3 ms·

"And we need to adapt our thinking accordingly: we don't need free and open source software and copyleft so that the next generation can hack the Linux kernel;

"And we need to adapt our thinking accordingly: we don't need free and open source software and copyleft so that the next generation can hack the Linux kernel; we need it so they can hack a flying car." Jesus, if there was ever anything that shouldn't be developed like the Linux kernel, it is anything in the air large enough to cause damage if it crashes.

libeclipse 9y ago
Having the same license and freedoms != being developed the same way.
benchaney 9y ago
The Linux kernel could do way more damage than any flying car implementation if it failed spectacularly. Besides, it is well established that open source code is safer. If there is anywhere those safety benefits are definitely needed, it would be flying cars.
pif 9y ago
> if there was ever ... enough to cause damage if it crashes. Sure, let's learn from the past: let's make sure there is a monopoly behind flying cars. It will be nice when you will be flying your family on a Sunday afternoon and suddenly you will have to choose between up(?)grading to FlyingCars 10.0 (a.k.a. RustyBikeWithDoors) or paying your house's worth in ransom to get the privilege of landing safely one more time.
- piaste 9y ago
  Data point: avionics software has avoided that particular trap so far, not through open source licensing but rather through mandatory safety regulations.
- hasenj 9y ago
  I really hope there will not be cars flying around that some self proclaimed 1337 hacked in their spare time.
wyager 9y ago
The cutting edge of formally verified hard-realtime safety-critical software is academic and open source. I would only want to ride in a flying car if its control code was written by public cooperation and was publicly auditable. The last thing I want is for people to ride around in missiles powered by Windows Embedded or Java SE Embedded, contracted out from Chevy to some software farm in India, with no public oversight except for the fact that Chevy's lawyers can convince the NHTSA that it satisfies whatever harebrained safety checklist the government came up with. Avionics is a special case in terms of cost, level of automation, homogeneity of products, and level of pilot expertise, which makes the use of some one-off Ada software Boeing wrote 30 years ago much more reasonable.

libeclipse 9y ago

Having the same license and freedoms != being developed the same way.

benchaney 9y ago

The Linux kernel could do way more damage than any flying car implementation if it failed spectacularly. Besides, it is well established that open source code is safer. If there is anywhere those safety benefits are definitely needed, it would be flying cars.

pif 9y ago

> if there was ever ... enough to cause damage if it crashes. Sure, let's learn from the past: let's make sure there is a monopoly behind flying cars. It will be nice when you will be flying your family on a Sunday afternoon and suddenly you will have to choose between up(?)grading to FlyingCars 10.0 (a.k.a. RustyBikeWithDoors) or paying your house's worth in ransom to get the privilege of landing safely one more time.

piaste 9y ago
Data point: avionics software has avoided that particular trap so far, not through open source licensing but rather through mandatory safety regulations.
hasenj 9y ago
I really hope there will not be cars flying around that some self proclaimed 1337 hacked in their spare time.

wyager 9y ago

The cutting edge of formally verified hard-realtime safety-critical software is academic and open source. I would only want to ride in a flying car if its control code was written by public cooperation and was publicly auditable. The last thing I want is for people to ride around in missiles powered by Windows Embedded or Java SE Embedded, contracted out from Chevy to some software farm in India, with no public oversight except for the fact that Chevy's lawyers can convince the NHTSA that it satisfies whatever harebrained safety checklist the government came up with. Avionics is a special case in terms of cost, level of automation, homogeneity of products, and level of pilot expertise, which makes the use of some one-off Ada software Boeing wrote 30 years ago much more reasonable.