Someone on the internet hasn’t heard it so that must be wrong then!

Save your saltiness for 9gag, friend. I saw that you specifically wrote that but you also continued using exodus in the first sense, as the one you replied to did. But you just wanted to be snarky to that person I guess.

Mass firing is not an exodus. Exodus is when people are fleeing, and generally in terms of liberation. Firing people is just firing people

You can stop reading when you find the answers to the requested questions.

Eh no not necessarily. This depends on the type of audit and the questions specifically, but should never be a default stance if you want to provide a full report. Moreover, if you are learning to do software audits, it would be beneficial to check everything because experience is key to know what you are looking for

I find the amount of engineers who have built an “alternative to google on their spare time” truly fascinating. Because if you think that is possible, IMO, you have no idea what Google actually built.

Its just not a search engine, and also, as a search engine, it stopped being a good model to follow a decade ago.

Build on the ideas and build something new instead

I think you might have a point there. I for one was not aware of the gay frog situation before that whole drama and I’m grateful it was brought to my attention

Oh sorry it seemed offensive or negative in any way, I just wanted to clarify that “seems like” i s a vast understatement. Dune 2 predates all of them, and became a template for mechanics and layouts. We’ve gone a long way since, but dune was the first of the models that we build RTS games as today

“in this essay” The article you’ve written is not an essay. It is at its top, an opinion article

And as Vodulas points out, they generally serve as a game mechanic. Either you are recreating set guns from history or it’s lower level gun meant to be a bit crappier.

What even is this articles point? Iron sights are crappy? Yeah, we know, that’s why that was improved upon and they barely exist on IRL guns today

Indeed I did, sorry about that

This article talks about galaxy formations and stars bursting, curious how you jump to “life” from that?

“in this essay” The article you’ve written is not an essay. It is at its top, an opinion article

And as Vodulas points out, they generally serve as a game mechanic. Either you are recreating set guns from history or it’s lower level gun meant to be a bit crappier.

What even is this articles point? Iron sights are crappy? Yeah, we know, that’s why that was improved upon and they barely exist on IRL guns today

Alright, thanks. Sounds like the existing fields could have been leveraged for that tbh, seems given that the newer field would be overused/misused

Oh, missed the plural, sorry about that. But is that one the same as “Album artists” or yet another one then?

I agree with most of your points but the artist tag in ID3 tags existed way before streaming music services was a thing. Hell it existed in versions.

So what’s that about?

Echoing bermuda@beehaw.org. “Degenerates”? You mean a games series that pushed the boundaries when it was new, truly pushed what open world meant, and that it could be done with large, crowded cities technically as well. Sure if you play them nowadays the might not brush any strokes and feel flat but the GTA series has been defining a game for generations where “everybody” in that generation had played and been fond of. 1-2-3, San Andreas, and vice city and the ilks. There wasnt really any competitors to that when they were released.

I’m going to guess you are right that it won’t be too innovative. Story wise they have never been innovative, nor pretended to be. They have pushed the boundaries of open world in both engineering and social commentary/satire.

But calling several generations of gamers who grew up with this “degenerates”. Hard to take you seriously and your attitude can eff right off

“Seems like”? Dune 2 is the template which most RTS is derived from. Truly a genre defining game

But I never used a royal “We”, in fact “we” was never used in my text at all. I used us, to refer to all the other comments that you can note does not agree with your assessment of open source.

Instead of you arguing my “cheap rhetorical skills”, how about you actually answer more than, estimated, a fifth of my statements? How about you stop with your own victimization of " what really hurts me". Because that, in essence, is actually cheap rhetorics.

I fully agree that when companies do this, that it is disgusting. But you have to take a step back and look at the actual effect. This is not by any means new, it happened likely before I was even conceived.

What would you say your point is. To shame grayjoy or make a point that this is a threat to open source? Both? Neither?

Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument “i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point”. You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I’m past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn’t a threat to open source in whatever form

Imo it’s not been redefined at all. People are just pushing the boundaries of what it means and creating absolutist views on what it should mean. There is a space for that sure, but shaming companies that define where their own boundaries are is not the way of it.

If we do that, you are challenging what software freedom actually is if you ask me

Your argument falls flat because the Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses. Access to the source code does not mean you can redistribute it automatically. Hence its a choice. If you choose to redistribute closed source code, that’s on you.

If the people selling are passing someone else’s work as their own, that’s stealing. Otherwise, it’s just Free Software working as intended.

Do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Where do you find the line of what is stealing and “working as intented”?

If someone is writing software but wants to prevent redistribution, then go ahead and make a license that forbids it. But then don’t get to call it “Open Source” or anything like that.

There are so many licenses for this model already, I’m inclined to believe that you havent actually published any OSS yourself and your attitude in these threads are mildly said, off putting.

I am a big fan of OSI and support their work, but you are treating them (based in what i can read in this thread) like some holy, all defining entity, of what is open source. They are not, and true open source, cannot, and should not, ever derive its power from a central agency setting rules and definitions. If that happens, that will be the end of open source.

Please stop gatekeeping OSS, it hurts all of us

Edit: some autocomplete stupid grammar