It's less the fact that someone owns JS's trademark, and more that it's specifically Oracle (they got it when they bought Sun).
Oracle is an incredibly litigious company. Their awful reputation in this respect means that the JS ecosystem can never be sure they won't swoop in and attempt to demand rent someday. This is made worse by the army of lawyers they employ; even if they're completely in the wrong, whatever project they go after probably won't be able to afford a defense.
> Oracle is an incredibly litigious company. Their awful reputation in this respect means that the JS ecosystem can never be sure they won't swoop in and attempt to demand rent someday. This is made worse by the army of lawyers they employ; even if they're completely in the wrong, whatever project they go after probably won't be able to afford a defense.
That is why on one level I am surprised by the petition. They are talking to a supercharged litigation monster and are asking it "Dear Oracle, ... We urge you to release the mark into the public domain". You know what a litigation happy behemoth does in that case? It goes asks some AI to write a "Javascript: as She Is Spoke" junk book on Amazon just so they can hang on to the trademark. Before they didn't care but now that someone pointed it out, they'll go out of their way to assert their usage of it.
On the other hand, maybe someone there cares about their image and would be happy to improve it in the tech community's eyes...
> It goes asks some AI to write a "Javascript: as She Is Spoke" junk book on Amazon just so they can hang on to the trademark.
IANAL, but I don't think that wouldn't be enough to keep the trademark.
Also the petition was a "we'll ask nicely first so we can all avoid the hastle and expense of legal procedings", they are now in the process of getting the trademark invalidated, but Oracle, illogically but perhaps unsurprisingly is fighting it.
I was just using it as an example of doing the absolute minimum. They could write a dumb Javascript debugger or something with minimal effort.
But yeah, IANAL either and just guessing, I just know Oracle is shady and if you challenge them legally they'll throw their weight around. And not sure if responding to a challenge with a new "product" is enough to reset the clock on it. Hopefully a the judge will see through their tricks.
Trademark law is kind of about hypotheticals though. The purpose of a trademark is to prevent theoretical damages from potential confusion, neither of which you ever have to show to be real
In this case the trademark existing and belonging to Oracle is creating more confusion than no trademark existing, so deleting it is morally right. And because Oracle isn't actually enforcing it it is also legally right
Imho this is just the prelude to get better press. "We filed a petition to delete the JavaScript trademark" doesn't sound nearly as good as "We collected 100k signatures for a letter to Oracle and only got silence, now we formally petition the USPTO". It's also a great opportunity to find pro-bono legal council or someone who would help fund the petition
The other aspect here is that general knowledge (citation needed) says that if a company doesn't actively defend their trademark, they often won't be able to keep it if challenged in court. Or perhaps general knowledge is wrong.
Assuming Oracle did decide to go down that route, who would they sue? No one really uses the JavaScript name in anything official except for "JavaScriptCore" that Apple ships with Webkit.
My bad, after reading more it seems Deno is trying to get Oracle's trademark revoked, but I found out that "Rust for Javascript" devs have received a cease and desist from Oracle regarding the JS trademark, which may have triggered Deno to go after Oracle.
The incredibly litigious company here is Deno. Deno sued on a whim, realized they were massively unprepared, then asked the public to fund a legal campaign that will benefit Deno themselves, a for-profit, VC-backed company.
This personal vendetta will likely end with the community unable to use the term JavaScript. Nobody should support this.
1. Oracle is the litigious one here. My favorite example is that time they attacked a professor for publishing less-than-glowing benchmarks of their database: https://danluu.com/anon-benchmark/ What's to stop them from suing anyone using the term JavaScript in a way that isn't blessed by them? That's what Deno is trying to protect against.
2. Deno is filing a petition to cancel the trademark, not claim it themselves. This would return it to the public commons.
It should be obvious from these two facts that any member of the public that uses JavaScript should support this, regardless of what they think of Deno-the-company.
I think what the GP was referring to was the "new" owner of Sears, who reorganized the company into dozens of independent business units in the early 2010s (IT, HR, apparel, electronics, etc). Not departments, either; full-on internal businesses intended as a microcosm of the free market.
