I think the real longcon of this is to seed people into a TikTok competitor using the existing meta user base who will gladly give it a try initially. It will catch plenty of the Twitter crowd and even reddit crowd but that's just a coincidence of the state of those platforms. Long term I think it will be to agrigate their more active users away from Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat into something that provides the lowest common denominator of all of them so they can slowly erode them as part of the Embrace Extend Extinguish playbook taking a cue from M$
They took the best engineers and lessons learned from the platforms they bought but ideally they don't want to maintain products that do 80% of the same functions
Let them go implement fuchsia. It will check all their boxes right before it slams into a mountain from a km to mi conversion.
I thought we handled this years ago and coming from aviation experts is rather strange that they don't know the industry has migrated away from having a singular operating system that can't die to having a series of redundant fail-safes to fall back to when it does. It's strange to see the places where the microkernel debate still rages on....and how little investment is being made by those complaining multibillion $$ international corporations into projects like fuschia, RTOS, ZephyerOS, GNU Hurd, MIT Mach (or even Darwin), or even Minix!
I think these arguments are disingenuous and while they are valid the various organizations making them seem to aggressively not want to find solutions. I smell a strong desire to hold the vanguard of what they have built until they retire and can be unconcerned with compliance...understandable to a degree but harmful in the long run to be going so fast in the wrong direction.
Maybe Linux isn't a good fit, that's fine but they clearly don't care about that, they just don't want to implement anything and Linux is a convenient scape goat to not have to contribute back into an open source project even one on a BSD license
No amount of financial cost is sufficient for these kinds of things if you wish to truly prevent them in the future. There needs to be associated criminal charges for the individuals responsible. We are all still suffering from the Equifax breach all these years later and it won't be long before another Enron shows itself and that is simply because there was never any real consequences for the people primarily responsible.
There is only one course of action here and anything short of that is deeply sad and spitting in the face of Tolkien.
This card needs to be placed in a storage container somewhere randomly in the world and opened only 20 years from now at which point a group of individuals will attempt to take it to Tongariro which was the filming location for mount doom in the movies. They will each be offered 1 million $$ to sell the card at that point but if they accept it they will get the million in half off yogurt coupons. If they actually agree to cast it into the volcano of their own volition then a team will do that safely and film it well while the "fellowship" receives the actual million they were not promised if they agreed to do this.
Technically savvy people roll their eyes at the misunderstandings around how an AI becomes "intelligent" but they also ignore the various ways that AI is as dangerous as people think it is for reasons that are unrelated.
I don't think we should be rolling our eyes at an abundance of caution among most people concerning the adoption of AI and LLM, what is the harm in carefully introducing a technology?
AI doesn't need to become sentient to overthrow the natural order of the technocratic society we are currently holding together with gum and glue, it just needs to flip a burger and pump gas...
If anything, the titillating but myopic hyper-focus on AI's "existential threat" is obscuring the real and more immediate threats: panopticon-style invasions of privacy, economic disruption brought about by the mass deskilling of labor, enshrinement and automation of bias-reinforcing systems, and a new military arms race in AI-based weaponry.
I think even the idea of significant economic disruption is edging into science fiction territory.
Even if (and it's a big if) AI art and prose evolves far beyond its current flawed mediocrity, there's a massive legal and legislative reckoning to come. AI companies are enjoying their free lunch now, but what happens when their training process is classed as massive copyright infringement? They have to cut deals, pay a lot of people, and then artists, writers, photographers, etc are all still around instead of effectively being expected to work for free to feed the machine.
It's sad to see a post like this get so much hate in the comments section. We all benefit greatly from an organization maintaining a stable Linux ecosystem and the idea that somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux as much as they have benefited from OSS goes to show just how much coolaid HN has been drinking as of late.
These corporate concerns are not some law of nature and it's up to us to support people when they are willing to fight for end consumers, something that modern redhat has all together abandoned
> somehow redhat isn't entitled to give back to Linux
So it's not enough to employ more than 1000 people working on upstream/Fedora/CentOS Stream, have a strict upstream first policy for features that go into RHEL and their other products, donate to a bunch of foundations and sponsor conferences, maintain the main repository of firmware updates for Linux, be consistently in the top three contributors to Linux, open source pretty much all the closed source code that they get from acquisitions, distribute source also when not required by the license, give away two distributions for free, and possibly more things I don't remember?
If you know the history, if you know the license, then you know the philosophy that you're taking from. I don't think they're evil, but the people who did the early work getting this started did so with one level of expectation, and this is a different one. You get no love, Red Hat.
