1. -4

    Honestly, they should retire. Open up some positions for everyone else.

    1. 5

      I’ve been using Enpass for a couple of years now. I sync my phone/laptop/desktop via Google Drive (handily the Qt desktop version bakes in Drive support so I don’t need to run Google’s full Drive sync client on either my Macbook or desktop).

      I would prefer an open-source solution, but so far haven’t found any ringing alarm bells with Enpass. I like that it has a fingerprint auth option on Android, and that the Qt versions (after initial unlock with long master password) can be set to unlock with a PIN. I realise this isn’t the most secure setup, but it is convenient to use, and that has resulted in me using it for everything.

      1. 1

        I use this because it’s the only one that does Webdav syncing.

        I don’t trust Google or any of the other large cloud provider (1Password only does icloud sync) enough to let them have even an encrypted copy of my passwords. Still, Google won’t buzz off, Chrome continues to insist that it should be my password manager…

      1. 3

        I like this. It need more work, but it’s a good start.

        1. 1

          This is interesting. I’ve been running my own instance a few weeks though, and thought I might find some more people to follow.

          Clicking through the links, I’m just starting to think that Mastodon isn’t for me. It’s not exactly a shock, it positions itself as a twitter alternative, and I never got into twitter either. I like Mastodon, in that I think it fulfills some popular use. It’s just not for me.

          PS Would non-Mastodon ActivityPub posts show up here, assuming they were popular enough? Peertube, for instance?

          1. 4

            Seems fair I guess. They probably made thousands of easy ad dollars off Nintendo’s property, so it’s normal they have a problem with this.

            1. 4

              However, is Nintendo actually making profit of the original Zelda, for example? I mean, is there a way for me as a player to get to play the original Zelda without having to search for a second hand NES and fishing for the original cartridge in flea markets? I get that is their intellectual property, but still it’s not like they still sell those games

              1. 18

                The current philosophy of the law is that Nintendo has an eternal right to tax Zelda. It was never meant to go into the public domain, will never go into the public domain, and if legislators have funny ideas about this stuff then they’ll use their billions of previous culture tax revenue to bribe (er… “lobby”) them to have the right ideas again.

                Anyone who gripes about this state of affairs is obviously a commie trying to steal from them.

                1. 2

                  In my understanding, in France and probably other countries, works (not sure what, but writings and musics are included for example, probably programs/video games?) enter public domain 70 years after creator’s death.

                  How can this apply to a living company?

                  1. 2

                    The original author(s) license (indirect in employment contract or direct via a specific one) rights to the work. The ‘death’ clause becomes really gnarly when the actual work of art is an aggregate of many copyright holders.

                    This becomes more complicated as the licensing gets split up into infinitely small pieces, like “time-limited distribution within country XYZ on the media of floppy discs”. Such time-limit clauses are a probable cause when contents to whole games suddenly disappear, typically sublicensed contents like music.

                    This, in turn, gets even more complicated by the notion of ‘derivative’ work; fanart or those “HD remakes” as even abstract nuances have to be considered. The stories about Sherlock Holmes are in the public domain, but certain aesthetics, like the deerstalker/pipe/… figure - are still(?) copyrighted. Defining ‘derivative’ work is complex in and of itself. For instance, Blizzard have successfully defended copyright of the linked and loaded process of the World of Warcraft client as such, in the case against certain cheat-bots - and similar shenanigans to take down open source / reversed starcraft servers.

                    Then a few years pass and nobody knows who owns what or when or where, copyright trolls dive in and threaten extortion fees based on rights they don’t have. Copyright in its current form has nothing to do about the ‘artist’ and is complete, depressing, utter bullshit - It has turned into this bizarre form of mass hypnosis where everyone gets completely and thoroughly screwed.

                    These aspects, when combined, is part of the reason as to why “sanctioned ROM stores” that virtual console and so on holds have very limited catalogs, the rightsholders are nowhere to be found and can’t be safely licensed.

                2. 10

                  Yep, Nintendo do still sell these games, and it is possible for you to buy them. I bought one of these last week.

                  https://www.nintendo.com/nes-classic/

                  1. 2

                    They also still sell them on the Wii U and 3DS Virtual Consoles.

