1.  

    I actually had to laugh when I saw this title. Was ed ever a “good” editor?

    1.  

      Yes, absolutely. Ed was a good editor in the 1970s, when 300 baud links were reasonably fast things and teletypes with printed output were common, and even significantly into the 1980s, when you might still be dealing with 300 baud serial links (1200 baud if you were lucky), heavily overloaded systems, very dumb CRT-based terminals, or some combination of all three. About its only significant limitation in those situations is that it’s a single file at a time editor, which makes some things more awkward. Using any visual editor in those situations is a frustrating exercise in patience (or outright impossible on hardcopy teletypes or sufficiently dumb terminals).

      (I’m the author of the linked-to article.)

      1.  

        I mean, when your alternative is TECO….

        1.  

          I wrote a little Tcl implementation of the “Leap” method, used by the Cat and the SwyftCard before it. It really needs a real keyboard with Leap keys to work well.

          1. 13

            I love it. It’s like Terminus with significantly better curly braces.

            Also, you have slashed zeroes, which is what all correct-thinking people prefer.

            1.  

              Also, you have slashed zeroes, which is what all correct-thinking people prefer.

              I use a copy of Droid Sans Mono that I edited to have slashed-zeros. I love the font, but without slashed zeros (or even dot-zeros) it’s useless for coding.

              Terminus doesn’t render properly on Windows, which is a shame, As Spleen is a bitmap font, I’m guessing I need .fon versions for Windows ?

              1.  

                For those that can’t (or don’t want to) edit fonts cosmix.org have a Droid Sans Mono with both dotted and slashed zero varieties.

                Arch users can get it from the AUR

                Powerline version too

            1.  

              This is interesting, but I’m curious if anyone actually has an example of an implementation that breaks this expectation?

              1. 7

                Some examples:

                On the x86, depending on how you have memory segmentation set up you can have many pointers that cast to different integers but point to the same area of memory. Most modern operating systems running in protected mode set up segmentation in such a way that it’s a moot point (and in long mode, it’s not possible to really set up any segmentation at all).

                (So this is the case of one memory location with multiple representations.)

                Similarly, Harvard architecture systems (common in microcontrollers) pointers get wonky and you can very easily have two different pointers that have the same integer value but point to two separate locations (e.g. a function pointer might have the same integer representation as a heap pointer, and the compiler will generate the appropriate code to handle the different cases depending on how you cast).

                (And this is the case of one representation pointing to multiple places.)

                The C standard requires that all pointers be castable to and from void pointers, but casting to integers results in implementation-defined behavior (this was true at least for C89; someone correct me if I’m wrong now). This is understandable in light of architectures whose pointers are bigger than the maximum integer width on the system.

                1.  

                  Similarly, Harvard architecture systems (common in microcontrollers) pointers get wonky and you can very easily have two different pointers that have the same integer value but point to two separate locations

                  Even on x86! After all, with memory management two processes can have the same integer pointer which points to two different memory locations. Granted, processes don’t pass pointers around (that’s one of the points of process isolation), but it’s kinda of interesting (to me, anyway).

                  1.  

                    Sure - & you can do that within the same process as well with creative use of shared memory & mmap().

                  2.  

                    Function pointers do not need to be cast-able to (void *) in C.

                  3.  

                    Non-integer pointer platforms exist; in C on a Lisp machine, pointers were cons cells, and on AS/400, MI pointers are 128-bit.

                  1. 7

                    So I imagined what it must be like to be someone who’s not interested in computer science to visit lobste.rs: a lot of terms that don’t mean anything to them, discussions that casually use weird jargon, and a lot of things that appear to be inscrutable magic with numbers and graphs and such.

                    That is what finance and investing is to me.

                    (Good work I’m sure and thank you…just…I wouldn’t even know where to begin.)

                    1. 10

                      Good work I’m sure and thank you…just…I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

                      There is a wealth of information which can indeed be rather overwhelming. When I just got started reading about this stuff, I kept seeing the same books recommended over and over. These are:

                      • Rich dad, poor dad. Interesting book where a guy asks his best friend’s dad how he got rich, and he provides the two guys with a series of lessons. This is very much about the mindset of not spending money you don’t have and how to make the money you have work for you. It’s very easy to understand, reasonably well-written and not too long at ~200 pages.
                      • The Richest Man in Babylon. Similar to the preceding book, this is about mindset, but this one gets more to the fundamentals. It’s about a guy who asks the richest man in Babylon how he got so rich, and gets advice. I like the “secret ancient wisdoms” style of writing.
                      • The Millionaire Next Door. In this book (which I found written in a boring style but YMMV) the authors interviewed wealthy but “normal” people about their habits.

                      For more information about investing, stocks and related terminology, see investopedia and the Bogleheads wiki, the latter is mostly about index funds (a very reliable and simple way to start investing without it turning into a second day job).

                      Blogs that provide good info:

                      • Mr Money Mustache, a software engineer who used frugal living and side income (through his blog) to become financially independent. His earlier posts are great reads, his later are (IMO) mostly fluff.
                      • I Will Teach you to be Rich is a pretty comprehensive blog about “living the rich life”, in every sense of the word. It also has an “ultimate guide to personal finance” that’s worth a read. This blog is a spin off from a book which is on the New York Times bestseller list. I haven’t read it myself, so can’t comment on it. Personal finance-wise, the author focuses on “Big Wins”, in which frugal living is not an important factor. If you read Mr Money Mustache’s review of the book (which applies to the blog too), you’ll get a quick idea of the difference in world views between the two.
                      • Early Retirement Extreme is exactly what the name says: A very extreme (frugality-wise) approach to early retirement. Also written by a former software engineer, mind you!

                      Now these might not be the very best resources (I have not reached financial independence myself), but it should give you a good place to start.

                      1. 3

                        And with a seemingly feudal society where multiple, large groups build megaliths with instructions expressed exclusively in a single language shouting at each other in different languages. Small to tiny islands form in the middle and coasts with their own spoken tongue and building style.

                        They do work together sometimes. All insist on putting any piece of content in packets first. Some groups put those into more packets nested many layers deep. Observers wonder about the inefficiencies or perhaps religious symbolism of the packets.

                        1. 2

                          I can most certainly relate to this feeling. However, lurking on all sorts of obscure boards has worked for me in the past, so if you’re even somewhat interested in making sense of your finances or participating in fin markets, I’d say simply sticking around and scanning the feed from time to time is a good way forward.

                        1. 12

                          Before we go on and on about “SJW’s” or whatever:

                          We get it. You think the terms aren’t offensive. I agree with you.

                          Some people do think the terms are offensive, or at least antiquated and indecorous. You think those people are misguided. I don’t agree with you, because what is offensive to one person is not necessarily so to another.

                          Whether you think they are misguided or not is immaterial. Jackbooted thugs aren’t coming to your house to make sure you no longer use such terms. The evil government isn’t making this a law. A group of people who voluntarily associate with one another have decided that their voluntary association’s rules of decorum have changed, as such rules have done before and will do again.

                          The euphemism treadmill will run on, as it has done since the dawn of language. It is not a recent phenomenon nor is it isolated to “one side” of anything.

