
did not follow the events of openvslam, wouldn't they be required to still release the source code of the previously public version as GPL? also once the doubt is there, why not rerelease as GPL?
How does this actually work towards your employees or 3rd party personnel (for example consultants) getting access to the tools - would you have to make the source code available for them and allow them to distribute the code?
But think about it. Anyone that use AGPLv3 software can demand the AGPLv3 license, including employees and contractors. Once they got it, they can freely publish it to the public because it's AGPLv3. Forcing NDA to not leak it to the public doesn't work here because it violate AGPLv3 license thus copyright infringement.
Very true. I have used Ubuntu and Fedora for a while, but when I switched to Arch, I never go back. Arch is described as bleeding edge, but another way to put it is it always has latest software, which is what a dev machine should be. My experience with installing Nvidia driver in ubuntu is nightmare. Tried official repo then failed, and tried different ppa and then failed again and again. At last, I found that I have an older kernel version and I need to compiled a latest kernel which is not in official ubuntu repo. I gave up at this point because I don't want to compile kernel every time I need to upgrade. With Arch, you always get the latest kernel and you won't usually missing feature from using an old LTS kernel.
A strong tie between Hunter Biden, James Biden and China is not a news. It was before the laptop become a thing. Read some CNN news on 2019 and 2018, when the water is not that hot. CNN still pose some doubt on Hunter Biden's stance and potential corruption.
For example, Hunter Biden has invested a China company called Face++, which later to be a core technology to surveillance on Uygur.
Patrick Ho, a former Hong Kong official being charged for corruption in US, being accuse of bribing Africa leader for allowing China's Energy company to exploit natural resource in Africa, which is part of the One Belt and One Road grand plan in China. Basically a form of colonialism from China.
The interesting part is right here. When Patrick Ho is on charged, who he called for a help? It is Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden's business partner in China is Ye Jianming, who is the boss of Patrick Ho. Ye Jianming is now "disappeared" or under investigation in CCP because Patrick Ho's arrested and Ye Jianming's operation has failed.
You can seach the keyword here. Those story are in CNN, New York Times etc.
It is pretty strange for the mainstream media to completely ignore the story when they have the same doubt on two years ago.
Tha laptop? It could be a cover-up for a whist-blower. The information could be true or fake. But even without the laptop, there are many evidence that Hunter Biden using his father's name involving in many corruption. And no one asked a question about his father's involvement on that? In fact, Joe Biden has seen Hunter Biden's China customer during the diplomatic visit to China.
If the mainstream media cannot be trusted, then it would be the best catalyst for conspiracy theory. In fact, the bias in the media has strengthened the polarization in the country even more.
As pointed out in the article, 14- to 16-year-old girls often win gymnastics championships (and in fact nobody over the age of 20 has won the olympic all-around since 1972), whereas no man under the age of 20 has ever won an olympic all-around. Being a grown adult is a huge advantage in men's gymnastics and a massive disadvantage in women's.
(I have a kid of each gender in local gymnastics programs and I have to carefully keep this stuff in mind. It's great that the kids are strong, and gymnastics makes people absurdly strong, but I don't think I would ever let my daughter anywhere near a high-level competitive program.)
My children always liked sport but I told them that this is for their fun and not a medal for the organization (they were never interested in the competition part).
They switched sports either when it was getting boring or they felt that the competition part was over the fun one.
This does not mean that they abondonned early, but for instance both stopped karate after their black belt, to do rock climbing or ping pong. Because the fun was gone.
It sounds like you might have the experience required to explain what is different about men's gymnastics that causes it to not have this same youth bias?
But why is strength important for male gymnastics but not for women gymnastics? The argument for women's gymnastics was that they are smaller and lighter weight and thereby can do crazier stunts... doesn't that apply to men? It just sounds like there is something fundamentally different to the sports themselves that I am not understanding as someone who knows nothing about either.
Two factors. First of all men's and women's gymnastics have some different events and different judging criteria for the events they have in common. On the whole the men's events and scoring criteria require more core and upper body strength to pull off successfully.
Secondly while the strength to weight ratio of women might peak at 15-18, in men it keeps increasing into their mid-late 20s. In general, the strength difference between a 15 and 25 year old man is much much greater than that between a 15 and 25 year old woman. Basically a 20-25 year old man can pull off feats of strength that a 15-16 year old simply can't. The same isn't really true for women (again in general).
I'm the same. My son struggled with his motor skills when he was little so we got him interested in gymnastics and he loves it and it's really helped. I'd like to do the same for my daughter when she's old enough but I'd hope she doesn't want go into competition. She also likes dance so that might be a better option.
FYI, Dance can have similar problems. I’m convinced a world reknowned ballet school had a major negative psychological effect on someone I know. Not sure how common that is in lesser schools, but something to be mindful of.
Yeah, I'm just thinking that dance seems less about the competition than gymnastics, so might be a healthier atmosphere.
Our gymnastics club has a kind of parkour club which seems more about having fun and being active which I think me might move my son to when he's old enough.
The ballet world has similar levels of competition and harmful psychological effects as women’s gymnastics. There are a huge number of girls and women competing for an extremely small number of available jobs as a full time professional dancer for a top-tier ballet company, of which there are only a small handful in the world. And almost everyone in ballet has struggled with disordered eating at some point, including the men.
If there are violence, it is a civil war. Does apple like to meddle their hand in blood? Especially they are standing for the dictatorship, which does not put Apple in a good position even if they are going to get into the issue.
Let's be realistic here. Why Liang would fund a site like that. Either one of the reason: CCP ordered that, or he wants to show loyalty and earn credit to CCP. Either case, it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened and didn't ban it.
And Liang is vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. What it means is he is not officially CCP but a very trusted person to be included as decision maker of CCP.
I don't think I like the argument of "it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened". CCP is a party with 90 million members, so if you argue Liang act as a member of CCP, I think I am okay with that.
I don't know should we be 'realistic' or should we be 'accurate' when we make a point. This is a strange time.
It is an interesting point so I can discuss a little bit. Seems people didn't understand the implication of an autocratic government.
When people tried to avoid government funded software, let say a communication app, what is the reason? Because we want to avoid state-owned software violating user privacy and sent all my personal data for their profiling database.
You will trust a private company for that more, why? Because even a private company have to obey court order to disclose personal information to law enforcement, they usually have the right to deny it before the issue escalated to the court.
Now what is the case for autocratic government? Are there any real private company? Using China as an example, any person have to right to inform the government about secret information obtained, so China government have the right to get any information obtained from any Chinese private company without court order. In addition, any large organization including public company have to setup a party branch and have CCP member to oversee the organization. Including Huawei, claiming to be a private company.
So, using any product from any private Chinese company has equivalent disadvantage to a 3-letter agency funded VPN network.
Now back to the issue of if Liang is CCP or not. I won't quote unconfirmed source about Liang is a hidden CCP member. Just use the opened fact, Liang is a formal governor of Hong Kong, which means Liang has taking oath to CCP and CCP trusted this person to rule HK. Liang is currently a decision maker inside CCP's committee, and if Liang has conduct issue from CCP's point of view, then Liang can be secretly prosecuted by party order and put in jail in China.
Another example is Teresa Cheng, Hong Kong Secretary for Justice. For some reason she has been to UK but being taken back to China for investigating her conduct and possibility for applying political asylum by party secret police. She was then released and continued her work in Hong Kong. Detailed is not confirmed, but one thing is clear. Any Hong Kong official can be threatened by party secret police and they must do their job according to CCP plan.