                    1. 1

                      Oh sure, I totally forgot about those new editions, you’re right

                      1. 2

                        I just got a NES Classic and SNES Classic. They are pretty dope! I think that they are starting to care a lot more now that these are a thing :)

                        This does, however, have the unfortunate side effect of players not being able to play their favorites unless they are one of the ~60 games on these two classic editions. So, that’s sad. :(

                1. 2

                  As others have pointed out, email is a federated model that works just fine. Other federated services are no different in any practical way. The privacy issues with centralized services revolve around them actively working to mine your data. These companies are in the business of making money, and you are their product. This is the fundamental difference between using something like Twitter and Mastodon. Since commercial offerings are trying to monetize you, they have a lot of incentive to invade your privacy by demanding personal information, and to keep you engaged using their services.

                  The situation is very different with federated services. The code itself is open source allowing people to audit it, and fork it. If a service moves in a direction the community doesn’t like then they can fork the code, and set up new instances.

                  The federation model is open, meaning that you’re not tied to a specific service. Mastodon, Pleroma, and PeerTube all federate over ActivityPub. This also means that the model is designed for interoperability between services from ground up. Meanwhile, centralized commercial services that try to create walled gardens, and prevent you from moving data between them.

                  Access to the data for the services is democratized as well. The things you post on a public forum will obviously be public, however only the service provider has the ability to analyze it with commercial service. Federated services like Mastodon have no incentive from keeping the users from accessing the data. I think it’s a better situation where everybody has access to the data the service collects as opposed to just the providers themselves.

                  The scale advantage comes from the fact that you’re not stuck with a single provider. The system is inherently more robust, and not only in terms of technology. When you have a federation, it’s no longer possible to enforce a single set of rules for everybody. Twitter of Facebook get to choose what content you see, this allows them to sensor content and manipulate the network much more easily that you can with a distributed system.

                  1. 1

                    The privacy issues with centralized services revolve around them actively working to mine your data. These companies are in the business of making money, and you are their product.

                    This is a common error. Centralized doesn’t immediately equal evil or selling you out. It depends on how they’re set up. There’s companies that just sell you a service without trying to send your data to others. FastMail was a popular Gmail alternative whose users say it’s super-fast and stuff, too. MyKolab was a Swiss one I found for $5 a month with privacy policy. ProtonMail is a recent entry with crypto. HushMail is possibly the oldest of those. ZixCorp has similar services. The PGP company should probably be in this list.

                    That’s just email. There’s long been solutions doing similar things for chat, backups, mobiles, and so on. There’s just hardly anyone buying them. A few have been around a long time making money. Mostly selling to businesses, though. There is a market but won’t get you rich easily. One can build centralized, non-profit companies with charters protecting privacy. I’ve pushed this a long time. Also, put it in the EULA’s with EU-style penalties for privacy failures if users push for them. Maybe also in the hiring agreement for employees where they can refuse to work on surveillance or privacy-defeating features without termination. On top of that, one might build several of the same company in different countries as a public-benefit multi-national where they sort of check on each other but otherwise operate independently in their own market with tailored solutions.

                    There’s a lot of potential. There’s also companies taking care of their customers every day using tiny subsets of what I described. Often just owners or company culture that believes in it. People talking like all businesses are evil or have to sell out their customers do those businesses a disservice. Instead, we should try to see what protections we can build on top of those proven models in centralized form before telling people they have no choice but use decentralized stuff. I mean, we can have people developing both in parallel. I even encourage to mitigate impact of failures.

                    1. 2

                      Centralization might not immediately equal evil. But it eventually does. As things get bigger, they require more resources, at some non-linear rate.

                      So the only reason you can use those non-gmail services, the only way they can stay in business without “going evil” is to remain small enough that their requirements remain low. If they got as popular as gmail, they’d be trying to datamine our emails from grandma to sell us shit too.

                      There’s practically no examples of some large centralized thing not becoming evil. I don’t think this is solvable.

                      1. 2

                        Costco and Publix? Vanguard for investing?

                        1. 1

                          I’d say, instead, that centralization makes large-scale evil possible. Whether or not somebody steps up to the plate to take advantage of that possibility depends on how long the system exists, how big a scam they can run, and what social systems are in place to prevent it. If something is making a non-zero amount of money and exists for a few years, the likelihood that it’ll become a scam is pretty high.

                        2. 2

                          Centralization itself doesn’t equal selling you out, but the business model for current social media companies is what ultimately drives that. The way centralization plays into this is by locking you into the platform once you start using it. For me the biggest value of federation is that it removes central control from the platform. Anybody can run their own instance and manage it the way they see fit, and people can choose what instances they federate with.

