This is how the BMW a friend owns works, and it's not an EV. The unlock button in the driver's seat just stops working if the car is off.

How do I know this? I decided to stay in the car while my friend went to go get something, and it auto-locked as he walked away. After about 5 minutes of trying everything I could think of to get out (including attempting to climb into the boot, which was too small for anything except a malnourished child to fit through), he came back and unlocked it.

There is no manual way to unlock the door from the inside. I checked the driver's manual. It says it's impossible to do without "special knowledge" and does not provide any pointers on how to do so. The friend asked a guy at the BMW place after a service how to unlock it from the inside, and he said "oh, yeah, there's no way to do that," and laughed it off.

Previous BMW models weren't designed like this. I can't imagine what they'll do to the next generation...

Linus Torvalds, the Finnish engineer who in 1991 created the now ubiquitous Unix alternative Linux, didn’t buy into this dogma. Torvalds and others, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, believed that the culture of open exchange among engineers could coexist with commerce, and that more-restrictive licenses could forge a path toward both financial sustainability and protections for software creators and users.

It's kind of amazing that this article gets one thing right that most journalists don't, which is that pushover licenses are more restrictive toward the software's users than copyleft licenses, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that free software can be sold and the GNU Project actively encourages doing business with free software. However, I worry that by "more restrictive", this article isn't talking about passing on freedoms but instead talking about source-available licenses. I think this because it includes Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds in the same class, the former who was the CEO of a company that started the Shared Source Initiative, which was a source-available licensing program for Windows. Meanwhile, Linus Torvalds is a veteran of free software.

A little confusing, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here. They've got the history right for the most part.

As the tech industry grew around private companies like Sun Microsystems, IBM, Microsoft, and Apple in the late ’90s and early ’00s, new open-source projects sprang up, and established ones grew roots. Apache emerged as an open-source web server in 1995. Red Hat, a company offering enterprise companies support for open-source software like Linux, went public in 1999. GitHub, a platform originally created to support version control for open-source projects, launched in 2008, the same year that Google released Android, the first open-source phone operating system.

I don't understand why Github is being included in this list of "open source projects". Github isn't free software! It's as proprietary as it gets. Gitlab, Gitea, or Sourcehut make more sense as they are actually free software projects. It's a strange fact of life that the largest free software code forge is proprietary. I also think it does Apple a disservice by not mentioning the fact that Apple completely rebuilt its operating system on a free software BSD foundation in the late '90s, and then released parts of it as free software, like the XNU kernel, as well as CUPS, which I use today! Even as far back as the '90s, large private corporations like Apple were releasing both proprietary software and free software. Sun Microsystems of course was a much bigger free software contributor at the time.

All in all, I'm kind of confused by this paragraph. Is it trying to juxtapose "private companies" and "open-source"? Well, private companies just so happen to be the biggest contributors to the largest free software project today; the Linux kernel. Is it trying to say that private companies suddenly started releasing free software because of 'open-source'? Why list companies that have made big contributions to free software without listing those contributions, then?

This is made even more confusing when it talks about Amazon relying on the free software Java language developed by Sun, trying to make the point that private companies relied on a blend of proprietary and free software components. It confuses things a bit more by introducing patents when it starts off talking about copyright, which can also be registered for free software.

Others, including Kelsey Hightower, are more sanguine about corporate involvement. “If a company only ends up just sharing, and nothing more, I think that should be celebrated,” he says. “Then if for the next two years you allow your paid employees to work on it, maintaining the bugs and issues, but then down the road it’s no longer a priority and you choose to step back, I think we should thank [the company] for those years of contributions.”

I agree very much with this. Red Hat's many contributions to the freedesktop project come to mind.

There’s no singular definition, either. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was founded in 1998 to steward the meaning of the phrase, but not all modern open-source projects adhere to the 10 specific criteria OSI laid out, and other definitions appear across communities.

I find this very troubling. The OSI applied for a trademark on "Open Source" in 1999 and were not granted it. They wanted to trademark the term so no one could twist "Open Source" into something it wasn't (there's a quote earlier in the article referring to "openwashing"), meaning they foresaw this. The Open Source Definition is very specific and if we start applying the term "open source" to source-available projects (or whatever else, like Brave Search's "open" API), it loses all its meaning, and Windows suddenly becomes an open source operating system.

Here's the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd/

Read it, know it, use it appropriately. It looks a lot like the Free Software Definition.

GitHub helped lower the barrier to entry, drawing wider contribution and spreading best practices such as community codes of conduct. But its success has also given a single platform vast influence over communities dedicated to decentralized collaboration.

Yes. That's pretty scary.

