Wow! At first I thought you had found a place where these two words occurred after each other but it seems to have been used a few times I must admit I have been wrong.
It is so nice when someone takes the care to actually provide evidence for their claims.
That said, today I would still say OSIs definition has won and if anyone presented me with code and claimed it was open source and it didn't match OSIs standard then I personally would be disappointed.
But I probably won't claim anymore that they are stealing our term.
Unfortunately most of these seems to be unrelated to software licensing, but I learned a new hack (before:) and also I got another confirmation that Google search results are finally starting to improve after 10 years...!
But that's my point. It already had a different meaning. And I don't think your parsing stands up to what the record says. People who were in the community at the time will tell you for example:
> I joined Caldera in November of 1995, and we certainly used "open source" broadly at that time.
So why didn't they pick something that nobody was using at all? Something they could trademark?
> Insanely dishonest way to characterize this.
Can you explain why you think that? My understanding, from their own documents, is that 'there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive.'
'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on.
> 'Open source' is a simple descriptive phrase - it's not something the OSI own, or coined, or have any right to lecture people on.
You're sort of pulling back here—defending it in a different context than the way it was used in the place you first wrote it.
Do you want to take this private? I'll email you. I've been in enough HN flamewars over the last 24 hours, and these types of threads where a few people dominate aren't good and might as well be private, anyway.
* 'open source' was an existing industry term before 1998, with a broadly similar meaning - not exactly the same and that's kind of the point - why pick an existing term and try to give it a new meaning and then claim you invented it?
* 'open source' is a plainly descriptive term, so much so that the even the USPTO told them this and that them trying to trademark it was a nonsense - it's like they tried to claim they invented 'sliced bread' and then wanted to trademark it - it's just an adjective and a noun
With both of these things, I think it's really silly of them to try to tell people that things aren't open source because they don't meet their own pet definition (and they do that - they have come into HN threads and told people off).
You can email me if you want! All my details are in my profile. But it's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I just know why I wouldn't let the OSI lecture me, and I'd recommend other people check the history as well.
This could be a crucial argument in that it distinguishes between the essential freedom of device owners to decide what software to run, and the freedom of device manufacturers to decide which apps to sell in their stores and at what terms (still subject to anti-trust laws).
Unfortunately, the $99 annual fee per developer account nullifies any possible mass-market sideloading possibilities. (Imagine what could happen if sideloading apps from source was free just highly impractical, and HEY turned their rage into a free Apple developer account management & sideloading SaaS offering.)
It's actually way simpler than that: the owners of a company facing crisis have the choice between providing it with additional liquidity or putting its future (and thus their stake) at risk. This is the one core manifestation of the risk they are bearing, and for which they allegedly deserve the dividends in the first place.
Getting a dividend for last year's performance is the opposite of providing liquidity. If they get the cash because it was scheduled, they need to immediately put it back.
If they take the cash and run, they failed to act in their own interest, and do not deserve to have their investment protected.
Problem with implants is that they cause compressive stress to the bone, which causes bone to deteriorate.
Teeth are held by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpey%27s_fibres. This converts the forces acting on the tooth to
tensile stress on the bone, which causes it to grow more dense.
Implants are only one way of replacing teeth, anchoring replacements to bone. They are not the only method. 3d-printed replacements, with roots, are in development. They would be slotted into the hole left by a pulled tooth.
The lack of budget is easily fixed when mature financial planning (which is completely normal for non-IT resources) and internalization of externalities is applied by requiring a working and budgeted lifecycle for every newly established IT system.
Forced internalization of externalities and transparency of risk (by vendors establishing both a firm lifecycle and a patching regime) provide the right incentives to make that happen.
In other words, the world of networked devices is a world of constant change. It must rid itself of those not fit for that change. People can run XP until the sun burns out, they just can't connect it to anything that's not theirs.
Worse, if you run the numbers, at DO you get 1 dedicated core (2 threads) with 8G RAM for $60, but 4 "normal" cores with same RAM for $40. Only possible conclusion is that "normal" cores are less than a full thread.