                          I don’t really have any problem with businesses providing services, and as email shows it’s perfectly possible to do that on top of a federated model. My view is that this is a more robust model overall because it prevents companies from dictating how a service will work for everybody.

                          1. 1

                            “ but the business model for current social media companies is what ultimately drives that.”

                            I definitely agree with that. Now we’re in tricky territory, though. The uptake model for social media is it has to be easy to use/understand, preferably free if maximizing participants, and dirt cheap to scale if either free or low-cost. That already disqualifies most decentralized schemes people create. The last thing is people go where other people are. So, to bring in the masses, it needs to sort of already be popular at least among groups of them with some motivation for them to invite their friends. Those people are mostly locked into Facebook and such right now with lots of friends, family photos, etc they might stand to lose.

                            With that, I’m not sure how to make decentralized, private, social media take off in a big way. It’s one of the only types of applications I have no confidence in. That’s in general, not just decentralized. Only a small number of players even made huge waves. Fewer than that survived with any large usage. We might be stuck with a situation where they stay stuck on social media but we push private messaging as extra medium with other benefits like no limits on characters, immediate delivery, etc. Fortunately, a ton of people already moved to IM. It should be an easier sell than before.

                      1. 7

                        This is a great usability improvement. Thank you Peter Hessler :)

                        That said, it’s still a little bit sad that this is only just being introduced in 2018.

                        1. 34

                          That said, it’s still a little bit sad that this is only just being introduced in 2018.

                          Technically - OpenBSD has had various toolings (1, 2, 3 and others) to do this very task for quite a long time. But none of them were considered the correct approach.

                          Also, this is something that’s pretty unique to OpenBSD IMO. The end result is the same as with other systems.. sure. But this is unique among the unix world.

                          Q: What’s the difference?

                          Glad I asked! This is entirely contained within the base system and requires no tools beyond ifconfig!

                          Linux has ip, iw, networkmanager, iwconfig..(likely others)… and they are all using some weird combo of wpa_supplicant.. autogen’d text files.. and likely other things.

                          Have you ever tried to manually configure wireless on linux? It’s a nightmare. Always has been.

                          NetworkManager does a really good job of making it feel like there isn’t a kludge going on behind the scenes.. It does this by gluing all the various tools together so you don’t have to know about them. IMO this is what happens when you “get it done now” vs “do it right”.

                          With great simplicity comes great security:

                          NetworkManager@6c3174f6e0cdb3e0c61ab07eb244c1a6e033ff6e:

                          github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.74  T=28.62 s (48.2 files/s, 45506.1 lines/s)
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Language                      files          blank        comment           code
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          PO File                          66         125328         161976         457879
                          C                               541          71112          66531         321839
                          C/C++ Header                    528          10430          15928          34422
                          XML                              59           1406           2307           6692
                          make                              6            885            229           5009
                          Python                           40           1189           1128           4597
                          NAnt script                      65            626              0           3968
                          m4                                8            237            123           1958
                          Lua                              11            212            453           1314
                          Bourne Shell                     21            232            238           1115
                          XSLT                              5             65              3            929
                          Perl                              4            166            243            480
                          Bourne Again Shell               11             30             35            241
                          C++                               4             62            121            178
                          YAML                              4             12              6            161
                          JavaScript                        1             33             21            130
                          Ruby                              3             39             92            110
                          Lisp                              2             15             24             23
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          SUM:                           1379         212079         249458         841045
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          

                          VS

                          ifconfig@1.368:

                          github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.74  T=0.12 s (32.2 files/s, 58201.7 lines/s)
                          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Language                     files          blank        comment           code
                          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          C                                2           1009            345           5784
                          C/C++ Header                     1              7             16             58
                          make                             1              3              1              6
                          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          SUM:                             4           1019            362           5848
                          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          

                          Anyway - I guess my point is this:

                          • Almost every OS achieves this goal.. sure.
                          • Most have had this feature for quite some time.. agree (Including OpenBSD!).
                          • None of them have it implemented as simply and well-thought-out as OpenBSD.
                          1. 5

                            Have you ever tried to manually configure wireless on linux? It’s a nightmare. Always has been.

                            No. The Linux’s I use come with an out-of-the-box experience that makes wireless as easy as clicking a box, clicking a name, typing in the password, it works, and it reconnects when nearby. They have been like that since I bought an Ubuntu-specific Dell a long time ago. They knew it was a critical feature that needed to work easily with no effort with some doing that upon installation so parts of the install could be downloaded over WiFi. Then, they did whatever they had to do in their constraints (time/talent/available code) to get it done.

