On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 13:45, James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

One example of that influence is Microsoft recently announcing a phone that runs Android!

That's not an embrace of Linux, just a declaration of defeat for crappy mobile OSs. Just ask Blackberry. - Evan

| From: Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 13:45, James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote: | > One example of that influence is Microsoft recently announcing a phone | > that runs Android! | That's not an embrace of Linux, just a declaration of defeat for crappy | mobile OSs. Just ask Blackberry. I'm not sure what you are saying here. BB10 wasn't bad. Windows 8 for phones wasn't bad. The network effect (for apps, not phone networks) is what killed them. iOS would have creamed Android if it were FLOSS (because iOS came first). If you meant: sticking with a doomed OS too long, BB and Nokia would be good examples. Nokia even switched horses twice. I had their Linux tablet (their replacement for Symbios) but Elop came in and switched them to Windows.

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 16:26:25 -0400 James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

On 2019-10-03 02:56 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:

...

iOS would have creamed Android if it were FLOSS (because iOS came first).

Having used both iPhones and Android, I have to say Android is much better.  I find iPhones frustrating.  As an Apple product, it tends to get in the way.  Apple like to tell users what they want.  ;-)

+1

...

If you meant: sticking with a doomed OS too long, BB and Nokia would be good examples. Nokia even switched horses twice. I had their Linux tablet (their replacement for Symbios) but Elop came in and switched them to Windows.

I had a Nokia N800.

I fondly recall using ssh on my Nokia communicator around 2001, it was sooo very very cool back then :)

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 08:06, Stewart C. Russell via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

On 2019-10-03 1:37 p.m., Evan Leibovitch via talk wrote:

...

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/10/05/the-rise-of-open-source-computi...

It's paywalled, so I didn't get to read the bit where it presumably says "… and we can get these geek rubes to write our software FOR FREE!"

For the same reason, I haven't read the article either. But since you didn't let that stop you from making assumptions, I won't either. :-) When the Economist tackles a subject, they usually really understand it before they write an article about it - it's one of the things I've appreciated about them. And they wouldn't make a statement like that if you actually understood the workings of open source. Without a doubt, there are people who view OSS that way: they piggy-back on a project, make money off it by selling services (or worse, the software itself) without committing back to the project. And maybe they believe they've suckered the "geek rubes," but what's being ignored is that the geek rubes chose (not "were paid to," or "made to," but CHOSE) to write that software out of personal interest. I think at this point most of us understand that if you open-source a project, someone will probably find a way to misuse it - so you kind of accept that when you add that open license. I didn't say any of us like it, but it's ... kind of a known thing these days. Of course you may have been joking. In which case I apologize for being too much of a literalist. (It's part of my nature.) -- Giles https://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 09:53, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

Yeah. You can register for free and read a very small number of articles each month.

I did that years ago. But because of the limitation, I almost never go to the economist. So it doesn't actually work well for them or for me.

YMMV. The registration feature allows one to see a few bits per month which is generally good enough for the handful of links one might get from a social media feed or a GTLALUG mailing list. This is how I use the NYT. The Economist is quite expensive and quite good. Perhaps paying for it

would be a good trade-off for me, but I don't.

Disclaimer: I pay for the Economist online-only edition, which is much cheaper because they don't mail the printed version from within Canada. It actually costs less than subscribing to the Globe or Star online. Expensive is in the eye of the beholder. At a time in which shitty clickbait-driven journalism surrounds, I find paying for something earnest and diligent is both worth it and "doing my part" to support the good stuff. Everything in Canada has a palpable bias, at least the CBC's biases are known so you can skip or read with the appropriate filters. But the Star, Sun, Post and Globe have all joined political teams and they suuuuuuck. So does the Guardian, which I once trusted but now find unreadable (its Canada beat reporter has a visceral personal hatred of Justin, there he's no better then Donald or Boris). Most recently I've also taken to judging media outlets based on their reaction to the latest Dave Chappelle show/rant on Netflix (see it if you can). He's done a great job of fleshing out the SJW shame police.

It's funny how many of us are willing to pay for netflix on the internet but not for magazines or newspapers. That's mostly true of me.

Cutting the cord so I don't pay for cable or satellite TV has freed up significant funds for online subscriptions. Family plans at Netflix, YouTube and other services have reduced cost too. I've avoided Crave because (a) its content is crap and (b) I detest Bell. I'll probably subscribe to the Disney streaming service when it comes out because of the sheer volume of the content vault. I have no problem paying for decent content, and I happily disable my ad blocker on sites that are useful and ask nicely. I do occasionally have access to downloaded stuff, but mainly in circumstances where "rights holders" have made it near impossible to legally get stuff. Regardless of what you think of pro wrestling, the fact that Canada is the only country on Earth that bars web-only subscriptions to wwe.com should be alarming. But I digress. | so I didn't get to read the bit where it presumably says "…

| and we can get these geek rubes to write our software FOR FREE!"

I didn't see any hint of condescension or ridicule in the article towards the model or those who use it. I read the article and don't remember getting angry about anything in it. I

did not learn anything from it. It wasn't very deep (how could it be?). I don't imagine that anyone on this list would learn anything

Perhaps for some. Others might find it interesting, And yet others may find it useful to explain what we do to people who don't know tech. I called attention to the article for a few reasons: - This champion of free enterprise is explicitly touting what we've known along, that open source is not anti-capitalist or against profit. It points to IBM's acquisition of Red Hat as an example of the ability to make money while retaining the FOSS ethic. - It approvingly explains how FOSS is especially useful in this day of international tensions and tariffs, noting how China is able to use FOSS to mitigate the damage of US sanctions and how the US can use FOSS to verify the existence (or not) of spyware in Chinese devices - It introduces RISC-V as a credible open-hardware alternative to the PC status quo. Nothing earth-shattering, but IMO an important feel-good piece that imparts what we already know to a broader and influential audience. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56