There are some good stuff on the software side that people mention, but a big one is the driver support. We would need device makers to upstream support so there is less worrying about reverse engineering or needing to run modified ROMs based on old builds. Or just publish specs on the hardware that is enough for implementation. Sure, you can buy a specific phone and run a de-googled android or linux, but that only really works for the hobbyist who wants to spend time doing this. Which makes it difficult to create a market that encourages developers of software to port their software or write new software. With out being able to broadly support devices, most people are gonna be better off running Google's android.
It's not the right solution long term, but you can't expect the entire ecosystem to appear overnight. Using it allows deferring the driver issue a bit while building out the rest of the ecosystem.
Makes me think of something my dad and I both talked about with our time in the military. He was Army and I was Navy. But when the ability to promote is tied with ranking against your peers, if you really want to game the system, you essentially sabotage your peers. Which is the exact opposite you want in the military or really any organization. You want to foster a, rising tide lifts all boats with getting the work done. But it hard when your performance evaluations are the complete opposite of that, and I have seen people do it.
I got qualified on our equipment quick and was in a position where I was training my peers who I was ranked against. If I were an asshole, I would have trained them poorly and drug it out. I didn't, but someone who is goal oriented to climb through the ranks as fast a possible, it is a logical action that I could have taken.
> If I were an asshole, I would have trained them poorly and drug it out.
That's of course the obvious way this goes wrong. Bad intentions. The much more insidious version is that you could have just been a terrible teachers, maybe you suck at training your peers, and you don't know.
The end result is the same. You look like the only person who gets it amongst the riff-raff, but in this case you don't even have a choice. The system has produced a poor outcome not because anybody abused it, but because it was a bad system.
In case you were not aware, there is a large overlap between people who work/worked on NetBSD and OpenBSD that also work on Void Linux, which is why Void feels like that. Juan Pardines being an example of one individual.
We run ZFS for a system at work on linux. Yea, it isn't as seamless and nice on FreeBSD. Only reason we aren't running FreeBSD is the application that needs to access that storage is .NET, and no .NET support for FreeBSD.
Will check this out! I knew there was a group who had a version working, but it wasn't upstreamed and last I check was still stuck at .NET 5. While I would like to migrate from Debian to FreeBSD, probably won't get management to okay that with current services, but future one, maybe!
Makes sense, out of curiosity have you tried the linux jails that Bastille offers? [0]
They're still considered experimental so I wouldn't run it for production but I wonder how well .Net would run in one. The whole container could be a zfs dataset, which would be interesting.
Because it is. Linux doesn't really have a concrete idea of a "base system" like the BSDs do. Linux is more of a hodgepodge of components that are developed by different, and often a lot more isolated teams than we think, that all just gets integrated together. Which is truly an astonishing achievement of engineering, so I don't wanna seem like I am short selling it. Think of like the developer who work on gcc and the libc and the kernel, maybe some cross pollination, but not a lot. FreeBSD, the user land, kernel and even the libc team all happens under "1 roof."
But that is still for a limited number of chipsets though right? I would absolutely love to see way more support. I remember awhile back the FreeBSD Foundation putting some serious (on their scale of funds) funds to WiFi.
I can't remember which chipsets support it. But yes, the FreeBSD Foundation has been putting a lot of money into laptop support, including wifi improvements.
You can, but it's all about risk mitigation. Most processors have some form of store and forward (and it can have limitations like only X number of transactions). Some even have controls to limit the amount you can store-and-forward (for instance, only charges under $50). But ultimately, it's still risk mitigation. You can store-and-forward, but you're trusting that the card/account has the funds. If it doesn't, you loose and ain't shit you can do about it. If you can't tolerate any risk, you don't turn on store and forward systems and then you can't process cards offline.
Its not the we are not capable. Its, is the business willing to assume the risk?
Yea, good old store and forward. We implemented it in our PoS system. Now, we do non PCI integrations so we arn't in PCI scope, but depending on the processor, it can come with some limitations. Like, you can do store and forward, but only up to X number of transactions. I think for one integration, it's 500-ish store wide (it uses a local gateway that store and forwards to the processors gateway). The other integration we have, its 250, but store and forward on device, per device.
In many places it's also possibly just a left over feature from older times. I worked at a major UK supermarket in the mid-00s, and their checkout system had this feature. But it was like that because that's how it was originally built, it wasn't a 'feature' they added.
Credit card information would be recorded by the POS, synced to a mini-server in the back office (using store-and-forward to handle network issues) and then in a batch process overnight, sent to HQ where the payment was processed.
It wasn't until chip-and-PIN was rolled out that they started supporting "online" (i.e. processed then and there) card transactions, and even then the old method still worked if there was a network issues or power failure (all POSes has their own UPS).
The only real risk at the time was that someone tried to pay with a cancelled credit card - the bank would always honour the payment otherwise. But that was pretty uncommon back then, as you'd have to phone your bank to do it, not just press a button in an app.
Would be totally a guess since as mentioned, they are not being too forth coming. But chances are, the inclusion of GPT into the products probably did not make those products any more profitable than before, and just make them more expensive to run. Everyone who would buy Sharepoint/dynamics 365 already has it. I doubt they saw a massive influx to the user base of these tools due to GPT. Have you heard of a massive influx of new Windows license being bought because og co-pilot? No, its just the normal churn of people upgrading their machines they were probably gonna upgrade soon anyways.
The exception might be Azure with their LLM services.
