I'm currently in the market for stock photos. The allotted budget isn't one those folk would miss, but it's more than enough to commission our own.

As a direct response to getty's behavior, I'll be commissioning the photos and making them available under a free license after around a year of use. It's also very unlikely that I'll be doing business with them in the future.

>Voting with one's feet works against local grocery shops, not global corporations.

It isn't as much of vote with my feet as it is adhering to one's own principles.

Also, thank you for mentioning istockphoto relationship with getty. I'll avoid them in the future as well.

While not throwaway hardware, the company I work for destroys hard drives and other persistent memory devices before discarding computers. If the persistent memory device cannot be easily and reliably destroyed, the whole device is.

I bet journalists with sensitive information are far more thorough.

Looking forward to what Openshift will bring to the table!

One thing is that it could be used to as a venue to pursue new recurring revenue streams.

While not exactly the same thing, I've seen some people joke about intel locking owners from cpu features behind monthly subscriptions.

This kind of exploitation requires disallowing owners from fully controlling their devices in order to be effective. The more control vendors have, the more elaborate and exploitative these schemes can be, and the less likely owners will be able to do anything about it.

Imagine going camping or into sea and having a canvas of logos everywhere you look at during the night.

Nobody has to look at it right?

Dismissing this issue as "overheated silliness" is extremely naive and short-sighted.

Well said. I'll add that security is a threshold, and that computer systems are extremely complex. Every bit of openness -and the verifiability such openness affords- brings us closer to that ideal secure system.

What you describe is the current state of affairs for CPUs. Intel, AMD, ARM, and every other company working in this space already "put all of their stupidity inside it in the name of features and security". These companies will continue to "put all of their stupidity inside" their products as long as innovation continues.

As Spectre and Meltdown demonstrated, bugs like these occurred in almost every CPU that allows speculative execution. Open projects will simply address these bugs as they are discovered just as private companies do for their proprietary design. Openness is orthogonal to this class of bugs.

> The entire time of kernel devs will be spent working around the various 'features' of the OEM designs.

No they wont. If a CPU spec is implemented by a large number of vendors, kernel devs will (must?) treat their support as they treat peripherals: They will provide support for the baseline CPU as is described in the open spec. Additional support is supplied either by the manufacturer or by volunteers who want to take advantage of additional features.

> But putting everything up on GitHub is a recipe for disaster.

I'll gladly take fragmentation if it means that we are no longer forced to accept ME, PSP, or TrustZone. Competition and diversity is a good thing. It's having only closed CPUs that's the recipe for disaster.

Also, How usable is this for building GUIs on Windows? Does it play nice with QT creator?

(I'm still inexperienced with QT development so please bear with me)

If you want your users to help you learn how Luna is used and preforms in real environments, you ask for them for feedback rather than forcefully extract it.

Having telemetry enabled by default (or much worse, being mandatory) is disrespectful. It's also a fairly good indicator of what you think of your users.

It makes more sense to adapt a standard formula to a given use case than it is to derive a custom formula from the ground up. I suspect the reason why its not the case for software is because of copyright and IP laws.

Likewise, I expect mathematics wouldn't have advanced as much as it has had there been IP laws enacted for mathematics. People would too limited by the licensing terms for their Leibniz™ and Euler™ formulas to be able to be able to build the next step.

From past examples, we will likely not see any real innovation in this space until these patents expire. It's especially disheartening to me since I'll probably be too old to get in on the action by then.

I hope societies reevaluate the role of patents in the advancement of human technology. From my perspective, patents do more harm then good. They encourage rent-seeking. They're impractical to use legally unless you have enough money. They hold back technology for a couple of generations each time a new breakthrough is discovered (as has happened with capacitive touch screens, 3D printers, and is happening now with e-ink displays).

To me, patents are achieving the opposite of their intended purpose.

Between Intel's numerous CPU bugs that they refused to refund customers for and ME, it's crystal clear what Intel thinks about their customers.

Processors don't fall into that class of devices. In fact, I'm willing to argue that not allowing owners to patch their devices is a public hazard (ddos botnets, mass identity theft, etc).