Why do you think it must be one thing or the other? It can be better than Javascript, used for Flutter and app development, and also cross-platform compiled and used for backend.
Approval voting is just a different flavor of the same popular candidate tyranny. We need to be able to express support for non-duopoly candidates over the duopoly ones, and not continue to be held hostage fully supporting mainstream party #1 by the threat of mainstream party #2.
Unfortunately this devolves into geeking out over voting systems. Despite having the most popular support, Instant Runoff Voting is also a hot mess with its surprising nonintuitive outcomes. The way I see it, RCV/Condorcet is the way to go, regardless of the criticism that it allows for ties - it's criteria is straightforward and what most people would consider fair. Solve the ties with a tiebreaker IRV round (same input data type) or just a second election since they're going to be really rare with any significant population (how many times do we have ties with plurality?)
I submitted this, and opted to elide that part of the title, both due to wordiness and also because it doesn't change the headline: the "evolution of model" that McJannet is advocating is not in fact open source. He is, therefore, predicting an "OSS-free Silicon Valley" -- one way or the other. (I also think he's entirely wrong.)
I'd imagine it looks a lot like BUSL: source is available, and fine for use in non-competing ways, but using it to compete against the commercialisation efforts that pay for primary development is not allowed. Basically every successful open source company other than Red Hat at this point has the model in one way or another.
That sounds reasonable indeed. But competing against the commercialization efforts is just so vague. It’s also a huge turn off for enterprises, they are already afraid of the GPL, I think enterprises will not touch BUSL code.
It’s nice for self hosters perhaps. But I for one am always thinking about how I can commercialize my self hosting skills (and have been somewhat successful here and there).
Enterprises are afraid of the GPL for libraries or OSS stuff they’re running but not paying for.
If they’re paying for a service because they need it (not so they can resell or repackage it in some way), I don’t think they’re going to be so picky about the license. They pay for plenty of 100% closed and proprietary software after all. The benefit of OSS/SA licenses in that case is debugging, being able to contribute patches, and continuity if the vendor goes bust. For those purposes, having access to the source is what matters, not the particular license.
I don't know I'd agree that it's vague - the triggering conditions in BUSL are instance specific so each instance requires evaluation. The HashiCorp provisions are perfectly clear.
What I do wish is that all companies who have this kind of license would also have a clearly priced, clearly defined "pay us X and you can use the OSS bits under this commercial license instead" model, for exactly the reason you describe though.
I remember a similar read. I think it also helped that armies become more disciplined, could march longer (coffee was a stimulant vs. alcohol), also the workforce had fewer errors. Any chance that somebody knows the reference?
Depends on the definition of widespread use, but e.g. CockroachDB and YugabyteDB offer scaling of a subset of Postgresql features (and extending on the cluster capabilities).
Nevertheless, Citus is now a promising open source alternative.
reply