cenzorrll

So if requires full access to your PC from the internet to have full access to your PC?

If you’d actually read the comment you’d see they already answered this question

From what I’ve read, they’re using AI to find bugs. As far as I’m concerned, a bug is a bug no matter who or what finds it. So long as they aren’t using it to produce code.

Seriously, it’s like a middle school writing assignment to reach 5 pages, but worse.

I can tell the difference between nvme and sata when booting and loading applications. It’s so small that I’m happy to remain a cheap ass. I also went to college in the “turn on your computer, then go make breakfast” days, so I guess I’m more tolerant of it.

I just had a thought. The people pushing for AI use get fined when the make huge mistakes, basically a speeding ticket. But they’re pushing AI on people that get fired or go to jail if they make a huge mistake, more like A DUI. So they’re saying “use this thing that makes the kind of mistakes that I’d fire you over, and take responsibility of it”.

Fines and payments coming through courtrooms are often oddly specific with absolutely wild variations in how that was calculated. I’m sure the actual number is calculated to an odd cent value as well.

The facts: ISBNdb has never purchased, scanned, or sold a book — for AI training or anything else,” ISBNdb wrote. “We don’t train AI models, and we never have.”

I found the weasel. “We don’t know why AI companies are buying tons of books from us and have a continuous bonfire out back, we just sell books for people to read”

BSD is a permissive license that allows sometime to take the code and update/change it as they see fit. There are no requirements to publish those changes, and I believe you can license it under a different license.

GPL on the other hand does require that you publish your changes, and that those changes also be licensed under GPL. Thus also requires that a company does due diligence and states what pieces of code they used were GPL and give credit

So in removing the last bit of GPL code, someone can take FreeBSD and do whatever they want without having to worry about what pieces of code might fall under different licenses.

File Browser would need to be rewritten from the ground up, with security and a good API in mind, neither of which was on my mind when I was 15.

Ok, fair enough. I hope someone rewrites it, though.

Seriously, it’s the only reason I bought one. Plus, my WRT-54gl is still supported 20 years later on DD-WRT, not that it’s all that useful at 100mbit. I still use it for testing.

Now you’ve got me questioning myself, never claimed to be an expert…

Edit: yep I’m wrong, a microkernel was developed, but looks like it eventually made it’s way to GNU Hurd and not really implemented into the BSDs. I recall coming across when looking into different OSs, I guess I got it mixed up.

There are high odds you are using a chrome based browser to read this - did you know that is a GPL project because once upon a time it was khtml (from the KDE project), but the changes were never contributed back.

Chromium is what you’re ignoring here, and they are contributed back.

Many embedded companies have their own fork of linux as well - their changes are all available as the GPL requires, but the changes won’t be accepted to the kernel as is and so the fact that they are available is useless.

And that’s fine, if someone ever did want to pick it up, they could.

Meanwhile there are many companies using FreeBSD who choose to contribute their changes back.

I didn’t say there weren’t people/companies contributing to BSD. I am saying that since they aren’t required to, BSD isn’t getting the level of support it deserves. The companies contributing to GPL projects are required by law to release the source, so they might as well contribute to the project. I can guarantee there would be a lot less progress in linux/gnuland if releasing the source wasn’t required.

Agreed. I also want to learn more about micro kernels as well, which the BSDs use.

I think we have a pretty interesting dynamic viewing the two different licensing schemes. Linux/gnu has been making some huge strides, whereas BSD is kind of just very slowly chugging along in niche areas. It does seem to be pretty damn good at the things it does, though. I honestly feel like the BSD license should be a better license because it gives more freedom, but with the existence of greed and capitalism GPL is required to get profit seekers (greedy bastards) to play nice.

Edit: I was wrong, got it mixed up with gnu Hurd when looking things up in the past

It allows freebsd to be true to the BSD license, and I agree with the author that it makes licensing easier. BSD will always be free and incredibly permissive, and I don’t see this changing anything. But a lot of the strides that linux has made is because people need to release their changes.

BSD on the other hand doesn’t require giving back, so you get Apple that was the largest company in the world building off of the work of FreeBSD. I certainly don’t see FreeBSD being comparable to macOS like Fedora is to RHEL. It’s more like Apple took what they wanted and walked away.

The upshot of the BSD-license in the case of FreeBSD is that it has found it and its components used in many commercial products, including MacOS/OS X, the PlayStation’s Orbis OS, and of course the BSD networking stack is happily used in Windows, macOS and just about anywhere else. Meanwhile the GPL forced Linksys to open the firmware to its WRT54G series of routers, ultimately leading to the development of OpenWrt and similar projects.

They make it sound like the *WRTs were the worst thing to happen to consumer networking and that corporations not being required to contribute back to projects has made BSD stronger, rather than given companies free labor. I find the *BSDs to be pretty interesting, but let’s not pretend that they’re benefiting from companies using their work. Very shilly tone to this article.

I feel like there should be a single click installer that creates a recovery partition, tells the uEFI to boot into it, wipes the original windows partitions out and installs to the computer, then removes itself, lets Linux reboot and reclaim the entire drive with a partition resize

Most linux installs are easier than Windows. It’s not a Linux issue, it’s an “already installed” issue. I wouldn’t want installations to be any easier than they are because the steps you’re involved with are steps that someone needs to give input or you risk destroying everything you had. Any OS installation that isn’t OEM, linux or Windows, starts with the assumption that there might be something important that it shouldn’t touch. Linux has OEM installations that from the perspective of the user receiving the computer, are identical to starting Windows for the first time.

We now even have people like Linus Torvalds making the fairly reasonable argument that an LLM is just a tool, and “clearly a useful one”

Appeal to authority. See this response.

I’d like to add that I’ve seen nothing from Linus saying he uses it to produce code, just to poke and prod it to find vulnerabilities. I see no issues with using it that way.

Yeah, saying outright that you can’t gives them the ability to remove a problematic project without issue. Otherwise, GiganticProject, that prints “hello world” and is used by Microsoft, which is a million lines of code with 100,000 lines committed every day can be removed without having to deal with Microsoft’s lawyers.