                            And then I was able to use it with only breaks being wireless driver issues that had answers on Q&A sites. Although that was annoying, I didn’t have to think about something critical I shouldn’t have to think about. Great product development in action for an audience that has other things to do than screw around with half-built wireless services. That’s a complement about what I used rather than a jab at OpenBSD’s which I didn’t use. I’m merely saying quite a few of us appreciate stuff that saves us time once or many times. If common and critical, adoption can go up if it’s a solved problem with minimal intervention out of the box.

                            That said, props to your project member who solved the problem with a minimally-complex solution in terms of code and dependencies. I’m sure that was hard work. I also appreciate you illustrating that for us with your comparisons. The difference is almost comical in the work people put in with very different talents, goals and constraints. And m4 isn’t gone yet. (sighs)

                            1. 7

                              No. The Linux’s I use come with an out-of-the-box experience that makes wireless as easy as clicking a box, clicking a name, typing in the password, it works, and it reconnects when nearby.

                              And then something goes wrong in the fragile mess of misfeatures, and someone has to dig in and debug, or a new feature comes along and someone has to understand the stack of hacks to understand it, before it can be added. There’s something to be said for a system that can be understood.

                              1. 4

                                There is something to be said for a system to be understood. I totally agree. I also think there’s something to be said for a reliable, more-secure system that can be effortlessly used by hundreds of millions of people. A slice of them will probably do things that were worth the effort. The utilitarian in me says make it easy for them to get connected. The pragmatist also says highly-usable, effortless experience leads to more benefits in terms of contributions, donations, and/or business models. These seemingly-contradicting philosophies overlap in this case. I think end justifies the means here. One can always refactor the cruddy code later if it’s just one component in the system with a decent API.

                                1. 3

                                  One can always refactor the cruddy code later if it’s just one component in the system with a decent API.

                                  The problem isn’t the code, it’s the system that it’s participating in.

                                  1. 2

                                    One can always refactor the cruddy code later if it’s just one component in the system with a decent API.

                                    This just leads to systemd, and more misfeatures…

                                    1. 3

                                      There’s Linux’s without systemd. Even those that had it didn’t before they got massive adoption/impact/money. So, it doesn’t naturally lead to it. Just bad, decision-making in groups controlling popular OS’s from what I can tell. Then, there’s also all the good stuff that comes with their philosophy that strict OS’s like OpenBSD haven’t achieved. The Linux server market, cloud, desktops, embedded, and Android are worth the drawbacks if assessing by benefits gained by many parties.

                                      Personally, I’m fine with multiple types of OS being around. I like and promote both. As usual, I’m just gonna call out anyone saying nobody can critique an option or someone else saying it’s inherently better than all alternatives. Those positions are BS. Things things are highly contextual.

                              2. 1

                                This is really great. I wish all other projects can do that, preferring elegancy to throwing code on the wall, but sometimes life really takes its toll and we cave and just make Frankenstein to get shit done.

                                I really appreciate all the works by OpenBSD folks. Do you have any idea how other *BSD’s deal with the wireless?

                                1. 1

                                  Do you have any idea how other *BSD’s deal with the wireless?

                                  I don’t - sorry :D

                              3. 3

                                Whats really sad is that the security of other operating systems can’t keep up despite having more man power.

                                1. 2

                                  It’s almost like if you prioritize the stuff that truly matters, and be willing to accept a little bit of UX inconvenience, you might happen upon a formula that produces reliable software? Who would have thought?

                                  1. 2

                                    That’s what I told OpenBSD people. They kept on a poorly-marketed monolith in unsafe language without the methods from CompSci that were knocking out whole classes of errors. They kept having preventable bugs and adoption blockers. Apparently, the other OS developers have similarly, hard-to-change habits and preferences with less focus on predictable, well-documented, robust behavior.

                                  2. 1

                                    I think this is just a matter of what you think matters. There’s no sadness here. The ability to trade off security for features and vice versa is good. It lets us accept the level of risk we like.

                                    On the other hand, it’s really sad, for instance, that OpenBSD has had so many public security flaws compared to my kernel ;P

                                    1. 1

                                      On the other hand, it’s really sad, for instance, that OpenBSD has had so many public security flaws compared to my kernel ;P

                                      What’s your kernel?

                                      1. 2

                                        It’s a joke. Mine is a null kernel. It has zero code, so no features, so no security flaws. Just like OpenBSD has fewer features and fewer known security flaws than Linux, mine has fewer features but no security flaws.

