It’s amazing that 10 years after launch, Elite Dangerous is still running (online only, but has solo mode) and still has an active community. We can argue about how shallow the gameplay is, but for some of us, it ticks the right boxes. It’s just like the point made in the article - sometimes you have to use your imagination. It’s not a story game, it’s just open and you do your own things, same as it always was. And the sound design, that’s the real treat.
But it could be so much more. People were so hyped for Horizons when we learned we’d finally be getting space legs but it just fell so flat on release.
FPS isn’t big for me so I just bop around looking for bio signatures. I feel the FPS portion parallels the flight portion the same way. It is flat, it is vast, it is a grind. That’s part of why I don’t do any FPS combat. I do wish it had better immersion, more features to FPS at least on some core planets and of course giving depth to the stations (since it’s copy and past) but I do also wonder if that’d really be worth it. The game takes long enough to travel as it is, so do I really want to also have reason to walk through a place for hours? My headcanon for not having any depth on planets is because the depth would all be located on terraformed planets. We’re barred from that so it works well enough for me (with suspension of belief). But they have such smooth transitions between instances that it doesn’t seem like an integration problem, just an effort problem for a waning game.
Not sure what brings back more nostalgia in that picture to be honest. The feeling of the vastness of a game that had no right to feel so big given it’s constraints, or the GLC’s lyric “I made love to a BBC Micro”.
I feel that we will soon see a shift where organizations will start moving back to on-prem instead of paying for cloud services. We have begun to see our larger customers opting for migrating back to on-prem from the cloud.
This is remarkable in the sense that not every company or every company’s offering is profitable in the cloud space. Broadcom definitely just looked at the numbers and decided this service should be cut wholesale.
Is it right? It’s a corporation that just spent $61 billion on this, when were they ever concerned about right and wrong? They exist to gobble profit.
Broadcom’s whole business model is to buy companies with lots of enterprise customers and high vendor lock in products, cut support, maintenance, R&D as much as possible, and massively jack the price up. Most customers will eventually leave, but they’re counting on sunk cost fallacy and management being slow to go through with a big, risky, and expensive migration to make their money back in the meantime. Anyone who gets stuck with it long term because they would rather pay up than risk moving is just a bonus.
Sure, but with this change it’s becoming harder to see the advantage of VMware over hyperV with full lintegration to azure, and azure stack edge. A single interface to manage cloud and on prem that includes monitoring etc.
Sunk cost or not, with this change the companies need to move anyway so the immediate question is why not all the way? but I might be wrong.
My guess is that there arn’t enough big fish using the cloud providers as compared to rolling their own in house, and they did say that the biggest would be invited to a new program. They want to drive off the little fish, because they cause most of the problems and especially the ones using MSP’s like we’re talking about here are going to be the fastest to jump ship to Azure or AWS hosting anyway.
It’s not a sustainable long term plan, but Broadcoms long term plan is to kill VMware entirely so that’s not a concern to them.
I felt like I was going crazy sometimes with how often people in the FOSS community insist that nothing is wrong when large companies are massively profiting off of unpaid labor that is meant to help people, by turning it into part of their closed-source product, so it’s nice to see that well-known figures in the community are starting to wake up to this being a problem.
I think that non-commercial-use clauses are a good way forward for certain projects, and commercial licenses for others. I wish that the upstream contrib requirements had taken off, but clearly Capitalism and the FOSS mindset aren’t compatible, and capitalism is more widespread.
If you let corporations have something for free, they’ll find some way to ruin it.
Thanks for the share.
Obviously Perens is one of the FOSS OG figures and he makes a lot of good points. Lately the RHEL/IBM situation has shown a mere license text file isn’t going to keep megacorps from finding ways to circumvent the ideology and the purpose behind it. They have simply too many resources both in development and in legal departments and too many ways to work around the legalese of its intended purpose .
Also there’s been an increasing trend where products (Elastic etc) start off with FOSS license and as soon as they gain critical mass, they split their product and switch to their own FOSS-light license and gimped “community edition” downloads. Again, all still legally above the board, but at the same time completely ignoring the intended purpose of the license in the first place.
I think what Perens is proposing is too complicated. I understand that “contract” has far more binding legal fire power compared to a “license”, but as he also points out in the article, it complicates things to the point where it’s hard to adopt. The problem is of course far deeper than just licensing and has its roots deep somewhere in late-stage capitalism and deregulation of corporate entities and those are of course not problems that Perens or the free software community can easily solve. Unfortunately.
It’s clear that something new is needed and I appreciate the work he is doing. I’m not sure it’s the right direction to take, but can’t say I have any rabbits I can pull out of my hat either, so I’ll follow this with interest.
NHS England said no company involved in the FDP would be able to access health and care data without the explicit permission of the NHS.
…
Earlier this year, one official likened it to using Microsoft Word online. The cloud has access to that Word document, but the user would not expect Microsoft to be looking at that document, they said.
Oh good - administrative controls, rather than actual technical ones, “preventing” misuse/abuse of sensitive data. What could possibly go wrong?
theregister.com
Hot