                          Getting upset about it while claiming the “other side is too sensitive” is…lacking in self-awareness at best.

                          1. 1

                            because what is offensive to one person is not necessarily so to another.

                            Agreed. That being the case, let’s just err on the side of existing code and skip wasting cycles when there are so many more important things to worry about.

                            A lot of folks also can’t help but notice that the bar to entry for complaining about this stuff (or adding codes of conduct, or tweeting for/against something, or complaining about how a BFDL writes emails, or whatever else) is so low as to seemingly specifically invite mobs.

                            This stuff wastes all of our time and tends to push out people that have just quietly been getting shit done–but somehow that never gets covered.

                            1. 3

                              That being the case, let’s just err on the side of existing code and skip wasting cycles when there are so many more important things to worry about.

                              There are starving children in Africa so I shouldn’t mow my lawn.

                              To be less pithy: writing code is more important than complaining about this sort of thing, but a lot of people sure are complaining when there’s more important stuff to worry about.

                              A lot of folks also can’t help but notice that the bar to entry for complaining about this stuff (or adding codes of conduct, or tweeting for/against something, or complaining about how a BFDL writes emails, or whatever else) is so low as to seemingly specifically invite mobs.

                              Projects are groups of people. Like it or not, there’s more to getting groups of people working together than just writing code. How the human side of a project is managed often has much more to do with its success than just about anything else. The programming world is full of people who can write excellent code; people who can manage large numbers of others and keep the project harmoniously moving forward are much rarer.

                              Each contributor has a right to discuss how he or she feels about the project and to make suggestions. Those suggestions can be acted upon or not. If someone disagrees, they are free to do so and, if they simply cannot handle the change, they are free to leave and even fork the project.

                              This stuff wastes all of our time and tends to push out people that have just quietly been getting shit done–but somehow that never gets covered.

                              I always see this argument and yet it never comes to pass. Many projects have recently passed Codes of Conduct and very few major contributors from those projects have left.

                              If you feel you can’t work on Python because the terms “master” and “slave” have been deprecated, I have to wonder how motivated you really are, because just about any project in the commercial or open source world involving more than one person is going to occasionally have differences and trifles and misunderstandings and if you can’t handle the occasional one…

                              1. 1

                                There are starving children in Africa so I shouldn’t mow my lawn.

                                Well, yes. Alternately, if you choose to acknowledge that it’s more important to mow your lawn than to help starving children then there is no reason not to apply the same reasoning to ignoring the people complaining about terminology–after all, there are other things to work on.

                                The programming world is full of people who can write excellent code; people who can manage large numbers of others and keep the project harmoniously moving forward are much rarer.

                                I don’t know what code you’ve been looking at, but I don’t actually think there are that many people that can write excellent code. To your other point, a lot of projects don’t need “large numbers of people”. One person (or just a few people) with clear vision solving a particular task goes a long way.

                                If you feel you can’t work on Python because the terms “master” and “slave” have been deprecated, I have to wonder how motivated you really are, because just about any project in the commercial or open source world involving more than one person is going to occasionally have differences and trifles and misunderstandings and if you can’t handle the occasional one…

                                You do realize this argument applies in the exact same way for the other side, right?

                                ~

                                Anyways, I’m happy to continue this over PM/email if you want, so we don’t clutter up here with a long back-and-forth.

                          1. 2

                            How are slides about a macos scripting framework written in Lua off-topic?

                            1. 1

                              The linked directory is three PNGs and a Lua script; I think it was marked off-topic because it’s not consumable slides. It’s lacking enough context that it’s not obvious what it’s even meant to be.

                              Perhaps linking to the PDF one directory up (which is more easily understandable) would have better reception?

                            1. 5

                              I’ve recently been investigating deduplicating backup software for my personal use, and ended up deciding on borg, but one major annoyance of borg is that it cannot easily use a cloud storage API (like aws s3, wasabi, backblaze, google cloud, etc.) as a backing store. Some other backup tools do allow this (restic for instance), but lack other features I care about.

                              I also note that you didn’t mention “compression” as a desideradum. As long as you care about deduplicating data to save backup storage case, however, you probably also care about compressing that same stored data as much as possible.

                              Also, looking at you’re asmcrypt repo, I have to ask, why are you writing new software in C in 2018? Especially cryptography software?

                              1. 4

                                As another note, I’m currently working on a product that may be close to what you would like: https://backupbox.io/ (And there is no C in that code base, all Go currently ) Supporting borg is a specific goal, unfortunately it isn’t quite ready for public use.

                                1. 3

                                  Just FYI, there’s already a project called Box Backup.

                                  1. 1

                                    thanks for letting me know.

                                2. 4

                                  If you haven’t looked at https://www.tarsnap.com/ you may find it interesting. The backend is closed source, which I realize may be a problem, but the frontend if open source and free for perusal.

                                  1. 4

                                    “The Tarsnap client source code is available so that you can see exactly how your data is protected; however, it is not distributed under an Open Source license.” - https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html

                                  2. 2

                                    https://www.google.com/search?q=desideradum

                                    Please note your typo, otherwise thanks for the new word.

                                    1. 1

                                      Bah I thought the word didn’t feel right when I typed it!

                                    2. 2

                                      edit: Added note to post. Thank you.

                                      With regard to compression, this will come in a post about deduplication.

                                    1. 4

                                      In the olden times I would’ve said it had to do with students starting college and getting their first taste of the Internet, but by that metric last September never ended

                                      1. 3

                                        I didn’t know about this one. Thanks!

                                        They cite the folks in FLINT group that I assumed invented the optimizing part. Turns out they may have invented type-based, then this team did optimizing, and people went from there. Those publications are here with stuff this paper cites on the bottom since it’s older. For those interested in verified compilers, I also cited this kind of work in some discussions since they applied type-driven compiler to that. Example is Type-Based, Certifying Code (slides) that builds on Necula’s Proof-Carrying Code (see Bibliography).

                                        1. 2

                                          I didn’t either! Like you, I had seen the others, but I hadn’t seen this one, and stumbled upon it this morning. I was looking for Lucacardelli’s Compiling a Functional Language and Amber paper and found this.

                                          1. 4

                                            I’m still not convinced Luca Cardelli isn’t three geniuses in a trench coat. The amount of research output from that one person is incredible.

                                            Same with Peyton-Jones.

                                            1. 2

                                              Im with you on that. I didnt want to waste his time tagging him in anything less than Modula-4 or a Rust killer. ;)

                                        1. 10

                                          Were I a Windows user if I had had any doubts about switching browsers before, that right there would clench it for me. It’s like a clingy ex.

                                          1. 9

                                            For the average user this might have some pretty devastating effects. Firefox is in decline despite being technically incredible because they don’t have a powerful platform to leverage.

                                            It seems plausible that in the future essentially every windows user will use Edge, every Apple user uses Safari and every Android user uses Chrome. Chrome is pretty much the only browser people manually install and thats because it’s constantly pushed on users on all google pages as well as IE being horrible.

