Skip to content

Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever

Technology
224 110 1.0k
  • It's actually the perfect analogy, you just can't see it because you're stuck in the bubble.

    You're right, it's not a bad analogy, you're just failing to make a cogent point. Even though you're trolling, I'll bite:

    "Using a grocery store" encompasses everything from buying fresh ingredients and cooking your meal (assembling a computer from parts, customizing it to your liking) to buying entrees and sides you like at the deli (ordering a custom build with parts you picked, letting someone else do the legwork) to buying whatever TV dinners are on special in the freezer aisle (walking into a Best Buy or Apple Store and buying anything with a screen, because you need a computer and don't care about the details)

    "Hunting for all of your food and cooking it from absolute scratch" would be what, writing all your own software? Fabricating your own CPU from silicon? Obviously vanishingly few people are doing that, though there certainly are people with electronics knowledge going more granular than slotting parts into an ATX motherboard. But that's not what myself (or anyone in this thread from what I can tell) is advocating people do. If you think it is, you grossly misunderstand FOSS. I'm genuinely curious what you think I'm getting at by saying some things are overly simple.

    What I'm frustrated with, to use your analogy, are the companies making TV dinners who don't even include the microwave wattage in their vague instructions on the box. And subsequently, the customers buying them, turning an already mediocre product into a disastrous result, and trashing the company on social media. Then reaching out to the manufacturer only to be told they just need to buy a new microwave. Sometimes the customer doesn't even bother to read and puts the TV dinner in the oven instead, then gets mad when their kitchen fills with smoke and their dinner is inedible because of the melted plastic.

  • DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS 👏🎸

    That was balmer though, IIRC. Crazy times

  • it's a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.

    the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.

    so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?

    I don't understand why you don't see the obvious correlation between the two so I'll over simplify it.

    bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.

    you sit and justify his actions by arguing he's doing good things. I question if he's doing good things just to do them or if they're a byproduct of him "cleansing" his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?

    Forget it, they're out there thinking they'll be the next one to "benefit" some million dollars from the billionaire table

  • Search the web for “polio”

    Google en passant.

  • ::: spoiler spoiler
    sdfsafsafsdaf
    :::

    Name one bad historical person that didn't do at least some good.

    Your moral compass is broken.

  • Lol no. Of all the sleazy and greasy millionaires, Gates is one of the few whose actions speaks for themselves. Dude has been doing noble causes for most of my life.

    I'm all for talking shit about the rich, but it better be true.

    His pr firm really works well.

    Check out when elon ditched his pr firm. He went frm that loved lil crazy fun type to what he really is.

  • It's still giving money away though? Why would you want there to be taxes on charity?

    Giving away money? You sweet summer child.

    Research don't want "his" (the foundations) money, it comes with so many strings attached all your lives work now belongs to the B&M foundation.

  • ::: spoiler spoiler
    sdfsafsafsdaf
    :::

    Every dictator did "some good work", are you thinking they are good people?

    IMO your moral compass need maintenance.

  • Sounds like you're cherry picking both; I've seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.

    Sure, but if you look at the top quality softwares, the majority of them are paid.

    Because money is a big encouragement to make them as flawless as possible. Something FOSS just doesn't have.

  • You're right, it's not a bad analogy, you're just failing to make a cogent point. Even though you're trolling, I'll bite:

    "Using a grocery store" encompasses everything from buying fresh ingredients and cooking your meal (assembling a computer from parts, customizing it to your liking) to buying entrees and sides you like at the deli (ordering a custom build with parts you picked, letting someone else do the legwork) to buying whatever TV dinners are on special in the freezer aisle (walking into a Best Buy or Apple Store and buying anything with a screen, because you need a computer and don't care about the details)

    "Hunting for all of your food and cooking it from absolute scratch" would be what, writing all your own software? Fabricating your own CPU from silicon? Obviously vanishingly few people are doing that, though there certainly are people with electronics knowledge going more granular than slotting parts into an ATX motherboard. But that's not what myself (or anyone in this thread from what I can tell) is advocating people do. If you think it is, you grossly misunderstand FOSS. I'm genuinely curious what you think I'm getting at by saying some things are overly simple.

    What I'm frustrated with, to use your analogy, are the companies making TV dinners who don't even include the microwave wattage in their vague instructions on the box. And subsequently, the customers buying them, turning an already mediocre product into a disastrous result, and trashing the company on social media. Then reaching out to the manufacturer only to be told they just need to buy a new microwave. Sometimes the customer doesn't even bother to read and puts the TV dinner in the oven instead, then gets mad when their kitchen fills with smoke and their dinner is inedible because of the melted plastic.

