kriberg

We call those people PowerPoint architects. They haven't coded or built anything for so long, if ever, that they wouldn't even how to, by this point. The only tool they know is PowerPoint and their slides have more boxes with words than any big box store

It's a tiny market, but, I promise, it has growth potential.

Taz'dingo!

Qt didn't start out as GPL. It's even in the article.

That's just the Kai Hansen doing his thing. He's also been quite active as a producer.

I'll fetch the oars. These folks need a visit

Highly interesting read!

Have you considered adding a highscore board or something similar? Athletes can add a profile, then post an image proof that they've lifted certain stones. It won't be fool proof, but could further increase interest by adding a progress bar and/or achievements :)

That sounds a bit hyperbolic. Norway is a long country with multiple climate zones. Average temperature in March in Longyearbyen [1] is 3.4 F. Meanwhile, Embarrass, the coldest city in Minnesota according to Google, averages 8.3 F in January. Cold record in Norway is -60.5F, which is about the same as Minnesota's -60F.

According to folks living in Karasjok, the problem with EVs in extreme temperatures is the 12V starter battery capitulating once you dip below -40F. Petrol cars usually fail to start for the same reason.

[1]. https://en.climate-data.org/europa/norge/svalbard/longyearby... [2]. https://en.climate-data.org/north-america/united-states-of-a...

Their advantage is that they have the largest desktop user base. Access to those users or being the de-facto default desktop base, can be turned into income.

They need to practice more. Ling-Ling is playing 40 hours a day.

We use azure ad for authn to our github organization. That also covers github pages generated from those repos.

I'm generalizing, but most Norwegians wouldn't find pagan or heathen derogatory.

During the 90s, it was embraced as a common denomer for the anti-religious movement.

More anectodal evidence: I've eaten pizza with him twice. Didn't notice anything.

No, this is conflation everybody is having. You are free to do with the received source as you like, maintaining your rights granted by the GPL.

But the GPL does not compel RedHat to keep you as a customer. There are two separate legal instruments, the license for the source and the terms for RHEL. RedHat are free to chose their customers. We can't force a company to take us on as a customer.

IBM can't "kill" Fedora. All the specs files, the assembly mechanisms for the distribution is available online. The community can (and has) forked fedora and keep it going under a new name, if they wanted to.

But this is all backwards.

Why should IBM maintain rolling updates into Fedora

The better question is why is IBM maintaining rolling updates into Fedora? Because they have a business incentive to do so. As other comments have opined, they get free testing, free feedback of upcoming changes. The community gets a lot in return. RedHat funds so much open source/free(dom) software development it's ludicrous. There's reciprocity here. There's a lot of other distributions also benefiting from RedHat's work, like Debian (and vice versa).

It seems like the community here on HN has gone complete bonkers over this RedHat business decision. We've reached a next level of open source entitlement syndrome.

We are not entitled to use RHEL for free. We are not entitled to repackage RHEL and sell it for free either. We are only entitled to those part of the source code which is covered by copyleft licenses. Are we entitled to the SRPM for those programs? We don't know. The patches applied, sure. How about the spec files to assemble the RPMs? Who knows. But it seems like everybody are demanding that RedHat should keep doing this work and ensure that third parties can keep their business model of reselling said work.

This is probably not a popular opinion, but the community seem to have a deranged take on this situation.

Ooof, that's a lot of shade to throw on aspartame.

Since we're generalizing: most devs aren't great at writing documentation either.

Technical writing is a field of its own and it's important to recognize that. We could ever be so lucky if such writers were as attracted to free software as some developers are.

Redhat debranded RHEL for CentOS. It was one of the things CentOS compalined about, so RedHat made it easier for them. Maybe it saved RedHat money overall by avoiding trademark protection (IANAL).

Holy bananas, what an adventure. Thanks for linking this :)

Hard to judge if that covers just makefiles or if it also covers rpms. Guess it makes sense they should share the scripts required to rebuild the binary as it's delivered by them

They could also release just application source code and not the spec files for building the package. It's the spec files and the patches that's central in this conflict, not the actual source code, but people keep conflating the two.

Lets not forget canonical shipped pulseaudio in Ubuntu before it was really ready. The devs got a lot of hate for something they didn't much control.

I'd be suprised if OpenShift wasn't making copious amounts of money for redhat.

RedHat creates and drives development of many OSS projects. FreeIPA, strimzi, systemd are some examples. Anybody can use these projects without using the RedHat labeled version. But none of this projects would be well maintained without RedHat.

That's an absurd generalization. They contribute upstream. They aren't forking every project and keeping changes for themselves and customers. Just the sheer amount of development and testing RedHat puts into the kernel alone, funded by RHEL, should be sufficient to disprove this argument.

There's nuance here. TFA has a legit complaint that supporting RHEL puts extra hassle on you as an open source contributor. RedHat is also fully in their right to strictly adhere to the license of the software they distribute.

Supporting RHEL as a distribution for your software means access to users on that distribution. That might mean nothing, but that depends from project to project. For the article's author that has little worth and that's a cost-benefit analysis for him. That might not be the case for other projects.

I dont want to shill for redhat, but stating they are taking and not contributing is quite unfair. At least in the context of open source.

You can check out htmxhtmx and alpinejs, those complement django quite nicely and you dont have to go down the javascript rabithole to get some dynamicism.

I never really thought about it, but your description made me fear some well-meaning persons will "revamp" HN and turn it into something "fresh and modern" and introduce new features that allow us to "engage".

wouldnt it be 15 years, as thats the maximum?

Hey Matthias,

Recently got a new tabletop saw. What are the essentials jigs I should build first?