                                            1. 9

                                              It’s actually not that bad, as long as all of them agree on a common standard. And now they have to, because otherwise too much of the Web will look broken to too many users. Anything is better than a monoculture, even if it means that Mozilla who’s been pushing for this diversification all these years doesn’t get to claim winning numbers in terms of users. It doesn’t matter. Firefox’s role is to be a constant threat/challenge that keeps other browser developers honest. In a world where we already have 3 major browsers competing besides Firefox, this role just isn’t emphasized.

                                              And as The Beast, who once saved the world, Firefox will recede to its lair and keep vigil in case any new sons of Mammon arise from the ashes!

                                              1. 1

                                                They aren’t though. Apple regularly invents proprietary web standards when they need them and only switches to open standards when another org makes them.

                                              2. 1

                                                Do you mean that Firefox’s market share numbers are declining?

                                            1. 2

                                              I have an almost-20-year-old vanity domain that’s been hosted in a variety of places. Currently (since like 2007 or so) it’s at Google and I use GSuite or whatever they’re calling it these days. Works well because I also have an Android phone that uses the same Google account, etc.

                                              My laptop died and so I’m actually using my wife’s old Chromebook now with the new ability to run Linux…it’s surprisingly usable. Like…it’s good enough that I don’t actually have a compelling reason to change except for the whole “Google now owns my entire life” thing.

                                              1. 4

                                                In my Copious Free Time (read: after my kids are in college, so ~15 years from now) I’d like to port Oberon to the Raspberry Pi. It would be fun.

                                                1. 2

                                                  It was one of the ideas I had for Raspberry Pi 3. I keep thinking about buying one. They say it’s best even if less hardware since so much software already works on it. Helps newcomers out. I want an always-on box that doesn’t use much power.

                                                  Oberon port, either Oberon or A2 Bluebottle, was one of my ideas. I also thought about porting it to Rust then backporting it to Oberon. Basically, knocking out any temporal errors plus letting it run without GC. Then, Oberon-to-C-to-LLVM for performance boost. Oberon in overdrive. ;)

                                                  If you wait 15 years on your project, then Wirth’s habits might mean there will be another 5-10 Oberon’s released with minor, feature changes before you get started. He might try dropping if statements or something. Who knows.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    He might try dropping if statements or something. Who knows.

                                                    Well actually I would remove the FOR loop given it’s just syntactic sugar for a WHILE.

                                                    However for some reason it seems that Wirth likes it. :-)

                                                    Anyway… Wirth is a light source in these dark days: he will always remind us that less features mean less bugs.

                                                    1. 5

                                                      less features mean less bugs

                                                      It can also mean more bugs in the next layer up, if the dearth of features at a particular layer requires people to constantly reimplement even basic functionality.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        This is exactly why I countered Wirth’s philosophy. We see it in action already where modern languages can:

                                                        (a) improve productivity expressing solutions with better abstractions or type inference

                                                        (b) improve performance with features like built-in parallelism and highly-optimizing compilers

                                                        (c) improve safety/security with things like better type systems

                                                        1. 1

                                                          @jclulow and you propose a good objection, but I think you are confusing easyness with simplicity.

                                                          I see the features that a language (or an operating system) supports like the dimensions that can describe a program (or a dynamic ecosystem of users interacting with hardware devices).

                                                          Thus, to me, an high number of features (as many system calls in an OS or many forms in a programming language) are smells of a (potentially) broken design, full of redundancy and features that do not compose well.

                                                          On the flip side, a low number of features can mean either a low expressivity (often by design, as in most domain specific languages) or a better designed set of orthogonal features. Or it might just be a quick and dirty hack whose sole goal was to solve a contingent issue in the fastest and easiest possible way.

                                                          My favourite example to explain this concept is to compare Linux+Firefox with Plan 9 (and then Plan 9 to Jehanne, that is specifically looking for the most orthogonal set of abstractions/syscalls that a powerful distributed OS can provide).

                                                          It’s not just a matter of code bloat, performance, security and so on, it’s a matter of power and expressivity: with few well designed features you can express all the features provided by more complex artifacts… but also a wide new set that they cannot!

                                                          Simplicity is also an important security feature, in particular for programming languages.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            I get what you’re saying. Your view is actually more nuanced than Wirth’s. The main measure of complexity for Wirth was how long it took to compile the compiler. If it took a lot longer, he’d drop the feature. I think longer compiles are fine if they give us something in return. I also favor an interpreter + compiler setup for rapid development followed by high optimization. We have a lot of means to get high correctness regardless of the features in it. I’m seeing all rewards with no losses. Certainly people can put in stupid features or needless complexity which I’d be against. Wirth just set the bar way, way, too low.

                                                            “with few well designed features you can express all the features provided by more complex artifacts…”

                                                            Macros, modules, generics, polymorphism… a few examples.

                                                            “Simplicity is also an important security feature, in particular for programming languages.”

                                                            You probably shouldn’t be citing that paper given it’s one of the rarest attacks in existence. Compiler optimizations screw up security the most but people always cite Thompson. Anyway, I originally learned security reading work of the guy Thompson ripped off: Paul Karger. I wrote here about Karger’s invention of the problem and how you solve it. It’s a totally-solved problem. For new solutions, we have a page collecting tiny and verified versions of everything to help newcomers build something more quickly.

                                                            1. 3

                                                              with few well designed features you can express all the features provided by more complex artifacts…

                                                              Macros, modules, generics, polymorphism… a few examples.

                                                              Exactly!

                                                              You do not need a compiler to generate code. You just need the compiler to verify the generated code before compilation.

                                                              Embedding code generation in a compiler (or a runtime, as Jit compiler do) can be convenient, but I’m not sure it’s teally needed.

                                                              Obviously it’s pointless to restrict yourself from using a supported language feature to pick “the good parts”. I use macros in C for example. But I also generate C in other ways when it’s appropriate and it’s pretty simple and usable. Thus I like Oberon that omit a possible source of complexity just like I like LISP and Scheme that maximise the gain/complexity ratio by raising the gain.

                                                              You probably shouldn’t be citing that paper given it’s one of the rarest attacks in existence.

                                                              I stand corrected (and thanks for these references!).

                                                              But the point I was trying to make was more general: we cannot trust “trust” in technology.

                                                              And the laymen cannot trust us either, as when they do we fool and exploit them.

                                                              Thus we need to rebuild the IT world from the ground up, focusing on simplicity from the very beginning. So that fellow programmers can rapidly inspect and understand everything.

                                                              The main measure of complexity for Wirth was how long it took to compile the compiler. […]
                                                              Wirth just set the bar way, way, too low.

                                                              He really doesn’t need my defence, but I don’t think that minimizing compiler’s compilation time is the goal, but just a metric.

                                                              AFAIK, the reasoning is: if it’s slow to compile (with a decent compiler), it means in could be simpler.

                                                              In other words, compilation time is a sort of canary that complexity kills for first.

                                                1. 1

                                                  I get that mental illness gives old mate a pass on the racist diatribes, but most of those “features” are really bad ideas.

                                                  1. 7

                                                    As the article put it:

                                                    Don’t write things off just because they have big flaws.