While this volunteer spirit aligns with the original vision of free software as a commerce-free exchange of ideas,

...No, it was never like that. Since this article judiciously references our shared history, let's talk about how Richard Stallman funded the GNU Project. Richard Stallman originally made his living off selling GNU Emacs (free software) on tapes to programmers so he could employ developers to work on parts of the GNU Project. Free software isn't about not making money. Linus Torvalds, in fact, is the guy that originally didn't want to make money from software! He originally released Linux under a restrictive license that prevented anyone from making any money from Linux. The GNU Project celebrated the kernel when Linus released it under a free license that allowed commercial exploitation—specifically, the GNU General Public License (V2).

But allowing anyone to use, modify, and distribute AI models and technology could accelerate their misuse.

This isn't new. The GNU Project has a page about why software must not restrict people from running it. The entire point of free software is that no one is at the mercy of the developers and their ethics. Personally, I don't trust OpenAI to know what is good for me.

LLaMA 2, a new model released in July, is fully open to the public, but the company has not disclosed its training data as is typical in open-source projects—putting it somewhere in between open and closed by some definitions, but decidedly not open by OSI’s.

This demonstrates why the Open Source Definition is important and canonical.

Overall, I'd say this article actually rates better than most articles I've seen written about free software in terms of accuracy and history. It makes some good points about funding. The article also includes voices from very relevant people in the free software / open source space, which is good.

Tech Enthusiasts: Everything in my house is wired to the Internet of Things! I control it all from my smartphone! My smart-house is bluetooth enabled and I can give it voice commands via alexa! I love the future!

Programmers / Engineers: The most recent piece of technology I own is a printer from 2004 and I keep a loaded gun ready to shoot it if it ever makes an unexpected noise.

BMW thinks so too!

It is interesting though that we find ourselves working around a bug we did not introduce triggered by code we do not control.

I imagine a lot of a browser's codebase looks like this. From what I understand, browsers expect webmasters to screw up their markup and make allowances for it.

For me, it's:

• All software is shipped with as few changes as possible from upstream, so I'm getting the software as intended. If there's an issue, it's likely due to the software, not my distribution's unicorn configuration.
• Pacman. This includes PKGBUILDs, syntax, and speed.
• Good support. For all that this distribution isn't "the standard", you find install instructions in places you wouldn't expect, and more difficult things tend to work on Arch more easily than on other distributions.
• Easy to set new things up. Because Arch doesn't ship with much configuration, there's no existing configuration you need to investigate in order to wrangle it to work with something new. This is also a downside, but we'll get to that...
• Inertia. I installed it a few years ago, and I kind of want to move to openSUSE or Fedora, but I'm too comfortable here.

Downsides:

• You need to configure everything. That includes the security stuff like AppArmor and SELinux you don't understand.
• Occasional breakages. Arch doesn't break that often, but it's annoying when it does. Usually visiting bbs.archlinux.org is enough to set you on the right path.
• Some software is packaged more slowly than other rolling distributions. Notably, GNOME is usually packaged a few months after openSUSE and Fedora ship it.
• Constant updates! And HUGE updates, at that! Not great for computers you don't use often. If you do, make sure to pacman -Sy archlinux-keyring before you install new updates.

The irony being that some Linux users fear change (or at least fight it tooth and nail) more than any other computer user.

Its still open source. You can still view the source code. That’s what open source is.

"Open Source" does not, and has never only meant, "you can view the source code". This is the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd/

Relevant excerpt:

1. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

The Open Source Definition is very specific, and this license does not meet it. This license is, as it calls itself, "source-available".

If the OSI had obtained that trademark in 1999 on "Open Source", it would be abundantly clear what software really is and is not open source https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php/

Not Power Profiles Daemon...

You can get the manga officially from here in its original form: https://www.aerialline.com/comics/ubunchu/

It's licensed under CC-BY NC 3.0 and the author includes the original photoshop files if you want to edit them.

It's pretty funny. I own a physical copy.

Red Hat has decided to stop allocating resources for maintaining and improving these parts of the freedesktop project. Red Hat isn't working on proprietary versions of them. They've just decided to stop paying for work to be done on them. It just so happens that many of these projects were only being maintained by Red Hat employees, it seems.

macOS has made it difficult for both game developers and Wine developers to support the platform by letting their OpenGL support rot, removing 32-bit support, ignoring Vulkan and coming out with their own graphics API, Metal. Wine is in a worse state than on GNU/Linux. There aren't many native games available for macOS.

That being said, your best bet is likely CrossOver. They employ the principle Wine developers, worked with Valve on Proton, and have put a lot of effort into supporting macOS. They've got a free trial with complete functionality you can try out.

