I left out FreeBSD from that comment, which has its own set of innovations: Capsicum (capability-based security framework), Jails (OS-level virtualization/containerization which predates Docker by over a decade), MAC Framework (Mandatory Access Control for fine-grained security policies), GEOM (modular disk I/O framework), Linuxulator (Linux binary compatibility layer), ZFS (FreeBSD has arguably the best ZFS implementation outside of Solaris), bhyve (type-2 hypervisor), and so forth.
Userland tools include iocage/bastille (jail managers), poudriere (package building), jemalloc (default allocator which focuses on fragmentation avoidance and scalability) among many others.
Each BSD really does have its own character. FreeBSD leans toward performance and production use, OpenBSD toward security and correctness, NetBSD toward portability and clean design, DragonflyBSD toward alternative SMP approaches!
(illumos/OpenIndiana is quite interesting, too (see DTrace, Doors IPC, Zones, SMF, Contracts, Event Ports, RBAC)).
OpenZFS was not previously called ZoL. It was one implementation that later merged into the OpenZFS project.
And sure, technically both FreeBSD and Ubuntu use OpenZFS codebase now, but FreeBSD has in-tree, native kernel integration, whereas Linux has DKMS modules that are separate from mainline kernel, AND FreeBSD had ZFS since 2007 (18 years) and is considered more mature, whereas Linux's stable ZFS is much newer.
Additionally, some features work better on FreeBSD, Boot-on-ZFS is more polished on FreeBSD, and there are performance differences, too.
So my original claim is fine, though illumos is probably the actual best which is technically not Solaris anymore (even though it comes from OpenSolaris)... but as with always, you need history. Follow the timeline. :P
By "editorialize" we mean changing a title to introduce spin, or cherry-picking one detail to bias the reader in the direction that the submitter personally wants, rather than reflecting the article as a whole (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45202136 for a recent comment about that).
In this case, that wasn't at issue. The operative clause is "unless it is misleading or linkbait". A word like "extorted" is too baity for HN's frontpage. This is nothing personal against the OP! It's actually better for them and for Hack Club if the HN title is relatively neutral while still conveying the critical information.
There are large swathes of earth that are too inhospitable, like deserts. They're more accessible and easier to support life in than Mars, and yet no one lives there.
I'm just making the basic point that we have a wealth of much more hospitable places to live on earth, and somehow they're not viable candidates as "backup plans" for humanity.
Going a little further, living in the ocean is easier than living on Mars. As far as I can tell there are no billionaire-funded submarine civilisation programs.
They're not viable candidates as backup plans for humanity because they have the same vulnerabilities to comet strikes, global nuclear war and pandemic as the rest of the Earth.
OTOH, if one of those took out human life on Earth, people living on Mars could re-colonize Earth.
To be clear, I think copyright should not exist, as I don't think it follows from the basic principles on which our governance is founded. Regardless of my view on the matter, the state will still enforce copyright. Under the written law, this allows people to treat my work as if copyright did not exist (to a reasonable approximation).
Maybe a different, even more permissible license (public domain like) would be more fitting, but I am a practical person and understand that a more common and well understood license is better for this purpose.
If you think copyright shouldn't exist, you're free to ignore any rights afforded you for your work, "the state" is not going to enforce anything unless you bring a case to a court.
I understand the MIT licence as convention, and it makes sense. It's just you're opining on a public forum about copyright being somehow antithetical to "basic principles on which our governance is founded" whilst attaching copyright notices to your work.
Much of common law is specifically about property, upon which a good portion of modern day governance is founded. So your objection to copyright seems somewhat misinformed.
What is it about copyright that you think is a negative in today's society?
> If you think copyright shouldn't exist, you're free to ignore any rights afforded you for your work, "the state" is not going to enforce anything unless you bring a case to a court.
That doesn't give other people who would like to use my work any useful guarantee, though. Without a license, they would be taking a lot of risk, even if they knew my views on copyright.
> Much of common law is specifically about property, upon which a good portion of modern day governance is founded. So your objection to copyright seems somewhat misinformed.
Physical property has exclusive use. Multiple people cannot use 100% of something at the same time. "Intellectual property" has no such trait. Multiple identical copies of the same work can be used by multiple people at the same time.
Ownership defines who has exclusive use of a thing. Copyright actually defies common law by requiring state power to enforce monopolies on certain information, even on property owned by parties with no association to the originator of a work.
> What is it about copyright that you think is a negative in today's society?
Copyright is sold as "promoting the arts" but in net slows innovation and decreases artistic freedom. Especially in its current form with extremely long lifetimes, it primarily enables rent-seeking by publishers at the expense of the public. There are other ways for artists to make money, and many artists already make most of their money by performing live shows, working on commission, selling early access subscriptions, etc.
I'm continuing because this is interesting, not try to prove some point that undermines your perspective.
> Copyright actually defies common law by requiring state power to enforce monopolies on certain information
All laws ultimately require state power. You're deferring to state power by using the MIT licence, which recognises and legitimises copyright law that you take issue with.
> Copyright is sold as "promoting the arts" but in net slows innovation and decreases artistic freedom.
This is a big claim that requires big evidence. Robust copyright law has existed for about half a century, during which time innovation and artistic freedom seem to have flourished. In fact copyright appears to have directly contributed to the creation of the corpus Meta AI is exploiting; it exists because of copyright, not in spite of it.
> [Copyright] primarily enables rent-seeking by publishers at the expense of the public
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Copyright bestows the right of individuals to benefit from the value they create. Without talking about IP law more broadly in a capitalist system (which seems to be your gripe), I think this is a good thing.
I've benefitted greatly from the content of books, as have we all. If authors had to rely on live shows (for a book?), take commissions and sell subscriptions I think we'd all be worse off, because these provide little to no economic security for authors.