                                                    That said, would you please expand on why most of the features are really bad ideas?

                                                    1. 11

                                                      I may be the only user of my computer, but I still appreciate memory protection.

                                                      1. 5

                                                        More to the point: Practically every, if not every, security feature is also an anti-footbullet feature. Memory protection protects my data from other people on the system and allows security contexts to be enforced, and it protects my data from one of my own programs going wrong and trying to erase everything it can address. Disk file protections protect my data from other users and partially-trusted processes, and ensure my own code can’t erase vital system files in the normal course of operation. That isn’t even getting into how memory protection interacts with protecting peripheral hardware.

                                                        Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

                                                        1. 15

                                                          But that’s not really the point of TempleOS, is it?

                                                          As Terry once mentioned, TempleOS is a motorbike. If you lean over too far you fall off. Don’t do that. There is no anti-footbullet features because that’s the point.

                                                          Beside that, TOS still has some features lacking in other OS. Severely lacking.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            Beside that, TOS still has some features lacking in other OS. Severely lacking.

                                                            Like?

                                                            1. 12

                                                              The shell being not purely text but actual hypertext with images is lacking in most other os by default and I would love to have that.

                                                              1. 6

                                                                If you’ve never played with Oberon or one of its descendant systems, or with Acme (inspired by Oberon) from Rob Pike, you should give it/them a try.

                                                                1. 0

                                                                  If you start adding images and complex formatting in to the terminal then you lose the ability to pipe programs and run text processing tools on them.

                                                                  1. 13

                                                                    Only because Unix can’t comprehend with the idea of anything other than bags of bytes that unformatted text happens to be congruent with.

                                                                    1. 4

                                                                      I have never seen program composition of guis. The power of text is how simple it is to manipulate and understand with simple tools. If a tool gives you a list of numbers its very easy to process. If the tool gives you those numbers in a picture of a pie chart then it’s next to impossible to do stuff with that.

                                                                      1. 7

                                                                        Program composition of GUIs is certainly possible – the Alto had it. It’s uncommon in UNIX-derived systems and in proprietary end-user-oriented systems.

                                                                        One can make the argument that the kind of pipelining of complex structured objects familiar from notebook interfaces & powershell is as well-suited to GUI composability as message-passing is (although I prefer message-passing for this purpose since explicit nominal typing associated with this kind of OO slows down iterative exploration).

                                                                        A pie chart isn’t an image, after all – a pie chart is a list of numbers with some metadata that indicates how to render those numbers. The only real reason UNIX doesn’t have good support for rich data piping is that it’s hard to add support to standard tools decades later without breaking existing code (one of the reasons why plan9 is not fully UNIX compatible – it exposes structures that can’t be easily handled by existing tools, like union filesystems with multiple files of the same name, and then requires basically out-of-band disambiguation). Attempts to add extra information to text streams in UNIX tools exist, though (often as extra control sequences).

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          Have a look at PowerShell.

                                                                          1. 3

                                                                            I have never seen program composition of guis. The power of text is how simple it is to manipulate and understand with simple tools. If a tool gives you a list of numbers its very easy to process. If the tool gives you those numbers in a picture of a pie chart then it’s next to impossible to do stuff with that.

                                                                            Then, respectfully, you need to get out more :) Calvin pointed out one excellent example, but there are others.

                                                                            Smalltalk / Squeak springs to mind.

                                                                            1. 2

                                                                              Certainly the data of the pie chart has to be structured with such metadata that you can pipe it to a tool which extracts the numbers. Maybe even manipulates them and returns a new pie chart.

                                                                          2. 3

                                                                            You don’t loose that ability considering such data would likely still have to be passed around in a pipe. All that changes is that your shell is now capable of understanding hypertext instead of normal text.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              I could easily imagine a command shell based on S-expressions rather than text which enabled one to pipe typed data (to include images) easily from program to program.

                                                                        2. 1

                                                                          But why do I want that? It takes me 30 seconds to change permissions on /dev/mem such that I too can ride a motorbike without a helmet.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            That is completely beside the point. A better question is how long would it take you to implement an operating system from scratch, by yourself, for yourself. When you look at it that way, of course he left some things out. Maybe those things just weren’t as interesting to him.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              You could do that, but in TOS that’s the default. Defaults matter a lot.

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                /dev/mem more or less world accessible was also the default for a particular smartphone vendor I did a security audit for.

                                                                                Defaults do matter a lot…

                                                                          2. 8

                                                                            If there are no other users, and it takes only a second or two to reload the OS, what’s the harm?

                                                                            1. 6

                                                                              Its fine for a toy OS but I dont want to be working on real tasks where a bug in one program could wipe out everything I’m working on or corrupt it silently.

                                                                              1. 11

                                                                                I don’t think TempleOS has been advertised as anything other than a toy OS. All this discussion of “but identity mapped ring 0!” seems pretty silly in context. It’s not designed to meet POSIX guidelines, it’s designed to turn your x86_64 into a Commodore.

                                                                        3. 2

                                                                          Don’t write things off just because they have big flaws.

                                                                          That’s pretty much the one and only reason where you would want to write things off.

                                                                          1. 14

                                                                            There’s a difference between writing something off based on it having no redeeming qualities and writing something off because it’s a mixed bag. TempleOS is a mixed bag – it is flawed in a generally-interesting way. (This is preferable to yet another UNIX, which is flawed in the same boring ways as every other UNIX.)

                                                                        4. 2

                                                                          This is probably not what you meant to imply, but nobody else said it, so just to be clear: Mental illness and racism aren’t correlated.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            Whatever is broken inside somebody to make them think the CIA is conspiring against them, I find it hard to believe that same fault couldn’t easily make somebody think redheads are conspiring against them.

                                                                            1. 2

                                                                              You’re oversimplifying. There are many schizophrenic people in the U.S., and most of them are not racist. Compulsions, even schizophrenic ones, don’t come from the ether, and they’re not correlated with any particular mental illness. Also, terry’s compulsions went far beyond paranoia.

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          “Braid” huh? I’d have thought it would have something to do with reversable computing. :)

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            I largely agree, which is why I wrote (shameless plug) dpdb

                                                                            1. 14

                                                                              I met my first real girlfriend on IRC in 1996. It was like a joke: she really was Canadian, we really did meet over IRC, and whenever I told anyone I had a “Canadian girlfriend I met over the Internet” they didn’t believe me.

                                                                              1. 6

                                                                                AWESOME!

                                                                                I own 2 BeBoxes. Was a Be developer back in the day. BeOS was my primary home OS for about 7 years and primary work OS for a couple years.

                                                                                I’ve been tracking Haiku for a long time. Looking forward to giving the beta a spin.