Not when you stepped in the open source and GPL arena, no. There are some pretty heavy expectations considering most of us grew up in a world where every distro was freely available everywhere, including the original Red Hat before they went the RHEL route. That's the entire reason CentOS came to be. And here we are again.
I say we... I use Arch Linux and gave up on this over a decade ago.
I have been in the "GPL arena" for almost 30 years (1996). When I started using free software I didn't even have Internet access at home and had to visit relatives one hour away to download it and send emails. I used SRPMs from a Red Hat Linux CD to study source code because it was not very handy to download it with a 33.6k modem.
Sorry, but the people who started this in no way were prioritizing anyone's salary. They had a vision of freedom, and THAT VISION -- more than "someone trying to do a company" -- is what got the best parts of this software going. One company that can't make the numbers work ain't my problem.
"Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development". Paying salaries is a way to fund developers. Ergo, distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds to pay the salaries of free software developers.
It would make sense if they started out building a proprietary os (for which, btw, the count of people you mentioned is not enough, Microsoft employs vastly more people). If they contribute to open source projects and then cry for compensation, it makes no sense. They can expect compensation for services sure, but not for their open source contribution code. Those are the rules they are playing by. Not to mention that there’s vastly many more contributors who aren’t getting compensated.
They established all that when they had other priorities. Clearly they've changed their mind about a thing or two, so you can expect a lot of that to wash away, slowly.
Obviously by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
It's like when they bought CentOS - some people started making plans, fearing they would discontinue it. Others went "call me back when it happens". Then it happened.
It's been 9 years. A few tempests in a teapot later you still have RHEL rebuilds (according to TFA nothing is changing in that respect), they are more timely than CentOS ever was before the acquisition, and you also got Fedora ELN CentOS Stream as a pathway towards contributing to RHEL. So yeah, I rest my case: call me back when it happens.
Really? Some images, bug reports, and internal build tools. What new software or features have Rocky contributed to the community they can't keep talking about? I side with RH here because I personally, every day, use a lot of software they've made available. That takes time, effort, and money. Heck, you personally benefit immensely from an acquisition they subsequently open sourced. When Rocky has something that's anywhere near this [0] let me know.
That video has earned me a grand total of $500. And most of that earning happened a couple years ago. I have never run AWX for any of my own projects (or deployed it for any clients), so I have not materially benefitted from it in that way either.
I can guarantee you that video and my short chapter on AWX in my book have earned Red Hat many, many multiples of that through companies adopting an AAP subscription.
The thing I find most sad about articles like this is that it doesn't seem to actually address any of the reasons that it got this way, it blames individuals within the field not a series of MBA graduates telling you what the spec is and hiring 50 people to hit an arbitrary deadline for a software project moving in the wrong direction FAST.
It's a false dichotomy to say you only have rock stars and as this person smugly tip toes around "normal people" when in reality you don't need rock stars anymore to make good software and let's be honest... Most rock stars didn't make good software they just make it in a time when software was generally even more crap than it is now.
You want to stop suffering among us plebs? Don't advocate for goofy rockstar developer propaganda, advocate for healthy work life balance and reasonable deadlines for things that truly don't matter. Stop letting sales and marketing write your software and stop taking opinions about systems design from your project managers and "technical leads" when they do not work in these systems day to day.
If you treat engineers well and respect them before a client who will drop you the moment a new product fits their need then yes you will lose clients from time to time but if you focus on making good software and happy people then you will attract stable clients who do the same and maybe the stock holders at the top don't get the ridiculous return per year that they expect out of more shameless companies but at least you have a half decent chance of sleeping at night...
I am well aware that we live in a world where this will be borderline impossible but the first step to solving a problem is admitting it
There are so many articles that float through here that can be summed up as "do this, unless you should do that" with a title equivalent to "why you should always do this"
Does this article present findings from other projects? Does it have a personal code story? Does it use any data or even antidotal evidence to support it's claims.
The answer to all of these is NO it does not...it's just a half hearted article talking about a fundamental problem in modern programming with no real solutions other that an axe to grind that they can't even really elaborate on the origins of.
I used to run several pfsense routers, tried various forks including opnsense and they were fine but ate quite a bit of memory and didn't have great driver support. If you are like me and just need a router solution for a homelab or small office I would recommend the x86 variant of openwrt. It uses a trickle of memory and CPU and will route anything you ask it too with or without a ton of filters and sniffers. I've never looked back.
