• 4 Posts
  • 124 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • Only if those device makers are willing to use it. And that has always been the tightrope linux has walked.

    Its very history as a x86 platform means it has needed to develop drivers where hardware providers did not care. So that code needed to run on closed hardware.

    It was bloody rare in the early days that any manufacturer cared to help. And still today its a case of rare hardware that needs no non free firmware.

    Free hardware is something I’ll support. But it is stallman et als fight not the linux kernel developers. They started out having to deal with patented hardware before any one cared.


  • proprietary

    Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.

    So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.

    EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.

    Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.

    So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.

    As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.

    The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.



  • I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I def would rather not have more nukes about if it can be avoided.

    Just maybe not stupid. When you consider Ukraine was pretty much the home of the USSRs weapons tech, People there developed most of the nukes and the MIG aircraft. That is likely why in part Russia want it. The expertise is still very much there as we saw with Ukraine MIGs compared to Russia. They have been upgrading since the 90s.

    I’d guess if any nation was able to throw this together as a MAD Like defence in time for trumps potential withdrawal. It would be these guys.

    Also given how close to Moscow, They are. The tech would really only need to be 1945 level for Russia to recognise the risk of continuing.







  • Yeah no disagreement.

    My comment was more being practical. IE the real world we live in. If it was not for conflict ( first ww2 then cold war ). Rockets and space travel would never have seen the funding needed to develop. This goes on the pretty much everything - GPS, communications, weather n and on. All of it was funded mainly due to the military.

    Without that it is hard if not impossible to imagine the wealthy considering the investment in tech worthwhile. And at the end of it. Real world the desire for the rich to protect or grow their position is the cause of all the above throughout history.

    Honestly, I’m not saying this is a good thing, it’s fucking depressing.

    But without war. I doubt the world would have moved past feudalism. There just would not be the motivation to change.




  • Yep. That is more about getting weight into space. As we know water can provide protection.

    But the issue of moving water from earth to space then building a 2 layered craft strong enough to surrou d passengers with a foot or more of water. While doable theoretically. Is just a huge huge task.

    If mankind is seriose about such. Robotic collection of ice from space is more practice. Moving it towards earth using it to create hydrogen and oxygen slowly via solar. Then using that to move the water itself into earth near orbit. From there building a vessel able to rotate and protect occupants from radiation etc would be possible.

    But seriosly the amount of work involved. Mars really is not the best place to go. Once humanity has developed the ability to generate graverty. Confirmed mankind can live is centrifugal generated enviroments. And developed to robotics to move ice and asteroids into orbit.

    Honestly building O’Neil station like structures would be healthier then trying to live in 1/3 g of Mars anyway. Mars is worth learning about. But musks population plan is not really the best way to make humanity less at risk of planetary loss.




  • Yeah im not an apple fan. (My brother would have a heart attack if I didnt say that. He loves them).

    But the fact they controll both hardware and software means they can run on lower specs. They dont use it as well as they could. But android having to allow others to develop hardware. Provides a bit more ability for manufactures to implement less efficient drivers. This is why some higher spec low value stuff seems so slow compared to equal speced cheaper Samsung stuff etc.


  • Well nowadays yes. But when the term smartphone was invented. Really not.

    The 1st iPhone was way lower spec then many high end phones of the time. Mainly Nokia but others as well.

    Early androids and others def had no specific specs that differed them from other high-end phones such as Symbian Win CE (as crap as the OS was but then so was the smartphone mareted version recreated later on)

    Seriously, marketing was the only thing that differed them from phones like the N95 and communicator etc etc.

    And as I mentioned, the locked store front. That really seem to be the main difference but really I still find non-advantageous myself.


  • As likely as this is. (not that Oxfam is exactly the scientific research org I look to for evidence. I do not have any reason to doubt)

    But it seems to me the top 1% is an easy target. When the huge commercial shipping to reduce labour costs and cheap plastic packaging etc used to handle it are equal if not a much larger overall cause of deaths.

    Just a much harder oner to argue for the change of, even if public opinion can actually have more effect.

    The top 1% have ignored public opinion since the invention of money. Commercial cooperation may try, but hiding or greenwashing is normally the closest they get.