Each of these units were then given access to an internal "market" and directed to compete with each other for funding.
The idea was likely to try and improve efficiency... But what ended up happening is siloing increased, BUs started infighting for a dwindling set of resources (beyond normal politics you'd expect at an organization that size; actively trying to fuck each other over), and cohesion decreased.
It's often pointed to as one of the reasons for their decline, and worked out so badly that it's commonly believed their owner (who also owns the company holding their debt and stands to immensely profit if they go bankrupt) desired this outcome... to the point that he got sued a few years ago by investors over the conflict of interest and, let's say "creative" organizational decisions.
This happened at a place where I worked years ago, but not as 'on purpose.' We were a large company where most pieces depended on other pieces, and everything was fine - until a new CEO came in who started holding the numbers of each BU under a microscope. This led to each department trying to bill other departments as an enterprise customer, who then retaliated, which then led to internal departments threatening to go to competitors who charged less for the same service. Kinda stupid how that all works - on paper it would have made a few departments look better if they used a bottom barrel competitor, but in reality the company would have bled millions of dollars as a whole...all because one rather large BU wanted to goose its numbers.
Why is that a bad thing? If an internal department that’s not core to their business is less efficient than an external company - use the external company.
Anecdote: Even before Amazon officially killed Chime, everyone at least on the AWS side was moving to officially supported Slack.
I guess it depends on circumstances, but it boils down to each department only cost others some marginal cost in practice.
Imagine a hosting company and a dns company, both with plenty of customers and capacity. The hosting company says... I'll host your DNS site, if you provide DNS to our hosting site. Drop in the bucket for each.
One year the DNS company decides it needs to show more revenue, so will begin charging the hosting company $1000/yr, and guess what the hosting company says the same. Instead, they each get mad and find $500/yr competitors. What was accomplished here?
Further, it just looks bad in many cases. Imagine if Amazon.com decided AWS was too expensive, and decided to move their stuff off to say, Azure only. That wouldn't be a great look for AWS and in turn hurts...Amazon.
I do get your point, but there are a lot of... intangibles about being in a company together.
There is more politics than you think within Amazon Retail about moving compute over to AWS. I’m not sure how much of Amazon Retail runs on AWS instead of its own infrastructure (CDO).
I know one project from Amazon got killed because their AWS bill was too high. Yeah AWS charges Amazon Retail for compute when they run on AWS hardware.
As a rule, organizations are created to avoid the transaction costs on those detail tasks. If you externalize every single supporting task into a market, you will be slowed down to a drag, won't be able to use most competitive advantages, and will pay way more than doing them in house.
But removing the market competition is a breeding ground for inefficiency. So there's a balance there, and huge conglomerates tying their divisions together serves only to make the competitive ones die by the need to use the services of the inefficient ones.
My four years at AWS kind of indoctrinated me. As they said, everytime you decide to buy vs build, you have to ask yourself “does it make the beer taste better”?
Don’t spend energy on undifferentiated heavy lifting. If you are Dropbox it makes sense to move away from S3 for instance.
to put a finer point on it, it wasn't just competition or rewarding-the-successful, the CEO straight up set them at odds with each other and told them directly to battle it out.
basically "coffee is for closers... and if you don't sell you're fired" as a large scale corporate policy.
That was a bullshit separation of a single horizontal cut of the market (all of those segments did consumer retail sales) without overlap.
The part about no overlaps already made it impossible for them to compete. The only "competition" they had was in the sense of TV gameshow competition where candidates do worthless tasks, judged by some arbitrary rules.
That has absolutely no similarity to how Samsung is organized.
that just sounds more like a case of square peg and a round hole. Yes, WP is a nightmare just like NPM and its ilk are to me as well. Adding WP in my list was fraught for this level of response, and I realize now I should have left it off the list. It really doesn't do much for moving the conversation in the right direction
That's my point. At some point, people's fear of learning code is causing them to do things in ways that are unnecessary and overcomplicated, which is quite a bit ironic.
You say fear. I say unnecessary for task at hand. My mom doesn't need to learn how to code to make a website for her florist. She just needs a site that can host some basic information like contact info, gallery of example images, and maybe some cheesy "about" page that people feel like is oh so important.