                                        Unlike OpenBSD, mine is actually immune to Meltdown and Spectre.

                                        1. 1

                                          Not having public flaws doesn’t mean you don’t have flaws. Could mean not enough people are even considering checking for flaws. ;)

                                          1. 1

                                            Oh OK lol.

                                    2. 0

                                      That said, it’s still a little bit sad that this is only just being introduced in 2018.

                                      Would you like to clarify what you mean by this comment? Cause right now my interpretation of it is that you feel entitled to have complicated features supported in operating systems developed by (largely unpaid) volunteers.

                                      1. 11

                                        I’m getting a bit tired of every complaint and remark being reduced to entitlement. Yes, I know that there is a lot of unjustified entitlement in the world, and it is rampant in the open source world, but I don’t feel entitled to anything in free or open source software space. As someone trying to write software in my spare time, I understand how hard it is to find spare time for any non-trivial task when it’s not your job.

                                        Though I am not a heavy user, I think OpenBSD is an impressive piece of software, with a lot of thought and effort put into the design and robustness of the implementation.

                                        I just think it’s somewhat disheartening that something this common (switching wireless networks) was not possible without manual action (rewriting a configuration file, or swapping configuration files, and restarting the network interface) every time you needed to switch or moved from home to the office.

                                        Whether you feel like this is me lamenting the fact that there are so few contributors to important open source projects, me lamenting the fact that it is so hard to make time to work on said project, or me being an entitled prick asking for features on software I don’t pay for (in money or in time/effort) is entirely your business.

                                        1. 5

                                          Just for the record I didn’t think you sounded entitled. The rest of the comment thread got weirdly sanctimonious for some reason.

                                          Volunteers can work on whatever they want, and anybody’s free to comment on their work. Other operating systems have had the ability to switch wifi networks now for a long time, so it’s fair to call that out. And then Peter went and did something about it which is great.

                                          Previously I’ve been using http://ports.su/net/wireless for wifi switching on my obsd laptop, but will use the new built-in feature when I upgrade the machine.

                                          Some of the delay for the feature may be because the OS, while very capable, doesn’t seem designed to preemptively do things on the user’s behalf. Rather the idea seems to be that the user knows what’s best and will ask the OS to do things. For instance when I dock or undock my machine from an external monitor it won’t automatically switch to using the display. I have a set of dock/undock scripts for that. I appreciate the simple “manual transmission” design of the whole thing. The new wifi feature seems to be in a similar spirit, where you rank each network’s desirability and the OS tries in that order.

                                          1. 2

                                            Interesting, I didn’t know about that to. I used my own bash script to juggle config files and restart the interface, but the new support in ifconfig itself is much easier.

                                            I think the desire for OpenBSD to not do things without explicit user intent are certainly part of why this wasn’t added before, as well as limited use as a laptop OS until relatively recently.

                                          2. 2

                                            Thanks for taking the time to respond.

                                            To be clear, I don’t believe you’re some sort of entitled prick – I don’t even know you. But, I do care that people aren’t berating developers with: “That’s great, but ____” comments. Let’s support each other, instead of feigning gratitude. It wasn’t clear if that’s what you were doing, hence, my request for clarification.

                                            That being said, my comment was poorly worded, and implied a belief that you were on the wrong side of that. That was unfair, and I apologize.

                                            I just think it’s somewhat disheartening that something this common (switching wireless networks) was not possible without manual action (rewriting a configuration file, or swapping configuration files, and restarting the network interface) every time you needed to switch or moved from home to the office.

                                            Well, I’m just not going to touch this…. :eyeroll:

                                            1. 1

                                              I apologize if my response was a little bit snide. I’ve been reading a lot of online commentary that chunks pretty much everything into whatever people perceive as wrong with society (most commonly: racism, sexism, or millenial entitlement - I know these are real and important issues, but not everything needs to be about them). I read your remark in the context and may have been a little harsh.

                                              Regarding the last segment - how WiFi switching worked before - there may have been better ways to do this, but I’m not sure they were part of the default install. When I needed this functionality on OpenBSD, I basically wrote a bash script to do these steps for me on demand, and that worked alright for me. It may not have been the best way, so my view of the OpenBSD WiFi laptop landscape prior to the work of Peter may not be entirely appropriate or accurate.

                                            2. 1

                                              I just think it’s somewhat disheartening that something this common (switching wireless networks) was not possible without manual action (rewriting a configuration file, or swapping configuration files, and restarting the network interface) every time you needed to switch or moved from home to the office.