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  Wow. I have to reply just so I can say I spoke to a real Be developer. I was too poor to have ever had a BeBox (though I dreamed), but BeOS on Intel was my primary OS for years (somewhat prior to that it was the Amiga; I only pick winners…)

                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                    Back when I received my BeBox (which is by now in storage in the attic), I was still a student, and switched regularly between BeOS, Solaris and Linux; the BeBox was the best of the devices available to me at that time, and I still have extremely fond memories of it. The intel port of BeOS was great to play with as well, but at that point with my use cases and the demise of Be inc Linux made a much more reliable bet for a daily driver. Pity, as BeOS really was much nicer…

                                                                                    I really should try out Haiku. It might make me even more nostalgic. :)

                                                                                1. 8

                                                                                  As a European, I don’t quite get it: Americans seem to be concerned with net neutrality, meanwhile not protesting huge monopolistic corporations(the gatekeepers) removing some controversial users on their own judgement and with no way to appeal. Are individuals excluded from the net neutrality?

                                                                                  1. 16

                                                                                    I’m not very familiar with the legal details, but I assume the distinction is general access to the internet being considered a utility, while access to platforms being considered something like a privilege. E.g. roads shouldn’t discriminate based on destination, but that doesn’t mean the destination has to let you in.

                                                                                    edit: As to why Americans don’t seem as concerned with it (which is realize I didn’t address): I think most people see it as a place, like a restaurant. You can be kicked out if you are violating policies or otherwise disrupting their business, which can include making other patrons uncomfortable. Of course there are limits which is why we have anti-discrimination laws.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      Well, they’re also private, for-profit companies that legally own and sell the lines. So, there’s another political angle where people might vote against the regulations under theory that government shouldn’t dictate how you run your business or use your property, esp if it cost you money. Under theory of benefiting owners and shareholders, these companies are legal entities specifically created to generate as much profit from those lines as possible. If you don’t like it, build and sell your own lines. That’s what they’d say.

                                                                                      They don’t realize how hard it is to deploy an ISP on a shoe-string budget to areas where existing players already paid off the expensive part of the investment, can undercut you into bankruptcy, and (per people claiming to be ISP founders on Hacker News) will even cut competitors’ lines “accidentally” so their own customers leave them. In the last case, it’s hard to file and win a lawsuit if you just lost all your revenue and opponent has over a billion in the bank. They all just quit.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        Do you have the source for these claims regarding ISPs?

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          Which ones?

                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                            …existing players … (per people claiming to be ISP founders on Hacker News) will even cut competitors’ lines “accidentally” so their own customers leave them.

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              One of them described a situation with a contracted, construction crew with guy doing the digging not speaking English well. They were supposedly digging for incumbent but dug through his line. He aaid he pointed that it was clearly marked with paint or something. The operator claimed he thought that meant there wasnt a line there.

                                                                                              That’s a crew that does stuff in that area for a living not knowing what a line mark means. So, he figured they did it on purpose. He folded since he couldnt afford to sue them. Another mentioned them unplugging their lines in exchanges or something that made their service appear unreliable. Like the rest, they’d have to spend money they didnt have on lawyers who’d have to prove (a) it happened snd/or (b) it was intentional.

                                                                                    2. 11

                                                                                      The landmark case in the United States is throttling of Netflix by Comcast. Essentially, Comcast held Netflix customers hostage until Netflix paid (which they did).

                                                                                      It’s important to understand that many providers (Comcast, AT&T), also own the channels (NBC, CNN, respectively). They have an interest in charging less for their and their partners content, and more for their competitors content, while colluding to raise prices across the board (which they have done in the past with television and telephone service).

                                                                                      Collectively, they all have an interest in preventing new entrants to the market. The fear is that big players (Google, Amazon) will be able to negotiate deals (though they’d probably prefer not to), and new or free technologies (like PeerTube) will get choked out.

                                                                                      Net neutrality is somewhere where the American attitude towards corporations being able to do whatever to their customers conflicts with the American attitude that new companies and services must be able to compete in the marketplace.

                                                                                      You’re right to observe that individuals don’t really enter into it, except that lots of companies are pushing media campaigns to sway public opinion towards their own interests. You’re seeing those media campaigns leaking out.


                                                                                      Switching to the individual perspective.

                                                                                      I just don’t want to pay more for the same service. In living memory Americans have seen their gigantic monopolistic telecommunications company get broken up, and seen prices for services drop 100 fold; more or less as a direct consequence of that action.

                                                                                      As other posts have noted, the ISP situation in the US is already pretty dire unless you’re a business. Internet providers charge whatever they can get away with and have done an efficient job of ensuring customers don’t have alternatives. Telephone service got regulated, but internet service did not.

                                                                                      Re-reading your post after diving on this one… We’re not really concerned about the same gatekeepers. I don’t think any American would be overly upset to see players like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Netflix go away and I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or more of those guys implode as long as they don’t get access to too much of the infrastructure.

                                                                                      1. 4

                                                                                        Right-leaning US Citizen here. I’ll attempt to answer this as best as I can.

                                                                                        Net neutrality is being pushed by the media because it “fights discrimination”, and they blame the “fascist, nazi right” for it’s repeal (and they’re correct, except for the “fascist, nazi” bit). But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                        I can’t speak to why open-source advocates are also pushing for net neutrality, because (in my opinion) the government shouldn’t be involved in how much internet costs. I do remember this article was moderately interesting, saying that the majority of root DNS servers are run by US companies. But, that doesn’t really faze me. As soon as people start censoring, that get backlash whether the media covers it or not

                                                                                        Side note, the reason you don’t see the protests against the “gatekeepers” is that most of the mainstream media isn’t accurately covering the reaction of the people to the censorship. I bet you didn’t know that InfoWars was the #1 news app with 5 stars on the Apple app store within a couple of weeks of them getting banned from Facebook, etc. I don’t really have any opinion about Alex Jones (lots of people on the right don’t agree with him), but you can bet I downloaded his app when I found out he got banned.

                                                                                        P.S. I assumed that InfoWars was what you were referring to when you said “removing some controversial users” P.P.S. I just checked the app store again, and it’s down to #20 in news, but still has 5 stars.

                                                                                        1. 34

                                                                                          But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                          I think this is too optimistic. I live in Chicago, the third biggest city in the country and arguably the tech hub of the midwest. In my building I get to choose between AT&T and Comcast. I’m considered lucky: most of my friends in the city get one option, period. If their ISP starts doing anything shady they don’t have an option to switch, because there’s nobody they can switch to.

                                                                                          1. 16

                                                                                            I think this is too optimistic. I live in Chicago, the third biggest city in the country and arguably the tech hub of the midwest. In my building I get to choose between AT&T and Comcast. I’m considered lucky: most of my friends in the city get one option, period. If their ISP starts doing anything shady they don’t have an option to switch, because there’s nobody they can switch to.

                                                                                            It’s interesting to contrast this to New Zealand, where I live in a town of 50,000 people and have at least 5 ISPs I can choose from. I currently pay $100 NZ a month for an unlimited gigabit fibre connection, and can hit ~600 mbit from my laptop on a speed test. The NZ government has intervened heavily in the market, effectively forcing the former monopolist (Telecom) to split into separate infrastructure (Chorus) and services (Telecom) companies, and spending a lot of taxpayer money to roll out a nationwide fibre network. The ISPs compete on the infrastructure owned by Chorus. There isn’t drastic competition on prices: most plans are within $10-15 of each other, on a per month basis, but since fibre rolled out plans seem to have come down from around $135 per month to now around $100.

