Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more z29LiTp5qUC30n's commentslogin

But I was born in 2002 and I still don't get this crap. It is like people are begging to be psychologically controlled for max financial extraction...


Pretty sure they were being sarcastic.


>> people are begging to be psychologically controlled for max financial extraction

"Shut up and take my money!" Futurama s06e03 - Attack of the Killer App (2010)


Let me know when they finally fix their SOCKS Proxy issue.


What's the issue with using a SOCKS proxy? I do it all the time in qutebrowser.


If you want anything to be fixed, you'll really need to be more specific... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


The Free Software community is having a Renaissance right now and making advances on nearly every front.

Turns out not compromising your principals and being zealots works.


Free software is doing well, yes. Businesses built-around free software, not so much. The list of successful companies based on fully FOSS software can practically be counted on one hand. Most of the time, the product may be very successful, but the company is really struggling.

A lot of OSS development is now done by companies who don't care that much about the software, because their revenue is totally independent. Netflix, Uber, Microsoft, etc.

Or it's open-core like Redis and Gitlab, with paid proprietary bits. Or "open source" with anti-service-provider licenses like MongoDB, Elastic, Redis.


Wait, what have I missed?

I thought copyleft licensing has been steadily losing share to permissive licensing for a long time, with no end in sight. Can you point to information indicating otherwise?

The Linux kernel itself keeps going from success to success, but that seems to be the last major copyleft bastion, and they also somewhat famously rejected GPLv3.


I think this is true, with the MIT license being the most popular.

From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization


Furthermore, unlike many other projects, Linux is not licensed GPLv2 or later and doesn't have copyright assignment. This makes changing the license unilaterally at least problematic. Not necessarily impossible but, at least some would argue the permission of all the contributors would be required which would be basically impossible.


Yes, Linus himself mentioned they'd all need to be contacted and agree. He also said he saw the GPLv3 draft and so it was an early and conscious decision to not have a 'GPLv2 or later' license.


There were differences of opinion at the time. Eben Moglen said something to the effect that it could probably be relicensed on the theory that its history suggested it could be treated as a collective work. But it would have been controversial and Linus didn't want to anyway so discussions never went further than that.

Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...


But compilers are not hard but simple state machines.

If you don't believe me, look at cc_x86

https://github.com/oriansj/stage0/blob/master/stage2/High_le...


...or in other words, "they're hard only because you make them hard".

That said, I think C4 makes a better example of how simple it can be:

https://github.com/rswier/c4/blob/master/c4.c

(Previously on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8558822 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353532)


You can say that about everything.

"But X is not hard. It's just number theory" - while X is Fermat's Last Theorem


The best part is the moved to physlock, specifically the version which you can bypass by hitting enter 3 times...


I'd argue the easiest to implement language is macro-assembly then the C subset known as cc_x86

https://github.com/oriansj/mescc-tools-seed


It should be pushd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" >/dev/null 2>&1

not cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" >/dev/null 2>&1

with a matching popd at the end

Otherwise it can screw up parent scripts


Really scripts should avoid called `cd` or `pushd`/`popd` wherever possible. It's a lot better to just work with absolute directories, i.e. as someone else pointed out:

    DIR="$( cd "$( dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" )" && pwd )"


no no no... god this is gross and awful

  SELF=${0##*/}    # aka basename
  DIR=${0%/*}      # aka dirname


Running a script as sh script.sh returns only script.sh, thus, you've already got SELF, but you wouldn't get DIR.


but, you don't need it since you are already there, and can just use $PWD (no need for `pwd`) from that point onward.


Not unless the script is source'd, which is very unlikely.




but parsing command line arguments is a solved problem

https://github.com/oriansj/M2-Planet/blob/master/cc.c#L40


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: