Re: "Labour arbitrage"
Other terms are available. Pimping?
16449 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Do you really want a single ID around the internet? Should your bank ID be the same as your Amazon ID or your Register handle?
Do you trust a provider to never leak your credentials?
An online provider may well analyse your behaviour for security purposes. Fair enough, it might be able to detect attempts at impersonation that way, but would you trust it to not also use the analysis for its own commercial ends such as ad-slinging?
"Has anyone done any analysis about birth rate defects due to the calf growing up on a microwave transmitter"
According to this the monitor is only fitted when calving's due in a few days.
"Household loads are becoming increasingly non-linear with really awful harmonics."
OK, but properly enforced EMC regulations would significantly reduce that, surely?
The devices which Richard described are those which we're being encouraged to use - LED lamps, more efficient washing machines etc. If they're inherently non-linear TPTB are going to have to make some tough choices about conflicting policies.
"I'm suprised Spamhaus ... haven't already flagged RCM as a major spammer"
They have but that doesn't help as much as they'd like because spammers switch addresses and domains.
If you read the details they got a lot more than the address lists. They got internal communications which show how, for instance, they acquire a domain, send mail from it to addresses they control so the domain builds a reputation of sending non-spam (they don't complain about their own emails ;) and then switch it to spamming. They also found scripts which were used to overload targets so large spam loads could be forced through before the target could react. This information will help defend against their tactics. If it provides evidence for criminal investigation so much the better.
"Could this be a sign of market weakness that Slurp is scrounging for some money now figuring its not likely to get much in the future?"
And if it spends the money now who's going to support the product so far into the future? If I were spending this I'd want to see the escrow arrangements for all that code.
"Maybe it's Intel & co who are the charity cases. Torvalds is managing their product development for them."
OK, all this rhetoric is fun but it's obscuring the real situation. Let's get down to reality.
For most of its existence Linux has been supported by the Linux Foundation. The Foundation supports and manages kernel.org which is where the work is done. That, AIUI, includes paying Torvalds' salary.
The Foundation is supported by those businesses I included as "Intel & co" - and, yes, they include Microsoft. So Linux is, and has been for years, their joint product, collectively developed. And, we have to suppose, developed for what they think they can get out of it.
Organisationally it's an interesting situation. Collectively they contribute to pay Linus and separately they pay most of the individual developers. Yet Linus has no place the the line management of those developers, can't hire or fire them, doesn't perform their annual reviews or otherwise discipline them and can't even dictate what they work on. The only influence he has is the content and tone of feedback. I'm not sure what most of us would do in that position.
"With some exceptions, the objectives of the projects they are working on are not to improve Linux, but rather to get THEIR product to work with Linux, or to change Linux so it will play nice with THEIR internal app, or to eliminate some bug in Linux that affects their company and their clients."
Upvoted because this is actually an interesting comment.
The point at which I think we diverge is this: you're seeing Linux as something separate from these contributors (and here I'm including the employers such as Intel as contributors), as some external product which they have to improve.
I think you're looking at it wrong. Linux is, collectively, their product. Torvalds could step away from it today and people (including those companies) would still go on contributing because they see it as worth their while to have that product there and continuing to evolve.
One other interesting aspect of all this discussion is the role of the companies who contribute vs those who don't. If some H/W manufacturers such as Intel find it essential to contribute to Linux by sharing IP what, really, does it say about the self-image of those who seem to think it essential not to? Do they really think they know something Intel doesn't? Or do they not know something Intel does? Or, as someone said in another comment, are they ashamed of the quality of their code?
"I know, it's always far easy to be munificent with someone else money.... and in my experience, those same people are the most greed when it comes to their own IP - if ever they have something valuable."
Who are those "same people"? The ones who donate their IP to projects such as the Linux kernel, the Gnu toolset that surrounds it, KDE, Gnome, LibreOffice...?
"usually paid employees of the hardware maker."
And these are donated to Windows.
And if you look who contributes code to Linux it's mostly paid employees of H/W manufacturers or distro makers such as Red Hat.
Either both cases are charity or neither is. Is that beyond your understanding?
"not Debian and its purists."
Searches package descriptions for "firmware". Finds 116 packages.
OK, some of them aren't firmware themselves, such as b43-fwcutter, Utility for extracting Broadcom 43xx firmware, but others are, some explicitly non-free.
All told I've got 14 of those packages installed, several of which provide binaries. Do I care they contain binaries? No.
If and only if you are normally paid for your work are you a professional.
If you work for free you're an amateur.
Could you explain a little further.
Are the devs working for Intel being paid or not? Assuming they are that makes them professionals. Intel donates their work to the Linux kernel for free. Does that make them amateurs?
"So my answer stands: why they should publish their IP for free? "
And so does mine. Drivers exist to sell hardware, not vice versa.
Unless, of course, you think they should go a step further and not publish Windows drivers either. That would really keep their IP under wraps, wouldn't it?
"Lack of quality code comes from getting your code second hand, built by people paid to fulfill some paying companies own project"
The biggest single contributor is usually Intel. Their "project" is the Intel processor line. Of course, given some recent experiences you may have a point....
"Man known for shouty & sweary outbursts....has a shouty & sweary outburst."
You really should have read the article before commenting.
Shouting? There's scarcely an expletive to report in Torvalds' post, which is rather tame compared to past missives.
Even better, read the announcement the article links: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1703.0/03031.html
Go on, read it now.
What was that you were saying?
"Leading the way were Intel employees with 10.5 percent of Linux code to their credit. Following Intel was Red Hat, 8.4 percent; Linaro, 5.6 percent; Samsung, 4.4 percent; IBM 3.2 percent; and SUSE, 3 percent."
Maybe it's Intel & co who are the charity cases. Torvalds is managing their product development for them.
"Civil servants that think there should be change find it almost impossible to find anyone willing to sign it off or multiple parts of government in parallel responsibility."
Actually the converse is true. Govts keep changing what they want to do and after the contract's been awarded changes mean CASH.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019