                                                                                            I was lucky to have decent internet through a local ISP when I lived in one of Oakland’s handful of apartment buildings, but most people wouldn’t have had that option. I think the ISP picture is a lot better in NZ. Also, net neutrality is a non-issue, as far as I know. We have it, no-one seems to be trying to take it away.

                                                                                            1. 14

                                                                                              I’m always irritated that there are policies decried in the United States as “impossible” when there are demonstrable implementations of it elsewhere.

                                                                                              I can see it being argued that the United States’s way is better or something, but there are these hyperbolic attacks on universal health care, net neutrality, workers’ rights, secure elections, etc that imply that they are simply impossible to implement when there are literally dozens of counterexamples…

                                                                                              1. 5

                                                                                                At the risk of getting far too far off topic.

                                                                                                One of the members of the board at AT&T was the CEO of an insurance company, someone sits on the boards of both Comcast/NBC and American Beverages. The head of the FCC was high up at Verizon.

                                                                                                These are some obvious, verifiable, connections based in personal interest. Not implying that it’s wrong or any of those individuals are doing anything which is wrong, you’ve just gotta take these ‘hyperbolic attacks’ with a grain of salt.

                                                                                                  1. 2
                                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                                  Oh yeah it’s infuriating. It helps to hit them with examples. Tell them the media doesn’t talk about them since they’re all pushing something. We all know that broad statement is true. Then, briefly tell them the problems that we’re trying to solve with some goals we’re balancing. Make sure it’s their problems and goals. Then, mention the solution that worked else where which might work here. If it might not fit everyone, point out that we can deploy it in such a way where its specifics are tailored more to each group. Even if it can’t work totally, maybe point out that it has more cost-benefit than the current situation. Emphasize that it gets us closer to the goal until someone can figure out how to close the remaining gap. Add that it might even take totally different solutions to address other issues like solving big city vs rural Internet. If it worked and has better-cost benefit, then we should totally vote for it to do better than we’re doing. Depending on audience, you can add that we can’t have (country here) doing better than us since “This is America!” to foster some competitive, patriotic spirit.

                                                                                                  That’s what I’ve been doing as part of my research talking to people and bouncing messages off them. I’m not any good at mass marketing, outreach or anything. I’ve just found that method works really well. You can even be honest since the other side is more full of shit than us on a lot of these issues. I mean, them saying it can’t exist vs working implementations should be an advantage for us. Should. ;)

                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                    Beautifully said.

                                                                                                    My family’s been in this country since the Mayflower. I love it dearly.

                                                                                                    Loving something means making it better and fixing its flaws, not ignoring them.

                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                      Thanks and yes. I did think about leaving for a place maybe more like my views. That last thing you said is why I’m still here. If we fix it, America won’t be “great again:” it would be fucking awesome. If not for us, then for the young people we’re wanting to be able to experience that. That’s why I’m still here.

                                                                                              2. 5

                                                                                                arguably the tech hub of the midwest.

                                                                                                Only if you can’t find Austin on a map… ;)

                                                                                                1. 11

                                                                                                  Native Texan/Austinite here. Texas is the South, Southwest, or just Texas. All the rest of y’all are just Yankees. ;)

                                                                                                2. 1

                                                                                                  But if their ISP starts doing anything shady, they’ll surely get some backlash, even if they can’t switch they can complain.

                                                                                                  1. 9

                                                                                                    They’ve been complaining for decades. Nothing happens most of the time. The ISP’s have many lobbyists and lawyers to insulate them from that. The big ones are all doing the same abusive practices, too. So, you can’t switch to get away from it.

                                                                                                    Busting up AT&T’s monopoly got results in lower costs, better service, better speeds, etc. Net neutrality got more results. I support more regulation of these companies and/or socialized investment to replace them like the gigabit for $350/mo in Chattanooga, TN. It’s 10Gbps now I think but I don’t know what price.

                                                                                                    Actually, I go further due to their constant abuses and bribing politicians: Im for having a court seizetheir assets, converting them to nonprofits, and putting new management in charge. If at all possible. It would send a message to other companies that think they can do damage to consumers and mislead regulators with immunity to consequences.

                                                                                                      1. 6

                                                                                                        What incentive does the ISP have to change? Unless you can complain to some higher authority (FCC, perhaps) then there is no reason for the ISP to make any changes even with backlash. I’d be more incentivized to complain if there was at least some competition.

                                                                                                    1. 30

                                                                                                      Net neutrality is being pushed by the media because it “fights discrimination”, and they blame the “fascist, nazi right” for it’s repeal

                                                                                                      Nobody says this. It’s being pushed because it prevents large corporations from locking out smaller players. The Internet is a great economic equalizer: I can start a business and put a website up and I’m just as visible and accessible as Microsoft.

                                                                                                      We don’t want Microsoft to be able to pay AT&T to slow traffic to my website but not theirs. It breaks the free market by allowing collusion that can’t be easily overcome. It’s like the telephone network; I can’t go run wires to everyone’s house, but I want my customers to be able to call me. I don’t want my competitors to pay AT&T to make it harder to call me than to call them.

                                                                                                      But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                      That assumes people have a choice. They very often don’t. Internet service has a massively high barrier to entry, similar to a public utility. Most markets in the United States have at most two providers (both major corporations opposed to net neutrality). Very, very rarely is there a third.

                                                                                                      More importantly, there are only five tier-1 networks in the United States. Five. It doesn’t matter how many local ISPs there are; without Net Neutrality, five corporations effectively control what can and can’t be transmitted. If those five decide something should be slowed down or forbidden, there is nothing I can do. Changing to a different provider won’t do a thing.

                                                                                                      (And of those five, all of them donate significantly more to one major political party than the other, and the former Associate General Counsel of one of them is currently chairman of the FCC…)

                                                                                                      I can’t speak to why open-source advocates are also pushing for net neutrality, because (in my opinion) the government shouldn’t be involved in how much internet costs.

                                                                                                      Net neutrality says nothing about how much it costs. It just says you can’t charge different amounts based on content. It would be like television stations charging more money to Republican candidates to run ads than to Democratic candidates. They’re free to charge whatever they want; they’re not free to charge different people different amounts based on the content of the message.

                                                                                                      Democracy requires communication. It does no good to say “freedom!” if the major corporations can effectively silence whoever they want. “At least it’s not the government” is not a good defense of stifling public debate.

                                                                                                      And there’s a difference between a newspaper and a television/radio station/internet service. I can buy a printing press and make a newspaper and refuse to carry whatever I want. There are no practical limits to the number of printing presses in the country.

                                                                                                      There is a limited electromagnetic spectrum. Not just anyone can broadcast a TV signal. There is a limit to how many cables can be run on utility polls or buried underground. Therefore, discourse carried over those media are required to operate more in the public trust than others. As they become more essential to a healthy democracy, that only becomes more important. It’s silly to say “you still have freedom of speech” if you’re blocked from television, radio, the Internet, and so on. Those are the public forums of our day. That a corporation is doing the blocking doesn’t make it any better than if the government were to do it.