Yes that is why I think Cloud VM are very expensive. And worst they are bumping out Memory in these so called General Instances, with 1 vCPU ( Thread of Less ) to 2GB Memory. The problem is I want 1 Real Core, or at least 2vCPU per 1GB of Memory.
I don't know why they are stuffing so much useless memory to make it looks like a bargain.
Providers are not always transparent about whether CPU is dedicated or shared (and what exactly shared means). Most importantly, this distinction generally gets lost when people compare offerings of different providers, and so they end up comparing apples and oranges.
Next, when the actual "share" of a shared core is completely undefined, the idea that net performance can be improved by adding more of these shares becomes at least questionable.
Last but not least, one important takeaway from the speculative execution flaws is that a security boundary between software running on the same hyperthread is an indefensible position due to unmitigateable flaws.
VMs from these providers are always shared cores (in the affordable price tier at least). So if you think you need seven 4-core VMs, either you'll end up needing much more, because you're not getting dedicated cores, or you'll end up needing fewer resources, because you're underestimating the power you'll get from dedicated cores.
That said, my advice is to leave the flexibility of cloud for those with flexibility of budget and just get a dedicated Xeon server from Hetzner at hetzner.de/sb. Four cores / eight threads with 2 HDDs go from 29€, and with SSDs from 34€ (at the moment). That kind of box has a lot of horsepower to offer, and I'm sure you'll find a way to make that work for your project.
I'm not sure of your use case, but it seems likely that you'd be able to use 1-2 32GB or 1 64GB dedicated machine instead of 7 8GB machines. You can get those cheap at Hetzner or OVH or OVH's surplus site Soyoustart.com
What a sham. Very few packages are available in the yum repos from the UBI unless one is a RH customer. This will be a nonstarter unless anyone can install any package from the RHEL collection by default.
But isn't that the point? This is intended for RHEL users who previously had trouble shipping Docker images based on RHEL that Red Hat would provide support for. Not so much for non-RHEL users.
It will also be attractive for ISVs who want to partner with Red Hat.
Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we compete with Red Hat in a number of areas.
If there is a particular package you need in UBI, we would be happy to evaluate it. Please file a BZ under RHEL 7 or 8 under the ubi-* Product Component at http://bugzilla.redhat.com
Red Hat doesn't necessarily care about adoption unless it leads to subscription revenue. It's easy enough to switch between CentOS and Red Hat. At some point I care enough about enterprise support and Red Hat's add-ons to make that switch and pay for it. And if I don't, Red Hat doesn't care. I really don't understand this pressure for companies to just literally give stuff away. It's hard enough convincing corporate leadership that free-as-in-libre software is a good thing. If people just complain when it's also not free-as-in-gratis, the community is shooting itself in the foot.
TallGuyShort1, you are awesome :-) Thank you for the defense. We will evaluate adding packages to UBI as necessary, but you are right, we can't give all of RHEL away for free...
Presumably because Red Hat is a business and is trying to make money. You only get updates if you have a subscription. If you aren't a subscriber, these images probably aren't what you want. Get the CentOS equivalents instead. If CentOS doesn't meet your needs but RHEL would, I can only think that you should be a paying customer then.
Thanks for the info, that's good to know. I was speaking form ignorance on that point, obviously (since I was wrong). The point still stands though, Red Hat needs to make money, so we shouldn't expect them to eliminate all their options for monetizing something (which I assume you agree with given your other comments :) )
So the complaint is that this Red Hat product is best for Red Hat's paying customers, and that if you want to use Red Hat's products without being a paying customer, you not only have to use the community edition's packages, but you may as well start with the community edition's base image? Am I understanding that right?
Because "FROM centos:8" can't exist until after "FROM ubi8" exists. UBI will offer betas for RHEL 9, 10, 11, etc. It solves a chicken and egg problem for partners who need early access.
Source: I was in the industry and Free Software movement at the time.
More background: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...