And here we see the self-Godwin in the wild. Masterful play, sir.

Neither the CFO nor CEO are saying that Google ought to be not broken up. They are saying that Mozilla existentially depends on Google. This is actually more of a central point in the lawsuit than you think; in the original complaint, part 6 of the background is about revenue-sharing agreements (RSAs) between Google and various other companies who would normally compete in search, browsers, and other venues. That is, nobody is disputing that:

Today, Google has RSAs with nearly every significant non-Google browser (other than those distributed by Microsoft) including Mozilla’s Firefox, Opera, and UCWeb. These agreements generally require the browsers to make Google the preset default general search engine for each search access point on both their Web and mobile versions.

If Mozilla did want to petition the court, then they are welcome to file as amici, but they haven’t! Nor have any court filings included a reference to the CFO’s testimony so far, although to be fair the testimony isn’t yet available to read. There is no evidence that Mozilla will stand in the way of whatever the court decides to do with Google. Rather, in their post, the CEO is asking lawmakers to figure out some way to ensure that the browser market remains competitive:

Mozilla calls on regulators and policymakers to recognize the vital role of independent browsers and take action to nurture competition, innovation, and protect the public interest in the evolving digital landscape.

Courts aren’t regulators or policymakers. The complaint before the court is not the same as the underlying principles of antitrust which motivated the complaint. A request to improve the future is not the same as a request to forestall the present.

The author would do well to look up SGML; Markdown is fundamentally about sugaring the syntax for tag-oriented markup and is defined as a superset of HTML, so mistaking it for something like TeX or Word really demonstrates a failure to engage with Markdown per se. I suppose that the author can be forgiven somewhat, considering that they are talking to writers, but it’s yet another example of how writers really only do research up to the point where they can emit a plausible article and get paid.

It’s worth noting that Microsoft bought PowerPoint, GitHub, LinkedIn, and many other things—but it did in fact create Word and Excel. Microsoft is, in essence, a sales company. It’s not too great at designing software.

So close to a real insight! The correct lesson is that Microsoft, like Blizzard, is skilled at imitating what’s popular in the market; like magpies, they don’t need to have a culture of software design as long as they have a culture of software sales. In particular, Microsoft didn’t create Word or Excel, but ripped off WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3.

Forget about your job for a moment. In general, why are you willing to set a threshold on how accessible your work is? I urge you to forget about how callous your employer wants you to be.

across the Internet … doesn’t require storing data twice

A flavor of the CAP theorem applies here; if you want your data to be available even during network partitions (and those are going to happen on the Internet!) then it has to be duplicated somehow. For example, I still have a soft spot for Tahoe-LAFS, which allows users to control how much duplication will be used and typically is configured to have some redundancy. Typical cloud providers build redundancy into their storage products; for example, it’s known that Google’s Colossus storage system uses Reed-Solomon to trade space for durability.

Nah, just use direnv instead, comrade.

“For the record, I still don’t like this particular face-eating incident.” As if you aren’t a leopard enthusiast. Who cares whether you like something?

You literally attach a license to every comment you post. The rules which make that license effective are the same rules which make Free Software and open-source licenses effective, too. Show some solidarity; you’re part of the community too, and you should feel comfortable making the same demands as the rest of us. When you say that “open source defenders” are distinct from “developers” you are contributing to a schism for the sake of aggrandizing employment and exploitation.

For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.

Become a kernel contributor first. I don’t think it’s acceptable to stand outside a community and ask how you can control it by throwing money at it.

Well, here is a very funny one-off commit, but my biggest effort was probably substantial parts of a couple AMD/ATI GPU drivers, well-summarized here. As usual, that was a team effort, with particular credit to Deucher (AMD), Glisse (radeon maintainer), and Airlie (DRM/DRI maintainer). So, put up or shut up. Or, to paraphrase the sentiment that you seem to not grok: talk is cheap; show us your code.

Let me make it clear. I call out brigading because it is useless noise that distorts and obfuscates the kernel development process. I don’t care that you’re salty that I’m pointing out that your “absolute crickets” comment is not only incorrect, but empty in the sense that your lack of perception is not a substitute for the actual process of kernel development. Additionally, in this case, it seems like you’re still focused on personalities rather than the underlying computer science; I expect “absolute crickets” when asking you about the topic of memory safety.

I expect you to have zero kernel commits to your name.

Why does your opinion matter? You’re a chicken, not a pig.

Be less of a TERF.

That’s not a real apology. Be contrite – what will you change in your life, going forward, to be less hateful?

Your argument is completely specious. Re-read that list. Assembly is a second language in the kernel already, and really it’s multiple languages, one per supported ISA. Perl and Python scripts are used to generate data tables; there are multiple build-time languages. eBPF is evaluated at runtime; the kernel contains bytecode loaders, JIT compilers, and capability management for it. The kernel has already paid the initial cost of setting up a chimeric build process which evaluates many different languages at many different stages.

Martin’s already in the list of maintainers for another subsystem; this is a territorial play by Hellwig. Any kernel developer would recognize this; you don’t seem especially familiar with kernel social dynamics either! Also please fix your formatting if you’re going to copy-and-paste rather than linking.

Whose arguments are you apologizing for? Read the thread backwards. Your claims about C and kernel policy were wrong, therefore @pressanykeynow@lemmy.world’s point about multiple languages was right, therefore your main defense of Hellwig acting in good faith is unevidenced. So, are you still so ready to insist that Hellwig is arguing in good faith? Would you say that this thread has adequately discussed the technical details and is ready to return to the overarching political point?

I would recommend looking at English WP’s style guide on weasel words. Rather than matching evidence and countering claims, you’ve set up a nest of strongly-held opinions with words like “basically”, “personal experience”, “I believe”, “an opinion of course”, “it isn’t just me”, and refused to actually directly engage with the evidence scrutinized. Given that it takes maybe five minutes to find even just one piece of assembly that has no justification for not being written in C, I think that it’s fair to characterize your position as inconsistent with actual kernel-hacking practices at best.

It’s also relevant to note that, most likely, nobody here has the “kwalifikashuns” to discuss this topic. Not even programmers - because odds are that nobody here is in a position to change anything about it.

Literally any kernel hacker can change the kernel. This is the root of why you shouldn’t be in the conversation; you aren’t such a hacker, and you therefore imagine that none of us are, either. You’re not skilled as a sealion either, for what it’s worth.

Man, some folks around here really make it obvious that they’ve never been yelled at by Linus in-person.

Both of your technical claims are wrong. C isn’t high-level assembly; on e.g. x86, it has no way to express SIMD, control I- and D-caches, or encode certain efficient instructions for which there is no corresponding idiom like Hamming weight (popcount). Also, the kernel does not have any sort of policy mandating a minimum of assembly, and there are definitely many spots where writing a compilation unit purely in assembly is done instead of using inline assembly to make the unit shorter and more readable.