                                              I’m more blunt here that leaving that to be true in a world with ubiquitous WiFi was a bad idea if they wanted more adoption and donations from market segment that wanted good, out-of-the-box support for WiFi. If they didn’t want that, then it might have been a good choice to ignore it for so long to focus on other things. It all depends on what their goals were. Since we don’t know them, I’ll at least say that it was bad, neutral, or good depending on certain conditions like with anything else. The core userbase was probably OK with whatever they had, though.

                                            3. 3

                                              First, both free speech and hacker culture say that person can gripe about what they want. They’re sharing ideas online that someone might agree with or act on. We have a diverse audience, too.

                                              Second, the project itself has developers that write cocky stuff about their system, mock the other systems, talk that one time about how they expect more people to be paying them with donations, more recently talk about doing things like a hypervisor for adoption, and so on. Any group doing any of that deserves no exception to criticism or mockery by users or potential users. It’s why I slammed them hard in critiques, only toning it down for the nice ones I met. People liking critiques of other projects or wanting adoption/donations should definitely see others’ critiques of their projects, esp if its adoption/donation blockers. I mean, Mac’s had a seemless experience called Rendevous or something in 2002. If I’m reading the thread right, that was 16 years before OpenBSD something similar they wanted to make official. That OpenBSD members are always bragging when they’re ahead of other OS’s on something is why I’m mentioning it. Equal treatment isn’t always nice.

                                              “But, I do care that people aren’t berating developers with: “That’s great, but ____” comments. Let’s support each other, instead of feigning gratitude. It wasn’t clear if that’s what you were doing, hence, my request for clarification.”

                                              I did want to point out that we’ve had a lots of OpenBSD-related submissions and comments with snarky remarks about what other developers or projects were doing. I at least don’t recall you trying to shut them down with counterpoints assessing their civility or positivity toward other projects (say NetBSD or Linux). Seems a little inconsistent. My memory is broken, though. So, are you going to be countering every negative remark OpenBSD developers or supporters make about projects with different goals telling them to be positive and supportive only? A general rule of yours? Or are you giving them a pass for some reason but applying the rule to critics of OpenBSD choices?

                                              1. 1

                                                I at least don’t recall you trying to shut them down with counterpoints assessing their civility or positivity toward other projects (say NetBSD or Linux). Seems a little inconsistent.

                                                I’m not the Internet Comment Police, but you seem to think you are for some reason… Consider this particular instance “me griping about what I want.”

                                                Or are you giving them a pass for some reason but applying the rule to critics of OpenBSD choices?

                                                This wasn’t about OpenBSD at all. This started out as a request for clarification on the intent of an ambiguous comment that seemed entitled. There seems to be a lot of that happening today, and a lot of people defending it for whatever reason, which is even worse.

                                                1. 1

                                                  I’m not the Internet Comment Police

                                                  Your comments came off that way to me between the original and follow-ups. Far as not about OpenBSD, it’s in a thread on it with someone griping it lacked something they wanted. The OpenBSD members griping about third party projects not having something they wanted to see more of typically got no comment from you. The inconsistency remains. I’m writing it off as you’re just a fan of their style of thinking on code, quality, or something.

                                              2. 2

                                                i think he’s sad that there haven’t been enough volunteers to make it happen sooner

                                                1. 2

                                                  That’s certainly one possibility, but not how I took it initially, and why I asked for clarification. I’ve seen too many people over the years attempt to disguise their entitlement by saying “thanks.”

                                                  I’d have liked to see this comment worded as:

                                                  This is a great usability improvement. Thank you Peter Hessler :) It’s a shame that there isn’t a better way to bring these important usability features to OpenBSD faster. What is the best way to help make that happen? Donations to the OpenBSD Foundation? Sponsor the work directly? Something else?

                                                  Now, it’s also possible that the OP has ties to OpenBSD, and the comment was self-deprecating. But, one can’t infer that from the information we see without investigating who the OP is, and their affiliations…

                                                  1. 0

                                                    one can’t infer anything beyond what they said

                                                    1. 2

                                                      I’m not sure you understand what infer means. One certainly can infer meaning from a comment, based on previous actions, comments, etc..

