You have to think about the threat model. The OS itself is rarely a problem. It's all the other stuff around it such as apps, browsers, websites, etc...
What is your use case? If you need a private computer to read and write you can setup a desktop with Linux and air-gap it (ZERO connectivity to the outside world, no wi-fi, no internet, nothing). Then transfer specific data in and out of it using a USB stick. That's just one example.
Yes! I despise how the open source and free software culture turns into just free labour for freeloading million-dollar and billion-dollar companies.
The culture made sense in the early days when it was a bunch of random nerds helping each other out and having fun. Now the freeloaders have managed to hijack it and inject themselves into it.
They also weaponise the culture against the devs by shaming them for wanting money for their software.
Many companies spend thousands of dollars every month on all sorts of things without much thought. But good luck getting a one-time $100 license fee out of them for some critical library that their whole product depends on.
Personally I'd like to see the "give stuff to them for free then beg and pray for donations" culture end.
We need to establish a balance based on the commercial value that is being provided.
For example I want licensing to be based on the size and scale of the user (non-commercial user, tiny commercial user, small business, medium business, massive enterprise).
It's absurd for a multi-million company to leech off a random dev for free.
I have no idea how much of this stuff is volunteer written, and how much is paid work that is open-sourced.
No one if forced to use these licences. Even some FOSS licences such as AGPL will not be used by many companies (even the GPL where its software that is distributed to users). You could use a FOSS license and add an exemption for non-commercial use, or use a non-FOSS license that is free for non-commercial use or small businesses.
On the other hand a lot of people choose permissive licenses. I assume they are happy to do so.
Not quite what you asked, but here are some thoughts.
Do you have the sales "fire power" to sell this solution?
Because it sounds like the kind of thing that governments or complicated companies would potentially buy. And they are not easy to sell to, to put it lightly.
I used to have some startup ideas that are in this category => "Most people don't need or want it, and people who do need or want it are not going to buy it from my flimsy bootstrapped startup (they will take 2 years and spend 100M with Deloitte on it instead)".
Not sure what's your situation/size/funding/scale but personally I'm happy to stay away from that category.
Berkshire Hathaway holds over 9% of Coca Cola's shares, worth $28 billion and returning over $800 million a year in dividend payments. Isn't that worth being seen visibly supporting Coca Cola products?
one thing is being visible, everyone is visible that is sponsoring a product in some way, e.g. athletes with gatorade. it is a whole other thing to accuse someone of creating a “fake persona” if he just wanted to “promote” coke there are many other ways this could be done (especially with virtually unlimited money for PR etc)
IDK. I'm living in Italy atm and I see a lot of people drink regular Coke presumably b/c they like it. What's different from the US is that's it's more of a single serving treat, instead of 2 gallons of free refills.
Well, impossible to prove of course but it reminds me of Ingvar Kamprad (the man behind IKEA) who used to drive an old Volvo when in Sweden to appear as a "man of the people".
In fact he had his main residence in Switzerland and was filthy rich which is a bit of a hard swallow especially in Sweden, a country still very much affected by the "Law of Jante".
A reporter that was doing a documentary about his wealth asked him once directly when stepping out of his old Volvo and Kamprad kinda lost it; it was a big kerfuffle at the time on the telly.
For those paying attention it was really revealing about the true nature of the man (let me add he was a young Nazi back in the day).
Most people came to his defense like the red-blooded capitalist gentleman commenting above about Buffet being a 100% American.
The older generation still swallow the farce hook, line and sinker. For the rest of us it's pretty clear it was a well thought-out facade to placate the plebeians to sell more cheap furniture.
I didn't know that, talk about being late to the party.
On a tangent I also found this recently about Le Corbusier:
---
Research from the last decade, primarily from a series of books published in 2015 and released correspondence, has confirmed that the influential modernist architect Le Corbusier was a fascist and antisemite with ties to the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime in France.
Simply speaking "Postgres for everything" is meant as a fool-proof default choice for the average person making an average app. It helps startups avoid tangling themselves with some bespoke/complex combination of Redis+Postgres+RabbitMQ+MongoDB from day 1 for their app that reaches a peak of 10 requests per second with 100 daily average users if they are lucky.
This usually happens because a junior dev wants to have fun and pad their resume while playing around with tech. Or they are insecure and want to make the "maximally proper" choice with everything so they appear to be an expert. For example they think storing any JSON or cache data in Postgres is somehow incorrect or forbidden and they must use something more specific to feel like they've made the correct choice.
In general Postgres will take people very far. Majority of companies could start with it and live with it forever. If they are lucky enough to need something else by that point hopefully they have enough money and staff to re-evaluate the stack and make changes for the future of the company.
Yes but usually the routing is done as part of a library so the developers are unlikely to interact with the API themselves. It will just affect the internals of their routing library. Those libraries already have their own implementation of similar stuff.
They seem to beat their chest in every elaborate highly technical post-mortem as they report the timestamp of events down to the millisecond as if we should be impressed!
Every time they screw up they write an elaborate postmortem and pat themselves on the back.
Don't get me wrong, better have the postmortem than not.
But at this point it seems like the only thing they are good at is writing incident postmortem blog posts.
What is your use case? If you need a private computer to read and write you can setup a desktop with Linux and air-gap it (ZERO connectivity to the outside world, no wi-fi, no internet, nothing). Then transfer specific data in and out of it using a USB stick. That's just one example.
reply