cmhe

No, the consumers are never to blame for stuff like this!

This is something that is just that we get told by the people that are lying about and hyping up a product, putting up manipulative incentives for buying it before letting us inspect it. Then releasing trash, but still appealing on our empathic nature and promising that it might get fixed later. And when things turn to shit, then it is our trust and empathy, willingness to support them, that is to blame for it. No!

If the industry exploits our good and trusting nature, then we need to fight them with regulation and laws. Our civilization and the human nature is built on trust, and that should not be undermined by short profit oriented, exploitative companies or business practices.

A customer wanted to used Teams couple of days ago, I couldn't make it work on my companies laptop, trying three different browers. I just loaded an empty white page.

I had to use a laptop from another customer, that also use Teams, to do so, which worked, but gave me toothache, in terms of security.

Both laptops where on the same network and both ran Debian and I tried the same browsers, without any plugins and jitsi-meet works fine on my companies laptop. So apparently the system need to be specially configured for Teams to work.

I am staying with jitsi-meet, thank you very much.

The customer, I got the laptop from, knew what they did and provided managed Linux Systems for people to be able to use Teams.

Vielleicht eine unpopuläre Meinung, aber geht das nicht zu weit?

Ich verstehe das man um Toleranz aufrecht zu erhalten gegen intollerante Ideen kämpfen muss, aber ich habe das Gefühl das dieser Schritt nur zu mehr Anti-Muslimischen Einstellungen führt.

Und selbst wenn die dort den ganzen Tag nur Propaganda machen, so eine Schließung wird nicht zu weniger Propaganda führen, solang wir hier ein offenes Internet haben.

Wenn die selben Personen/Personengruppen nicht gleichzeitig ein Verbot für politisch effektivere Gruppierungen, wie die AfD, fordern dann klingt das sehr heuchlerisch.

"next-generation PC" whatever that means.

I do hope that there never will be a next generation of PCs, i am quite happy with my old-gen Ship-of-Theseus-PC, where I occasionally replace some parts.

As I said, it is not impossible to move away from gh compared to many other cases in other industries, just that it is more difficult than necessary because vendor-lockin is allowed.

If vendor-lockin was illegal, companies had more incentives to use established or create new standards to facilitate simpler migration between software stacks, without changing the external interface.

For instance allowing your own DNS name to be used as the repo/project basepath instead of enforcing github.com, Allowing comments, reviews, issues and pull requests via email or other federated services, instead of enforcing github accounts to do so, providing documented, stable and full-featured APIs for every component of their software, so that it is easy to migrate and pick and choose different components of their while stack from possible different vendors, ...

There are so many ways that would improve the migration situation, while also providing more ways for other ideas to compete on a level playing field. If a bright engineer has an idea for improving one component from github, they should not be required to write a whole separate platform first.

Well the reason for that is the vendor-lockin and centralized technology.

If your project for instance uses a similar development method as the linux kernel does, e.g. sending and reviewing patches via mailing lists and providing url to push and pull git repos from, it is quite easy to switch out the software stack underneath, because your are dealing with quasi-standart data: Mbox, SMTP, HTTP(s) and DNS. So you can move your whole community to a different software stack by just changing some DNS entries and maybe provide some url rewrite rules without disrupting the development process.

I am not saying that the mailing list development process is the right one for every project, but it demonstrates how agnostic to the software stack it could be.

If vendor-lockin is made illegal, the service providers would have more incentives to use or create standardized APIs, so that their product can be replaced by competitors. So switching to or from github/gitlab/... becomes easier.

It has more than you expect, if your project is established on github and want to move away you have to deal with:

• migration of issues
• migration of pull requests
• migration of all review comments etc
• migration of the wiki
• migration of the pages
• convince all contributors to possible create a new account somewhere else
• changing of the project urls. I don't think github offers a url rewrite service
• forks on github will not have the new destination as the fork base
• change the ci and release process
• because you cannot add url rewrite rules to your old gh project, you might need to only 'archive' the project there with manually written text, to point to the new destination, for people to find it

You don't know what a "monopoly" is.

What the author is probably searching for is "vendor-lockin", which is an anticompetitive practice for so long that it became the way many companies rely their business on. It favors established products over new-comers by making switching offerings difficult/expensive or even impossible, thus better products often have no chance of competing in a field, that was dominated by a single supplier for a while.

IMO there should be strict regulations and high fines associated with it, because it hinders innovation massively across all industries.

The cost of switching away from github for a project is high, but not as high as in other fields.

IDK. I think that just causes more confusion. Like with "Use gitlab", do I mean the application or gitlab.com?

Well said!

There are other games, where you play the bad guys, like Payday. Now I am not knowledgeable enough about the Helldivers or Payday lore, so I cannot compare if similar points can be made there. For all I know Payday could be a group of freedom fighters against a militaristic fascist police state.

Or are there any other games of that genre, where you play the bad guys, and it is made more clear on which side you are on?

Git bisect?

It doesn't matter if it works or not, there is a market for it, so people/companies pay for it.

A lot of this is about selling promises of clicks or customers, and to be convincing they need to surveil everyone and boast with the amount of data they have.

Many people buy in crypto currencies, just because of promises. At some point this bubble will burst, question is when.