mjg59

7 ms·

61.
by mjg59 6mo ago
I'm kind of late to this but for some context - bonzini knows me from a long time ago when I was still a genetics student and the joke here is that given where I am now in my career I still get to occasionally answer questions based on
62.
by mjg59 6mo ago
Some of the context here is that that at the time, Ubuntu was aiming to work on as close to 100% of existing PCs as possible to make it available to the largest number of users. Knoppix had a lot of great features and also was very opiniona
63.
by mjg59 6mo ago
This is the era where I was the lead on Ubuntu laptop support, and I promise you that dmix was not a trivial option to make things work out of the box.
64.
by mjg59 6mo ago
Doing audio mixing well is something that is, for a number of reasons, hard to do in kernel. And if you're still using pulseaudio, why? The rest of the world's moved to pipewire, which also provides a jack-compatible interface.
65.
by mjg59 6mo ago
DMIX was typically not an out of the box default, and had multiple shortcomings.
66.
by mjg59 6mo ago
Subversion 1.0 was released in 2004, but it was already widely used before then.
67.
by mjg59 6mo ago
Nonsense - HDA systems were overwhelmingly the majority of Linux systems at that point, and didn't have any hardware support for multiple streams. OSS with software mixing was a commercial product that wasn't upstream. ALSA had us
68.
by mjg59 6mo ago
Yes - VHS had limited luma bandwidth that was about 50% of broadcast TV, and extremely limited chroma bandwidth (the equivalent of about 40 pixels per line). There's a reason laserdisc existed.
69.
by mjg59 6mo ago
Yes, but it's not limited to that case - there's two common variants of the green cone that respond to different wavelengths and people with two X chromosomes can have both, improving colour identification.
70.
by mjg59 7mo ago
There's three steps here: 1) Obtaining the copyrighted works used for training. Anthropic did this without asking for the copyright holders' permission, which would be a copyright violation for any work that isn't under a lic
71.
by mjg59 7mo ago
No. The GFDL grants you permission to copy the work.
72.
by mjg59 7mo ago
No harm under copyright law
73.
by mjg59 7mo ago
The short answer is that we don't know. The longer answer based purely on this case is that there's an argument that training is fair use and so copyleft doesn't have any impact on the model, but this is one case in Californi
74.
by mjg59 7mo ago
If what you do with a copyrighted work is covered by fair use it doesn't matter what the license says - you can do it anyway. The GFDL imposes restrictions on distribution , not copying, so merely downloading a copy imposes no obligat
75.
by mjg59 7mo ago
No, it looks like the stance of the FSF is that models should be free as a matter of principle, the same as their stance when it comes to software. Nothing in the linked post contradicts the description that the judgement was that the train
76.
by mjg59 7mo ago
Copyright infringement causes harm, so if there's no harm there's no infringement. You can freely duplicate GFDLed material, so downloading it isn't an infringement. If training a model on that downloaded material is fair use
77.
by mjg59 7mo ago
And the judgement said that the training was fair use, but that the duplication might be an infringement. The GFDL doesn't restrict duplication, only distribution, so if training on GFDLed material is fair use and not the creation of a
78.
by mjg59 7mo ago
If it's pretty fucking simple, can you point to the statement in the linked post that supports this assertion? What it says is "According to the notice, the district court ruled that using the books to train LLMs was fair use&quot
79.
by mjg59 7mo ago
Is it? The FSF's description of the judgement is that the training was fair use, but that the actual downloading of the material may have been a copyright infringement. What software does the FSF hold copyright to that can't be do
80.
by mjg59 7mo ago
Where's the threat? The FSF was notified that as part of the settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic they were potentially entitled to money, but in this case the works in question were released under a license that allowed free duplication a
81.
by mjg59 7mo ago
To respond in more detail: secure boot (as in the UEFI specification) does nothing to prevent a user from modifying their system firmware. Intel's Boot Guard and AMD's Platform Secure Boot do, to varying degrees of effectiveness,
82.
by mjg59 7mo ago
You've managed to reference multiple concepts in a way that misrepesents basically all of them, well done.
83.
by mjg59 7mo ago
Could you please describe the meaningful difference between SMM and Trustzone, or why the properties of UEFI and ACPI are dangerous?
84.
by mjg59 7mo ago
Yes, and you can do this with ACPI as well. There's no difference between the inherent freedom of ACPI and Devicetree.
85.
by mjg59 7mo ago
What do you mean by "Dangerous capabilities"?
86.
by mjg59 7mo ago
You can convert ACPI bytecode back to source with iasl. No difference at all.
87.
by mjg59 7mo ago
I've a bunch of devices running coreboot with a Tianocore payload, but they're largely either very weird and now unavailable or I haven't upstreamed them so it's not super helpful, but it's absolutely not impossible
88.
by mjg59 7mo ago
And you're stuck with whatever fucked up kernel the vendor gave you, assuming they even followed their obligations and gave you access to the source. The vast majority of x86 systems run mainline kernels because there's a sufficie
89.
by mjg59 7mo ago
A DTB is a blob. Whether you have the source is a vendor decision, just like ACPI. There's no inherent difference here.
90.
by mjg59 7mo ago
What? You can build an entirely free UEFI. ACPI has a free compiler and a free interpreter. Neither implies or requires the existence of non-free blobs, and neither implies or requires any code running in a more privileged environment than

More ›