I'm currently in the market for stock photos. The allotted budget isn't one those folk would miss, but it's more than enough to commission our own.
As a direct response to getty's behavior, I'll be commissioning the photos and making them available under a free license after around a year of use. It's also very unlikely that I'll be doing business with them in the future.
>Voting with one's feet works against local grocery shops, not global corporations.
It isn't as much of vote with my feet as it is adhering to one's own principles.
Also, thank you for mentioning istockphoto relationship with getty. I'll avoid them in the future as well.
If you're in a situation where throwaway-hardware makes sense, you'll care how the throwing-away is actually done.
While not throwaway hardware, the company I work for destroys hard drives and other persistent memory devices before discarding computers. If the persistent memory device cannot be easily and reliably destroyed, the whole device is.
I bet journalists with sensitive information are far more thorough.
In an industry where "kill and reap all children" is a valid technical statement, I see no issue with shaving beaver images. Both have valid technical meanings.
That's fine and dandy if you can afford to put up the resources to keep your deployment up to date. For more constrained others, an LTS release can be the deference between using the project vs not.
As a guy who likes the stability traditional vendors provide as apposed to the madness that is chasing hip upstream developers, the mere fact that your working on providing LTS guarantees gives you a significant advantage over your competitors.
Looking forward to what Openshift will bring to the table!
It will also tell you that pumping horses full of steroids will make them go faster. Tech's absurd obsession with metrics and statistics will be their undoing.
It's now hosting this project, and seems to have created this page and reformed the project a bit. And have you seen the foundation's website?
They have a tiered sponsor page to act as badge of honor for the tech companies with the most money. Their board of directors are 22 of some of the most powerful tech companies in the world. They "host" an amalgam of different tech products (actually working in legal entities to control the projects, it seems, under their LLC). They sponsor conferences, seemingly just to decide the future of the industry with a bunch of connected higher-ups and project leads. They don't appear to have a lot of transparency in terms of where their money is going, what guides the organization, why it exists, what it is doing, etc.
The most annoying thing about it to me is how a bunch of open source projects are actually just product placement for corporations, with press blurbs regurgitating bullshit business speak about something like logging formats.
It used to be that we used the best tool for the job. Now we use whatever tool has the most buzzwords and corporate sponsorship. This foundation appears to be spookily pushing that agenda, under the badge of Linux, for whatever reason. It's creepy.
The Linux Foundation is one way in which corporations subsidize key open source projects that benefit them all. There's nothing creepy at all about corporate sponsorship of key open source technologies. The Linux Foundation started with Linux and has expanded from there, so what? None of their projects http://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects/ are in any way sinister. You do realise that it is possible to work for a corporation and and also be into open source and also not sell your soul to the devil. What hyperbole, give us a break.
Are you aware that the Linux Foundation employs Linus Torvalds? And that a very vast majority of Linux (and most other) open source development is done by developers who are paid employees of major corporations like Red Hat, IBM, Oracle, etc? Some people seem to have the idea that it’s developed by hippie volunteers living in a commune, but the fact is, open source development is done by interested parties who are typically employees of corporations who stand to benefit from their work. And that’s okay.
As a donor to the Linux Foundation, I don’t find it creepy. Same goes for the Cloud Native Computing Foundation.
Best case: the linux foundation is, despite corporate influence, genuinely trying to advance the state of the art for its own sake.
Worst case: this is how open source software development has always been, caveat a few "genesis innovations" several decades ago that kicked off the current business/buzzword-backed hype-fest.
One thing is that it could be used to as a venue to pursue new recurring revenue streams.
While not exactly the same thing, I've seen some people joke about intel locking owners from cpu features behind monthly subscriptions.
This kind of exploitation requires disallowing owners from fully controlling their devices in order to be effective. The more control vendors have, the more elaborate and exploitative these schemes can be, and the less likely owners will be able to do anything about it.
Just wait when coca-cola and friends fill the skies with their own logo constellations when (not if) space technology gets cheap enough. After all, it only needs to be cheaper than conventional ad campaigns to be viable.
Imagine going camping or into sea and having a canvas of logos everywhere you look at during the night.
Nobody has to look at it right?
Dismissing this issue as "overheated silliness" is extremely naive and short-sighted.
>We base so much of human progress on these little wafers of silicon, it shouldn't be extreme to want to know what they do.
Well said. I'll add that security is a threshold, and that computer systems are extremely complex. Every bit of openness -and the verifiability such openness affords- brings us closer to that ideal secure system.
I'm currently in the market for stock photos. The allotted budget isn't one those folk would miss, but it's more than enough to commission our own.
As a direct response to getty's behavior, I'll be commissioning the photos and making them available under a free license after around a year of use. It's also very unlikely that I'll be doing business with them in the future.
>Voting with one's feet works against local grocery shops, not global corporations.
It isn't as much of vote with my feet as it is adhering to one's own principles.
Also, thank you for mentioning istockphoto relationship with getty. I'll avoid them in the future as well.