But if the games you're playing have native releases for macOS, that's not something you need to worry about. There are just so few games available on macOS that I assumed they don't. Now, I only have an Intel iMac which I never play games on so I couldn't tell you how the newer ARM laptops perform.

but browser should not crash what ever some website does.

Sometimes crashing would be better than trying to beat wonky code into shape: https://samy.pl/myspace/tech.html

1. Sweet! Now we can do javascript with single quotes. However, myspace strips out the word "javascript" from ANYWHERE. To get around this, some browsers will actually interpret "java\nscript" as "javascript" (that's javascript). Example:

But on principle I agree. I can't say whether Google Images works or not on my Firefox browser, because I'm using Mojeek.

Here's a smaller sample size (2417 people at the time of writing) but all you need to do is fill in your details on the website: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/users/statistics/

X is at 66% and Wayland is at 33% for GamingOnLinux.

When my KDE screenlocker crashes on Wayland, all my monitors tell me to switch to a TTY and run a manual unlock. Which is reassuring!

My main search engine is Mojeek, and my secondary search engine is Kagi. I've paid for Kagi for over a year, and it gets good results. I think it's great that every part of both search engines work without Javascript, and that Kagi's results pages are very light. It's also cool that it returns results for pages in the Internet Archive, which can be useful for certain esoteric topics. I'm de-ranking certain sites so they're pushed to the bottom of results, like quora, twitter, w3schools, and reddit.

There are also no ads! At all! I used Duckduckgo in a VM today and it was dreadful how far you have to scroll just to get past the ads and see the actual results.

Kagi gets great results. My only problem is that, just like Duckduckgo, they use the Bing API. Now, Kagi actually uses their own non-commercial index Teclis, combined with their news index Tinygem, as well as calling Google's API and many other search engine APIs (including Mojeek). My main search engine is Mojeek because they use their own index.

I've found Kagi great for technical/日本語 queries, which is something Mojeek doesn't handle well. If I want to learn about a certain topic, I search Wikipedia directly. I think Kagi is the nicest and fanciest Bing/Google proxy around, with easily the best user experience of any search engine.

I wrote a fairly detailed spec for some software and told it what dependencies to use, what it should do, and what command-line options it should use. The base was a decent starting point, but after several hours of back-and-forth, after actually reading the code, I realized it had completely misinterpreted my spec somehow and implemented a similar feature in a completely broken way, as well as making a few mistakes/redundancies elsewhere. I tried to coach it to fix these issues, but it just couldn't cope.

I spent about 3 hours getting this base code generated, and about 5 hours re-writing it and implementing the features properly. The reason I turned to ChatGPT is because I needed this software written by the end of the day, and I didn't have time to read all the different docs for the dependencies I needed to use to write it. It likely would have taken me at least 2 days to write this program myself. It was an interesting learning experience, but my only ChatGPT usage in the future is likely to be with individual code blocks.

You really need to pay attention if you're using LLMs to generate code. I've found it usually gets at least one thing wrong, and sometimes multiple things horribly wrong. Don't rely on it; look for other sources to corroborate all of its explanations. Additionally, please do not feed proprietary, copyrighted code into ChatGPT. The software I was writing was released under a free license. OpenAI will use it as training data unless you use their API and opt out of it. ChatGPT isn't really a tool; it's a service which is using you as much as you're using it.

Google et al. run crawlers primarily to populate their search engines. This is a net positive for those whose sites get scraped, because when they appear in a search engine they get more traffic, more page views, more ad revenue.

This is not necessarily true. Google's instant answers are designed to use the content from websites to answer searcher's questions without actually leading them to the website. Whether you're trying to find the definition for the word, the year a movie came out, or a recipe, Google will take the information they've scraped from a website and present it on their page with a link to the website. Their hope is that the information will be useful enough that the searcher never needs to leave the search engine.

This might be useful for searchers, but it doesn't help the sites much. This is one of the reasons news companies attempted to take action against Google a few years ago. I think a search engine should provide some useful utilities, but not try to replace the sites they're ostensibly attempting to connect users to. Not all search engines are like this, but Google is.

Yay. It's fixed for my NVIDIA computer, too. All of the bizarre scaling issues and other nonsense is fixed.

I actually agree with Red Hat's decision to not make their sources publicly available to non-customers, and I think this is a good example to set for free software companies. However, this quote shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what free software is. It's not a "threat to open source companies everywhere"; it's a feature. It's the horse you rode in on.

The SFC has suggested this, and Alma Linux wrote about their understanding of Red Hat's terms, but it seems that Red Hat may terminate contracts with customers who redistribute their sources. I think that's quite nasty and very much disagree with it. Grsecurity already does this, and my opinions about that company are the same. I thought it was interesting that Red Hat didn't address this at all in their post...