    It is the perfect analogy, because you are a techy, not a survival hunter.

    You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.

    Just like how the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don't want to learn the alternative like you.

    If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn't be selling so much.

  • Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I'm saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you're using, same as any other tool.

    You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you're going to own a car.
    You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you're going to own a gun.
    You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you're going to own a vacuum.
    You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it's running, if you're going to own an electric range.
    You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer's filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you're comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you're going to own a computer.

    There will ALWAYS be a point where it's more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it's about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what's considered "intricate" is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I'm sure you are well aware.

    you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool

    Obviously not, they can use it without that understanding just fine for whatever they want to do. That is enough understanding for them. If their computer explodes, they just buy an other one.

  • No, it's not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.

    Though, if we compare nowadays distros like Bazzite with Windows 11..

  • It's actually the perfect analogy, you just can't see it because you're stuck in the bubble.

    If you think big tech doesnt cut corners and offloads the work to the users you are in a bubble; there's software that is secure, performant, pretty, doesn't break on its own, and doesn't have an obsolescency clock ticking inside. Oh, and doesn't spy on you dismantling society by the minute.

  • Name one bad historical person that didn't do at least some good.

    Your moral compass is broken.

    The charity did more than some good though.

    Also, name one good historical person that didn't do at least some bad.

    It is almost like things aren't black and white but more like Yin and Yang.

  • I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.

    Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.

    And this in turn led to the younger generations being less tech-literate.

  • His pr firm really works well.

    Check out when elon ditched his pr firm. He went frm that loved lil crazy fun type to what he really is.

    Sure, and where is your proof that Bill needs one, let alone uses one?

    And don't come with a list of actions the majority of people don't care about.

  • I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.

    Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.

    Nah, I have worked in IT education and in helpdesk. Average user doesn't have a better time getting into Microsoft products, it's not easier for them than FOSS. The reason for Windows domination is Microsoft spending money and lobbying power to put it in front of every user.

  • That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I've seen in a while. You're basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.

    Or instead just not hiding things that need not be hidden, like file extensions, despite your OS relying on them for identifying types.

  • Both Torvalds and Gates are nerds... Gates decided to monetize it and Torvalds decided to give it away.

    But without Microsoft's "PC on every desktop" vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

    Arguably Torvalds' strategy had a greater impact than Gates because now many of us carry his kernel in our pocket. But I think both needed each other to get where we are today.

    But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

    Debatable, in my opinion. There were lots of other companies trying to build personal computers back in those times (IBM being the most prominent). If Microsoft had never existed (or gone about things in a different way), things would have been different, no doubt, but they would still be very important and popular devices. The business-use aspect alone had a great draw and from there, I suspect that adoption at homes, schools, etc. would still follow in a very strong way.

  • Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?

    I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.

    Yet you still better know how to cook, despite convenience food existing. Hunting is more analogous to calling kernel interfaces.

  • 128 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    69 Aufrufe
    R
    In propaganda, the main thing is not to confuse militants with insurgents.
  • 71 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    50 Aufrufe
    adespoton@lemmy.caA
    Most major content producers have agreements with YouTube such that as their content is discovered, monetization all goes to the rights holders. In general, this seems like a pretty good idea, and better than copyright maximalism. However, I’ve had original works of my own “monetized by rights holder” because they used my work (with permission) in one of their products, and so now have co-opted all expressions of my work on YouTube. So the system isn’t perfect.
  • 41 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    M
    Does anybody know of a resource that's compiled known to be affected system or motherboard models using this specific BMC? Eclypsium said the line of vulnerable AMI MegaRAC devices uses an interface known as Redfish. Server makers known to use these products include AMD, Ampere Computing, ASRock, ARM, Fujitsu, Gigabyte, Huawei, Nvidia, Supermicro, and Qualcomm. Some, but not all, of these vendors have released patches for their wares.
  • Is the ‘tech bro-ification’ of abortion here?

    Technology technology
    15
    1
    69 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    78 Aufrufe
    T
    Nah. Been working in tech for nearly 30 years, "tech bro" is a delineation. Keeps the fuckers from smearing the rest of us
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    272 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Hiring Developers in Eastern Europe

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 236 Stimmen
    80 Beiträge
    382 Aufrufe
    R
    Yeah, but that's a secondary attribute. The new ones are stupid front and center.
  • 0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    A
    You mean original app signature?