growse

40 ms·

451.
by growse 3y ago
I sympathise with this, and part of it's down to the glacial pace of regulators (which as a consumer I find frustrating). At the same time, for a number of years there was a lot of perceived legitimacy to a lot of crypto exchanges. Sur
452.
by growse 3y ago
Where's the tax dollars to pay for this?
453.
by growse 3y ago
> Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. Way may just have to agree to disagree then. I find i
454.
by growse 3y ago
Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source": https://opensource.org/ It's not a new term. > They're not dishone
455.
by growse 3y ago
> Where do we (Sentry) ever call ourselves FOSS? If you don't, it's pretty weird to want to do what you "think is good for the broader open source ecosystem".
456.
by growse 3y ago
You may be right, I may be wrong. I just find it difficult to look at a phrase in a license which has been deliberately crafted to be intentionally vague as being anything else.
457.
by growse 3y ago
In brief: "use our product however you wish, as long as it is not to compete with us" doesn't define "us" (you now, or for all perpetuity? What if you get bought by a large litigious-happy database vendor?) or &quot
458.
by growse 3y ago
> So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? Yes, because it's more honest about its intention. "but-for-one" is not open by definition , and trying to draw an equivocati
459.
by growse 3y ago
Well, it does up until the point you decide an awkward user is "Competing" and then you start legal action :)
460.
by growse 3y ago
> The phrase you quoted "harmful freeloaders" does not appear in any of our texts. This is nit-picking pedantry. The term "free-riders" appears six times on this site https://fsl.software/ , but my bad
461.
by growse 3y ago
The entire justification of the existence of the license talks about the problem of the "harmful freeloaders".
462.
by growse 3y ago
Sure, but then just do proprietary and then release the software under Apache. What's the actual point of the FSL?
463.
by growse 3y ago
> I disagree. It depends if you're forking it to use it, or if you're forking it to compete commercially against the authors. The problem is that whilst the license attempts to define what "competes" means, it's
464.
by growse 3y ago
The definition of "harmful free-riding" is not good, and its use to justify the license is problematic. > Consequently, the common pool resource may be under-produced, overused, or degraded. Additionally, it has been shown that
465.
by growse 3y ago
Signal is so far from being a monopoly that runs "all the world's communications" that these comparisons are essentially meaningless. There's plenty of diversity in the messaging space. Decide your values, choose your co
466.
by growse 3y ago
> Did you watch "The Big Short"? You are sounding like one of those jocks-turned-real-estate agents that are bragging about how easy it is to make money and thinking the analysts were idiots. I've literally no idea what th
467.
by growse 3y ago
> I worry a lot more about not having one single actor responsible in dealing for the communication of millions of people than about "quantum-resistant encryption I'm glad you worry about this. Me and other people have other pr
468.
by growse 3y ago
Because centralisation provides ecosystem agility , which they absolutely value as an upside. Find a way of doing post-quantum secure key exchange? Just roll it out to the server and all the clients essentially overnight. They've talk
469.
by growse 3y ago
You and I are reading "SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION." very differently.
470.
by growse 3y ago
> they want to use their earned trust to be paid for software development. They're entitled to do that, and you're entitled to fork it.
471.
by growse 3y ago
> B: Be clearly labelled, in its public-facing information, as being offered as-is, without any implied updates or future development. So if I had a text file in the root of my repo that said: THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO
472.
Aaisp: Our Network(aa.net.uk)
2 points by growse 3y ago|1 comments
473.
by growse 3y ago
The right lesson to learn here is "manage and maintain your software as it's used in the real world, as that will tell you where you need to invest time" not "prematurely optimize every algorithm just in case it becomes
474.
by growse 3y ago
The point is the application team doesn't have to do any of that. Someone's always got to buy the tin and manage that. Some people are big enough that they might get a benefit from doing that themselves, rather than having Jeff Be
475.
by growse 3y ago
> But that is literally not possible with hardware you purchase yourself. Sure it is. I think TFA is talking about a company selling you exactly that capability. > You can't provision any more until you go and buy more hardware.
476.
by growse 3y ago
Those of us who've bought large "turn-key" solutions from Dell etc. have often discovered that it's actually just a cobbled-together bunch of things which may or may not work well together on a good day, depending on wha
477.
by growse 3y ago
Actually, the definition of cloud is "a visible mass of particles of condensed vapor (such as water or ice) suspended in the atmosphere of a planet (such as the earth) or moon". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict
478.
by growse 3y ago
> It’s called cloud because it’s not in your own data center. Usually cloud symbols were used in network diagrams to depict systems/networks outside of our concern. That might be true historically, because the only way you could get
479.
by growse 3y ago
Nonsense. The operative bit of "cloud" is "provision and de-provision instantly via an API, without much concern for what's going on inderneath", not "lives in someone else's datacenter".
480.
by growse 3y ago
Sure, but there’s a whole dimension missing here. Architecture is more than simply “what", it’s also "why". It binds the context to the requirements and the desired components< their relationships and interactions. Some ot

More ›