                                                                                                      Side note, the reason you don’t see the protests against the “gatekeepers” is that most of the mainstream media isn’t accurately covering the reaction of the people to the censorship.

                                                                                                      There’s a big difference between Twitter not wanting to carry Alex Jones and net neutrality. Jones is still free to go start up a website that carries his message; with Net Neutrality not only could he be blocked from Twitter, but the network itself could make his website inaccessible.

                                                                                                      There is no alternative with Net Neutrality. You can’t build your own Internet. Without mandating equal treatment of traffic, we hand the Internet over solely to the big players. Preventing monopolistic and oligarchic control of public discourse is a valid use of government power. It’s not censorship, it’s the exact opposite.

                                                                                                      1. 7

                                                                                                        That assumes people have a choice. They very often don’t.

                                                                                                        This was also brought up by @hwayne, @caleb and @friendlysock, and is not something that occurred to me. I appreciate all who are mentioning this.

                                                                                                        More importantly, there are only five tier-1 networks in the United States.

                                                                                                        Wow, I did not know that. I can see that as a legitimate reason to want net neutrality. But, I also think that they’ll piss off a lot of people if they can stream CNN but not InfoWars.

                                                                                                        It just says you can’t charge different amounts based on content.

                                                                                                        I understood it to also mean that you also couldn’t charge customers differently because of who they are. Also, don’t things like Tor mitigate things like that?

                                                                                                        “At least it’s not the government” is not a good defense of stifling public debate.

                                                                                                        I completely agree. But in the US we have a free market (at least, we used to) and that means that the government is supposed to stay out of it as much as possible.

                                                                                                        Preventing monopolistic and oligarchic control of public discourse is a valid use of government power.

                                                                                                        I also agree. But these corporations (the tier-1 ISPs) haven’t done anything noticeable to me to limit my enjoyment of conservative content, and I’m pretty sure that they would’ve by now if they wanted to.

                                                                                                        The reason I oppose net neutrality is more because I don’t think that the government should control it than any more than I think AT&T and others should.

                                                                                                        not only could he be blocked from Twitter, but the network itself could make his website inaccessible.

                                                                                                        But they haven’t.

                                                                                                        edit: how -> who

                                                                                                      2. 6

                                                                                                        Even though I’m favoring net neutrality, I appreciate you braving the conservative position on this here on Lobsters. I did listen to a lot of them. What I found is most had reasonable arguments but had no idea about what ISP’s did, are doing, are themselves paying Tier 1’s, etc. Their media sources’ bias (all have bias) favoring ISP’s for some reason didn’t tell them any of it. So, even if they’d have agreed with us (maybe, maybe not), they’d have never reached those conclusions since they were missing crucial information to reflect on when choosing to regulate or not regulate.

                                                                                                        An example is one telling me companies like Netflix should pay more to Comcast per GB or whatever since they used more. The guy didn’t know Comcast refuses to do that when paying Tier 1’s negotiating transit agreements instead that worked entirely different. He didn’t know AT&T refused to give telephones or data lines to rural areas even if they were willing to pay what others did. He didn’t know they could roll out gigabit today for same prices but intentionally kept his service slow to increase profit knowing he couldn’t switch for speed. He wasn’t aware of most of the abuses they were doing. He still stayed with his position since that guy in particular went heavily with his favorite, media folks. However, he didn’t like any of that stuff which his outlets never even told him about. Even if he disagrees, I think he should disagree based on an informed decision if possible since there’s plenty smart conservatives out there who might even favor net neutrality if no better alternative. I gave him a chance to do that.

                                                                                                        So, I’m going to give you this comment by @lorddimwit quickly showing how they ignored the demand to maximize profit, this comment by @dotmacro showing some abuses they do with their market control, and this article that gives nice history of what free market did with each communications medium with the damage that resulted. Also note that the Internet itself was an open, free-if-you-have-a-wire system that competed with the proprietary, charge-per-use, lock-them-in-forever-if-possible systems the private sector was offering. It smashed them so hard you might have even never heard of them or forgotten a lot about them depending on your age. It also democratized more goods than about anything other than maybe transportation. Probably should stick with the principles that made that happen to keep innovation rolling. Net neutrality was one of them that was practiced informally at first then put into law as the private sector got too much power and was abusing it. We should keep doing what worked instead of the practices ISP’s want that didn’t work but will increase their profits at our expense for nothing in return. That is what they want: give us less or as little improvement in every way over time while charging us more. It’s what they’re already doing.

                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                          I read the comments, and I read most of the freecodecamp article.

                                                                                                          I like the ideal of the internet being a public utility, but I don’t really want the government to have that much control.

                                                                                                          I think the real problem I have with government control of the internet, is that I don’t want the US to end up like china with large swaths of the internet completely blocked.

                                                                                                          I don’t really know how to solve our current problems. But, like @jfb said elsewhere in this thread, I don’t think that net neutrality is the best possible solution.

                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                            Also note that the Internet itself was an open, free-if-you-have-a-wire system that competed with the proprietary, charge-per-use, lock-them-in-forever-if-possible systems the private sector was offering. It smashed them so hard you might have even never heard of them or forgotten a lot about them depending on your age.

                                                                                                            I might recognize a name, but I probably wasn’t even around yet.

                                                                                                            So, I’m going to give you…

                                                                                                            Thanks for the info, I’ll read it and possibly form a new opinion.

                                                                                                          2. 5

                                                                                                            But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                            What obvious reasons? Because customers will switch providers if they don’t treat all traffic equally? That would require (a) users are able to tell if a provider prioritizes certain traffic, and (b) that there is a viable alternative to switch to. I have no confidence in either.

                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                              I don’t personally care if the prioritize certain websites, but I sure as hell care if the block something.

                                                                                                              As far as I’m concerned, they can slow down Youtube by 10% for conservative channels and I wouldn’t give a damn even though I watch and enjoy some. What really bothers me is when they “erase” somebody or block people from getting to them.

                                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                                well you did say they have an incentive to provide “equal service” so i guess you meant something else. net neutrality supporters like me aren’t satisfied with “nobody gets blocked,” because throttling certain addresses gives big corporations more tools to control media consumption, and throttling have similar effects to blocking in the long term. i’m quite surprised that you’d be fine with your ISP slowing down content you like by 10%… that would adversely affect their popularity compared to the competitors that your ISP deems acceptable, and certain channels would go from struggling to broke and be forced to close down.

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  Well, I have pretty fast internet, so 10% wouldn’t be terrible for me. However, I can see how some people would take issue with such a slowdown.

                                                                                                                  I was using a bit an extreme example to illustrate my point. What I was trying to say was that they can’t really stop people from watching the content that they want to watch.

                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                    I recall, but didn’t review, a study saying half of web site users wanted the page loaded in 2 seconds. Specific numbers aside, I’ve been reading that kind of claim from many people for a long time that a new site taking too long to load, being sluggish, etc makes them miss lots of revenue. Many will even close down. So, the provider of your favorite content being throttled for even two seconds might kill half their sales since Internet users expect everything to work instantly. Can they operate with a 50% cut in revenue? Or maybe they’re bootstrapping up a business with a few hundred or a few grand but can’t afford to pay for no artificial delays. Can they even become the content provider your liked if having to pay hundreds or thousands extra on just extra profit? I say extra profit since ISP’s already paid for networks capable of carrying it out of your monthly fee.

