The AI and Tooling support point is really just an extension of the Community and Ecosystem point. Even before LLMs React had an advantage in that every question you had was probably already on StackOverflow and there are mature React libraries for almost everything. Now some people might use an LLM to answer the question they previously would have gone to StackOverflow for but the outcome is the same: there are advantages to using what other people are using.
The famous Tannenbaum-Torvalds debate happened all the way back in 1992. At the time, the most common microkernel was Mach, which had significant performance problems. NeXT/Apple solved them by transforming Mach into a monolithic kernel, making Mach (as XNU) one of the most popular kernels in the world today (powering iPhones, iPads, Macs, etc). But that doesn’t help Tannenbaum‘s side of the argument. And I don’t believe his own Minix did much better than Mach did.
Whereas, from what I hear, L4 and its derivatives have solved this problem in a way that Mach/Minix/etc could not. Yet still, it makes me wonder, if L4 has really solved it, why aren’t we all running L4? L4 has had some success in embedded applications (such as mobile basebands, Apple Secure Enclave); but as a general purpose operating system has never really taken off.
An application in which something like slow file IO wouldn’t be a problem - does it even have a filesystem? And we don’t know whether Intel has done things to make it an “impure” microkernel, like what NeXT/Apple did to XNU, or Microsoft did with win32k.sys
The article describes what happened and it had nothing to do with Unisuper. Google deployed the private cloud with an internal Google tool. And that internal Google tool configured things to auto-delete after a year.
Mandatory licensing would be wild. If LG invent something that makes TVs better should they have to licence it to Samsung? Or should they just be able to make better TVs and use their invention for market differentiation?
Being required to conduct good-faith negotiation sounds like a great idea, a reasonable tradeoff between protection that encourages innovation so that inventors can profit off their inventions, while also allowing for society to progress based on those inventions.
LG could ignore trolls and morons - but if Samsung makes a good-faith, fair offer to license the technology, they should have to have a good reason for saying no beyond "we don't feel like it."
One company, Cobasys (owned by an oil company!) purposefully refused to license NiMH technology in transportation. The patent system was never intended to be used like a weapon to protect a market.
> The patent system was never intended to be used like a weapon to protect a market.
This doesn't seem true to me. Nothing about the design of the patent system makes sense if the intent if not to use it like a weapon to let a giant company protect a whole area of the market from competition.
As a point of interest, there is a class of patterns called Standard Essential Patents (SEP), which the patent holder is required to sell licenses under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions when an implementation of that patented idea is required to comply with certain standards.
Why shouldn't they have to license it to Samsung? Why do we want to stifle innovation by preventing Samsung from using any of LG's tech and vice versa? Imagine the TVs we could've had if the two companies could combine the best parts of each others' technologies.
At a place I was consulting about 10 years ago one of the internal guys on another product dropped the prod database because he was logged into his dev db and the prod db at the same time in different windows and he dropped the wrong one. Then when they went to restore the backups hadn't succeeded in months (they had hired consultants to help them with the new product for good reason).
Luckily the customer sites each had a local db that synced to the central db (so the product could run with patchy connectivity), but the guy spent 3 or 4 days working looooong days rebuilding the master db from a combination of old backups and the client-site data.
> logged into his dev db and the prod db at the same time in different windows
I am very worried about doing the wrong thing in the wrong terminal, so for some machines I colour-code my ssh windows, red for prod, yellow for staging and green for dev. e.g. in my ~/.bashrc I have: echo -ne '\e]11;#907800\a' #yellow background
About 10 years ago I literally saw the blood drain from a colleagues face as he realised he had dropped a production database because he thought he was in a dev environment.
A DBA colleague sitting nearby laughed and had things restored back within a few minutes....
Lots of the fancy keyboards coming out at the moment are settling around the layout the advantage has had for decades (although usually without the nice curve the advantage has).
yeah no the whole ergo-dox moonlander blahblah family is just 'advantage but way easier to build cause it's flat'... and they all suck because they are flat.
I tried out a friends glove80... it's just kinesis but still worse, there are a few things that kinesis does. It's better than the ergo-dox because keywells.. it's better than the glove 80 because of the keycap profiling. I do think the profiling on the 360 is a little worse than the older advantage 1/2 but it's pretty good. .. but like the glove 80 all the keycaps are the same height from the switch and it's not great.
(to give props advantage basically stole from maltron but the build quality on those is so so shitty.. vacuform cases sometimes)
Erg, I ran into this on my mac twice when I upgraded. I have two bootable OSX partitions and it hit on both upgrades. I'm not really a mac guy and it took a _lot_ of messing around (and learning that DFU exists and what it does) to sort out. Just lucky that my daughter has a mac so that I could even use DFU without having to take the thing into an apple store.