We're obviously reading a developer centric forum where people seem to have a hard time seeing things from anything other than a developer's point of view. Have hammer, everything is a nail situation. People just not wanting to become a coder isn't because they are scared of it. They just don't want to do it. I don't want to be a florist. I don't go bitching to florists that there's not an easy way to make floral arrangements without learning basics nor does it make me scared of it. Whatever "fear" you want to imply really makes you sound out of touch with non-developers.
I realize that for the simple use cases like that it's fine. I'm talking about people at work using complicated workflows in "low code" tools or spreadsheets full of macros. At some point it's equally or more complex, just in a different way.
Having been involved in a “no code” product, I’ll just say that it’s a really crappy way to write programs. You’re better off creating a DSL of some sort and asking people to type. Demanding that people click the mouse three times to open an input box where they can type something and then doing that a few hundred times is not “better.” It’s infuriating.
It's due to every hyperscalar building out new AI datacenters. For example you have Google recently saying things like "Google tells employees it must double capacity every 6 months to meet AI demand", and that they need to increase capacity by 1000x within 4-5 years.
There's legitimately interesting research in using it to accelerate certain calculations. For example, usually you see a few talks at chemistry conferences on how it's gotten marginally faster at (very basic) electronic structure calculations. Also some neat stuff in the optimization space. Stuff you keep your eye on hoping it's useful in 10 years.
The most similar comparison is AI stuff, except even that has found some practical applications. Unlike AI, there isn't really much practicality for quantum computers right now beyond bumping up your h-index
Well, maybe there is one. As a joke with some friends after a particularly bad string of natural 1's in D&D, I used IBM's free tier (IIRC it's 10 minutes per month) and wrote a dice roller to achieve maximum randomness.
that was my understanding too - in the fields of chemistry, materials science, pharmaceutical development, etc... quantum tech is somewhat promising and might be pretty viable in those specific niche fields within the decade.
I don't personally care if a product includes AI, it's the pushiness of it that's annoying.
That, and the inordinate amount of effort being devoted to it. It's just hilarious at this point that Microsoft, for example, is moving heaven and earth to put AI into everything office, and yet Excel still automatically converts random things into dates (the "ability" to turn it off they added a few years ago only works half the time, and only affects csv imports) with no ability to disable it.
I think a lot of the pushiness is a frantic effort to keep the bubble inflated and keep the market out of the trough of disillusionment. It won't work. The trough of disillusionment is inevitable. There is no jumping straight from peak of inflated expectations straight to the slope of enlightenment, because the market fundamentally needs the cleansing action of the trough of disillusionment to shake out the theoreticals and the maybes and get to what actually works.
Hopefully after the pop rather than shoving it in our face they can return to advertising at us to use the things, and the things needing to prove themselves to get to real sales, rather than corporations getting 10% stock pumps in a day based on statistics about how "used" their AI stuff is while they don't tell the market how few people actually chose to use their AI stuff rather than just becoming a metric when it was pushed on them.
>I don't personally care if a product includes AI, it's the pushiness of it that's annoying.
I agree with you in principle, but in practice these two are currently inextricable; if there's AI in the product, then it will be pushed / impossible to turn off / take resources away from actual product improvement.
Exactly! I honestly can't remember the last time my window start menu search bar functioned as it's supposed to. For multiple laptops across more than 5 years i have to hit the windows key three to 7 times to get it to let me type into it. It either doesn't open, doesn't show anything, or doesn't let me type into it.
I mean, c'mon, its literally called the fucking windows key and it doesn't work. As per standard Microsoft it's a feature that worked perfectly on all versions before cortana (their last "ai assistant" type push), i wonder what new core functionalities of their product they're going to fuck up and never fix.
I was an insider user of Windows for close to a decade, really stuck with it through WSL's development... But the first time I saw internet ads on my start menu search result was kind of it for me, I switched my default boot to Linux and really haven't looked back. I don't really need Windows for my workflows, and though I'm using Windows for my current job, I'm at a point I'd rather not be.