                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                      yeah, the shaping of public media consumption would happen in cases where people don’t know what they want to watch or don’t find out about something that they would want to watch

                                                                                                                      anti-democratic institutions already shape media consumption and discourse to a large extent, but giving them more tools will hurt the situation. maybe it won’t affect you or me directly, but sadly we live in a society so it will come around to us in the form of changes in the world

                                                                                                              2. 5

                                                                                                                But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                Most customers have exceedingly limited options in their area, and they’re not going to switch houses because of their ISP. Especially in apartment complexes, you see cases where, say, Comcast has the lockdown on an entire population and there really isn’t a reasonable alternative.

                                                                                                                In a truly free market, maybe I’d agree with you, but the regulatory environment and natural monopolistic characteristics of telecomm just don’t support the case.

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  Most customers have exceedingly limited options in their area, and they’re not going to switch houses because of their ISP.

                                                                                                                  That’s a witty way of putting it.

                                                                                                                  But yeah, @lorddimwit mentioned the small number of tier-1 ISPs. I didn’t realize there were so few, but I still think that net neutrality is overreaching, even if its less than I originally thought.

                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                    Personally, I feel that net neutrality, such as it is, would prevent certain problems that could be better addressed in other, more fundamental ways. For instance, why does the US allow the companies that own the copper to also own the ISPs?

                                                                                                                2. 3

                                                                                                                  But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                  Awkward political jabs aside, most of your statements imply that you believe customers are free to choose who they get their internet from, which is just plain incorrect. Whatever arguments you want to make against net neutrality, there is one indisputable fact that you cannot just ignore or paper over:

                                                                                                                  ISPs do not operate in a free market.

                                                                                                                  In the vast majority of the US, cable and telephone companies are granted local monopolies in the areas they operate. That is why they must be regulated. As the Mozilla blog said, they have both the incentive and means to abuse their customers and they’ve already been caught doing it on multiple occasions.

                                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                                    most of your statements imply that you believe customers are free to choose who they get their internet from, which is just plain incorrect

                                                                                                                    I think you’re a bit late to the party, I’ve conceded that fact already.

                                                                                                                  2. 3

                                                                                                                    All of that is gibberish. Net Neutrality is being pushed because it creates a more competitive marketplace. None of it has anything to do with professional liar Alex Jones.

                                                                                                                    But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                    That’ s not how markets work. And it’s not how the technology or permit process for ISPs work. There is very little competition among ISPs in the US market.

                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                      Hey, here’s a great example from HN of the crap they pull without net neutrality. They advertised “unlimited,” throttled it secretly, admitted it, and forced them to pay extra to get actual unlimited.

                                                                                                                      @lorddimwit add this to your collection. Throttling and fake unlimited been going on long time but they couldve got people killed doing it to first responders. Id have not seen that coming just for PR reasons or avoiding local, govt regulation if nothing else.

                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                        I can’t speak to why open-source advocates are also pushing for net neutrality, because (in my opinion) the government shouldn’t be involved in how much internet costs.

                                                                                                                        It’s not about how much internet costs, it’s about protecting freedom of access to information, and blocking things like zero-rated traffic that encourage monopolies and discourage competition. If I pay for a certain amount of traffic, ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to turn to Google and say “want me to prioritize YouTube traffic over Netflix traffic? Pay me!”

                                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                                          Net neutrality is being pushed by the media because it “fights discrimination”, and they blame the “fascist, nazi right” for it’s repeal (and they’re correct, except for the “fascist, nazi” bit).

                                                                                                                          Where on earth did you hear that? I sure hope you’re not making it up—you’ll find this site doesn’t take too kindly to that.

                                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                                            I might’ve been conflating two different political issues, but I have heard “fascist” and “nazi” used to describe the entire right wing.

                                                                                                                            A quick google search for “net neutrality fascism” turned this up https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kbye4z/heres-why-net-neutrality-is-essential-in-trumps-america

                                                                                                                            “With the rise of Trump and other neo-fascist regimes around the world, net neutrality will be the cornerstone that activists use to strengthen social movements and build organized resistance,” Wong told Motherboard in a phone interview. “Knowledge is power.”

                                                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                                                              You assume that net neutrality is a left-wing issue, which it’s not. It actually has bipartisan support. The politicians who oppose it have very little in common, aside from receiving a large sum of donations from telecom corporations.

                                                                                                                              As far as terms like “fascist” or “Nazi” are concerned—I think they have been introduced into this debate solely to ratchet up the passions. It’s not surprising that adding these terms to a search yields results that conflate the issues.

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                Ill add on your first point that conservatives who are pro-market are almost always pro-competition. They expect the market will involve competition driving whats offered up, its cost down, and so on. Both the broadband mandate and net neutrality achieved that with an explosion of businesses and FOSS offering about anything one can think of.

                                                                                                                                The situation still involves 1-3 companies available for most consumers that, like a cartel, work together to not compete on lowering prices, increasing service, and so on. Net neutrality reduced some predatory behavior the cartel market was doing. They still made about $25 billion in profit between just a few companies due to anti-competitive behavior. Repealing net neutrality for anti-competitive market will have no positives for consumer but will benefit roughly 3 or so companies by letting them charge more for same or less service.

                                                                                                                                Bad for conservative’s goals of market competition and benefiting conservative voters.

                                                                                                                        2. 2

                                                                                                                          One part of it is that we already have net neutrality, and it’s easier to try to hang on to a regulation than to create a new one.

                                                                                                                        1. 13

                                                                                                                          I don’t know if I realistically can, or want to use Haiku, but it’s great to see some non-UNIX designs still being alive.

                                                                                                                          1. 7

                                                                                                                            It’s surprisingly usable. It’s lacking features that I have to have for work (multi-monitor support, a browser capable of using Google Hangouts, the ability to run VMs at near-native speed, and reliable disk encryption) but if it had those four things it could be my daily driver.

                                                                                                                            (Google is switching to “Meet” now; I should check WebPositive to see how it handles it, and I know that once upon a time there was an encrypted block device driver in the tree…in my Copious Free Time I should try to help on that maybe…)

                                                                                                                            1. 4

                                                                                                                              For alternative OSs, the best thing to do is implement VNC. Through VNC you can access OSs that specialize in accessing the web, such as Windows, Linux, and … Chrom/iumOS. ChromiumOS is probably the best since it’s sole purpose is to interact with the omnipresent OS that is the web.

                                                                                                                              Eventually I will figure out some easy setup to do this.

                                                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                                                The encrypted block device support still exists as a third-party package (though it’s maintained by one of the core kernel developers); it just does not support having the boot device be block-encrypted.

                                                                                                                              2. 4

                                                                                                                                Well … Haiku isn’t really a non-UNIX design. We have some pretty anti-UNIX tendencies to be sure, but we also use POSIX filemodes, POSIX process model, pretty good POSIX API compliance, BSD sockets, … etc.