                                                      My point remains: It’d be nice if the OP would clarify what they mean. My interpretation of the OP’s comment is just as likely as your interpretation. My interpretation is damaging to the morale of existing volunteer contributors to FOSS, and gives potential contributors to FOSS reasons to not contribute all together. I don’t know about you, but I want to encourage people to contribute to FOSS, as doing so moves us closer to a free and open society. And, that alone, is the reason I’m even bothering to continue responding to this thread…

                                                      1. 1

                                                        he said “it’s sad.” that’s all we know. the leap is that this means “entitlement.”

                                                        1. 1

                                                          “It’s pretty sad that it took someone else so long to prioritize work I think is necessary.”

                                                          I think it’s pretty easy to take what was written and read it this way. But maybe my glass is half empty today.

                                                        2. 0

                                                          One can infer based on a comment, but the inference will most likely be dimwitted bullshit.

                                                          Without the magic trifecta of body language, vocal intonation, and facial expression us monkeys are just shit at picking up on any extra meaning. So take the comment at face value.

                                                          It expresses gratitude, it focuses on a specific recipient, and it lauds the feature. After, it regrets that it couldn’t/didn’t happen earlier.

                                                          There’s no hidden meaning here, and if the commenter intended a hidden meaning he’s a dufus too, because there’s no unicode character for those. U+F089A6CDCE ZERO WIDTH SARCASTIC FUCK YOU MARK notwithstanding.

                                                          At some point we all need to stop insisting that we have near-telepathic powers, especially outside of meatspace.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            So, what you’re saying is that I can write anything I want, and since you can’t see or hear other clues, there’s no way you can downvote (in good faith) this comment as trolling?

                                                            Not sure text works that way…

                                                    2. 1

                                                      They had the solution to do it all the time, but it wasn’t invented here, so it’s bad.

                                                1. 2

                                                  I think that the question to ask is why are you taking the exam.

                                                  Most university exams (unfortunately) are designed to sort students for future employers. For that goal, preparing for exams by memorizing (often useless) facts and not cheating is an important skill. This about the cliche on whether you would trust your doctor if you knew he/she cheated on their board exams.

                                                  On the other hand, if you believe that exams should measure how well you can solve real world problems, then the exams should be structured to reflect the kind of work environment mostly common in the field of study.

                                                  1. 4

                                                    In this case the answer to “why are you taking the exam” is “the exam is specifically about thinking like an adversary in cybersecurity.”

                                                    1. 2

                                                      The trouble is, of course, that it’s difficult to do “mass production” of students if we use the latter form of exams. A university (or even just a department/program) dedicated to that might be able to crank out a few dozen per year. But they need to do hundreds… and across the nation it needs to be many thousands.

                                                      So higher education has drifted away from that sort of thing (to whatever extent they were invested in it earlier), and we get the “sorting for future employers” thing nowdays. Let’s everyone meet quotas.

                                                      There’s simply very little value in individual expertise at the inhuman scale of our society. No single individual fixes anything worth fixing, a company does that, after a dozen or three dozen worker ants all look at it, scratch their head, and then pass it on to another who might fix it.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        I agree 100%, with the proviso that I don’t think there’s any more nefarious reason for the status quo than the fact that modern higher education is essentially an assembly line.

                                                        Intensive, one-on-one tutoring in the mold of the classic OxCam university simply isn’t cost-effective when the political goal is to give more than a single-digit percentage of the population a university degree.

                                                      1. 4

                                                        Not to spoil the article, but the ending quote in bold really sort of scares me. I’ve spent most of my life hearing stories about how machines will take human jobs. The reality of that has played out much less scary (so far) than they’d have had us believe 20 or 30 years ago. It’s never really occurred to me, though, that in another 20 or 30 years that my job as a programmer might be obsoleted as well. It’s like the matrix; funny ha ha, but for real.

                                                        Thankfully I hope to be retired 30 years from now :P

                                                        1. 4

                                                          I think this is the natural progression of things, isn’t it? Programming isn’t immune to the effects of automation - just the opposite, in fact. It’s like boiling a frog - things are automated so often and so incrementally that programmers no longer notice when jobs that would have taken 10x longer a few years ago are basically instantaneous today.

                                                          1. 11

                                                            Programming will be the last thing to be automated, because it is itself automation - once you have automated programming you just have to run your automated programmer and then you’ve automated everything.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              …No. The only thing that will save programming from being automated NEXT is… wait, I see what you did there. “Your keys are always found in the last place you look.” :)

                                                              On a serious note, regarding future job prospects, I think programming will not be the last available job. Some job that isn’t an attractive candidate for automation will be the last available job. Programming, with all its expense, is a prime target.

                                                              1. 4

                                                                Once you can automate programming you can automate everything else at approaching 0 cost, so it’s moot.