Windows as an OS really kind of peaked around Windows 7 IMO... though I do like the previews on the taskbar, that's about the only advancement since that I appreciate at all... besides WSL2(g) that is. I used to joke that Windows was my favorite Linux distro, now I just don't want it near me. Even my SO would rather be off of it.
Microsoft could have made Windows privacy respecting, continued investing in WSL, baked PowerToys into the OS, etc. and actually made one hell of a workhorse operating system that could rival the mac for developer mindshare. They could partner with Google and/or Samsung and make some deep Android integration to rival Apple's ecosystem of products. Make Windows+Android just as seamless and convenient as mac + iOS.
Instead they opted for forced online accounts, invasive telemetry, and ads in the OS instead of actually trying to keep and win over the very enthusiasts that help ensure their product gets chosen in the enterprise world where they make their cash.
Now they're going to scrap the concept of Windows as something you interact with directly all together and make it "Agentic" whatever the hell that means.
I don't think their bet is going to pay off, especially if the bubble crashes. I think it will be one of the biggest blunders and mistakes that Microsoft will have made.
Probably because just easier to catch a predatory fish than a land predator
Throw a line in the pond, whatever bites will bite. Clean it and you've got dinner.
Versus with hunting, historically (and even now) if you miss your shot or don't hit a part that immediately takes it down, now you've got an angry wolf/bear/moose bearing down on you. Wolf is also probably too close to dog for most cultures.
Nowadays you can get meat from bear/moose/whatever, but there isn't much of a culinary tradition associated with them. So the only people out for them are the curious or macho types
The most annoying instance of this is installers in Windows that just assume you want to go into `C:/Program Files`, which nowadays requires admin to be modified
This is very annoying on company machines where you may not have admin, since now there's red tape with your IT because the installer was poorly written.
Half the reason I use the WSL is because you at least get "root" on it, so permissions are never an issue
Edit: there may be something lost in translation. This post is in reference to software your IT already approves, which happens to only install to program files.
It's a feature. You shouldn't be installing software on your work computer. Your IT department should be vetting it, deploying it, and keeping it up-to date for you.
Maybe you can tell the difference between report.pdf and report.exe, but too many people can't, so unfortunately we can't let everyone install anything.
> Your IT department should be vetting it, deploying it, and keeping it up-to date for you.
There are not enough IT staff at my organization to do this. They have an approved list of software that may be installed. Some common installations are automated, others are niche-enough that it's DIY.
We don't live in a perfect world where the IT staffing ratio is 1:20 (or whatever arbitrary number you would consider "good"), so this is how my organization does it.
> unfortunately we can't let everyone install anything.
> Your" IT department should consider giving you your own admin account. But it's their call.
Seems like a bit of an extreme solution for one-off installations that are rare enough to not be worth bothering to automate.
Good example of this is scientific software like Gaussian (a "common" quantum mechanics package): needs admin, expensive and strict license that gets audited. It's approved, but we have a single digit number of people using it. It's just not worth the time to automate a script around an install that only happens once every year or so on average, when they can just temporarily elevate the user.
> You shouldn't be installing software on your work computer. Your IT department should be vetting it, deploying it, and keeping it up-to date for you.
If I actually had to depend on IT to do all that, it would take forever to get anything done.
In a Windows environment this can be managed with AppLocker, or an endpoint management solution, or 3rd-Party tool like Threatlocker.
It becomes less about controlling the users and more about stopping any bad guy dead in their tracks. If nothing but what has been implicitly authorized can execute, then 99% of ransomware attacks will be stopped immediately even after the user clicks the link.
Your company software procurement process shouldn’t be so onerous that people turn to Shadow IT. You have to work with people where they are.
No, that's the default behavior in Windows. If you install to, say, app data it's fine. If you install to program files, you need admin because it is a protected folder.
> The company does NOT want you installing random crap on their machines.
Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that the post is about installing "random crap?"
Where did I write that it was not approved in advance...?
The post is about requiring admin to install to Program Files. Even if it is an approved piece of software, you're still going to need admin to install it.
It's an emulated PDP-11, could you elaborate on the threat model here?
I get that companies are being gross about logging everything online, but come on. It's okay to have fun.
Who in their right mind is using this for anything other than curiosity's sake?
reply