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  Can you? I would imagine lots of jobs rely on intrinsically tacit, “local” intuition, and not merely knowledge and cognitive function, which is what it seems to me the only thing that “solving programming” entails automatically.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    Programming often relies on intrinsically tacit, local intuition. I mean think of the last time you received feedback from the customer about how they felt the software should work.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      Good point I didn’t think about that end of the situation

                                                            2. 2

                                                              Hopefully, this allows them (and me) to do their (and my) jobs more efficiently, and focusing on other more important things. Of course, other stuff will eventually fall into obsolescence, but don’t we have graveyard keepers, working on decrepit technologies for sizeable amounts of money? COBOL experts, where art thou?

                                                              1. 2

                                                                All very true. I think the reality just sort startled me.

                                                              2. 5

                                                                This is why it’s important to move past capitalism ASAP: it’s more and more immoral to couple the ability to get a job with the ability to stay alive and retain dignity. Once all labor is automated, there shouldn’t be any jobs (coerced or obligatory labor), and we should all be rejoicing.

                                                                1. 0

                                                                  Will there still be a free market? Or will what we consume be planned by the machines. At which, point, without the ability to decide what I want - or the illusion thereof - my job as a human is done too …

                                                                  1. 5

                                                                    woe to those who think their job as humans is to consume

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      I eat, therefore I am.

                                                                    2. 1
                                                                      1. We all make the world;
                                                                      2. define “free market”.
                                                                      1. 0

                                                                        There is a medium of exchange (please not barter) and a market for goods and services. I have goods/services to offer and I have goods/services I need. I have markets to go to sell and buy these. The market is not controlled by the commissariat which determines how much toothpaste I get and what color tube it comes in because for reasons most people can not fathom, I like to chose.

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          you can chose what color tube your toothpaste comes in?

                                                                          1. 0

                                                                            In capitalist America, toothpaste color chooses you!

                                                                          2. 0

                                                                            What is available in these markets? What is not? How are its dynamics damped, to avoid balloons and crashes? How are negative externalities, like advertising or air pollution, accounted for? You throw around the “free” as though its interpretation were obvious, when the devil is in the details, and the details are everything.

                                                                            1. 0

                                                                              This is strawman nonsense, and nowhere do I imply central planning. What you’re really saying is, “I want freedom of choice for consumption and production,” which doesn’t require capitalism, though you’re strongly implying you think it does.

                                                                              1. 0

                                                                                You need to elaborate your scheme then. Every time I’ve heard someone say “I hate capitalism and I have an alternative for it” what they really have is state capitalism (AKA communism in practice as opposed to the silly theory of communism written down somewhere).

                                                                                1. 0

                                                                                  The universal means of production (automated labor), universally distributed.

                                                                                  1. 0

                                                                                    Who decides resource allocation?

                                                                                    1. 0

                                                                                      Who decides it now?

                                                                                      1. 0

                                                                                        The market

                                                                                        1. 0

                                                                                          How’s that workin’ out.

                                                                                          1. 0

                                                                                            Better than anything else people have tried.

                                                                                            1. 0

                                                                                              Citation needed.

                                                                                              1. 0

                                                                                                Also, punch cards were better than anything that came before, and then we had better ideas that were enabled by advancing technology. It’s time we did the same for meeting basic human needs.

                                                                                                1. -1

                                                                                                  You haven’t actually said what the replacement is for free markets and capitalism.

                                                                                                  1. 0

                                                                                                    Start with democratic socialism. End with technological post-scarcity.

                                                                                                    1. 0

                                                                                                      All countries with governments are socialist, not all are democratic, and not all have free markets. So that doesn’t add anything new.

                                                                                                      Post-scarcity is another way of saying we have no plan on how to deal with resource contention, which is the hard problem

                                                                          3. -1

                                                                            it’s more and more immoral to couple the ability to get a job with the ability to stay alive and retain dignity.

                                                                            What dignity is possible once you’re livestock to be taken care of?

                                                                            The truth of the matter is there’s an ongoing demographic implosion. If they wait it out awhile, there won’t be that many people to have to have the universal income or whatever it is you’re arguing for.

                                                                            1. 3

                                                                              You’re assuming that dignity and purpose are only possible under conditions of coerced labor. Your premise is false.

                                                                              I’m not arguing for UBI. I’m arguing for democratic access to the means of universal production (robotic labor, molecular nanotech, etc.), removing the need for things like “income”.