The big difference here is that by the time the 2080 had saturated the market, you could regularly find a 1080 for ~$300 (I paid $275 for an EVGA B-stock model).
Whereas today, with the 5000 series in the market for quite a while already, a 4080 is still well over MSRP
The whole UNIX certified thing is a bit odd to start with, but those addendums are really just saying that because the UNIX compliance tests are thoroughly stuck in the past, a bunch of security measures (that users expect to exist on modern systems) have to be disabled to run the test suite.
SIP is not some irrelevant detail, nor is it an obviously good "modern security practice". A system that the hardware owner cannot modify is not really on the same wavelength as traditional UNIX.
The hardware owner can modify it all they want, disable SIP. For a large swath of average and non-average users that will not be modifying the closed-source OS they're running, it is obviously good.
Traditional UNIX is does not mean having an open source core you're intended to tinker with. Traditional UNIX was entirely proprietary, connected with well-defined text-based interfaces. This is entirely orthogonal to user control and manipulation of the OS.
Also worth keeping in mind that macOS is intended for use with commercial third party software that’s repeatedly been proven untrustworthy, doing things like prodding system internals and installing dodgy kernel extensions where neither is warranted.
SIP is as much defense from the likes of Adobe and Google as it is from more traditional malware.
For now SIP can be disabled (on mac, not of course on iOS that is completely closed) but I wonder for how much. It's clear that the desire of Apple is to make macOS a closed system like iOS, installing third party software outside the AppStore is more and more difficult, with Gatekeeper that asks you to enter the system settings and warn about "potential insecure stuff" each time you want to run an application downloaded from the internet not signed by Apple (yes I know that if you disable SIP you can get rid of Gatekeeper as well).
I think that piece by piece Apple wants to go into direction of making macOS just a desktop version of iOS, that is closed and impossible to modify. They will use of course security as an excuse, the practical thing is that with iOS they succeeded because they went to the market with an OS that was already closed, but making users accept that in new version downloading a software from the internet and installing it it's no longer possible takes time. But they are getting there soon to me.
Traditional UNIX was entirely proprietary, with source you're intended to tinker with.
AT&T was forbidden by its consent decree from productizing Unix. Licensees received the source code, on an as-is basis, with no official support from AT&T.
Sure, but that just means UNIX vendors had access to the source code.
It doesn't mean end users had access to the source code.
In fact, vendors would have been prohibited from distributing AT&T source code to customers who weren't themselves AT&T licensees, just as CSRG was prohibited from distributing BSD to customers who weren't licensees before 4.4BSD-Lite.
The same goes for most other proprietary source-available products. For example, game developers can't open source Unreal Engine projects even though Unreal Engine source licenses are available to end users for free.
You would absolutely normally get source to the vast majority of the unix components with a unix install.
At a bare minimum, you would almost have to have source to the vast majority of the kernel because there was no kernel modules. Sysgenning for a particular system involved compiling the kernel for that set of hardware.
I'm literally working on an early sun system emulator right now, heavily assisted by the standard sec tape that came with the standard software distribution of sunos, which has plenty of AT&T code.
As jeremyjh wrote at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50032733 , "A system that the hardware owner cannot modify is not really on the same wavelength as traditional UNIX.". Since traditional Unix was source-available, with the expectation that people would hack on the source, I fully agree with jeremyjh's characterization.
I think you are talking about a later era in Unix history? The early Unix licensees were educational institutions and commercial sites, not vendors or resellers.
Every one of those academic and commercial end users got the source code.
> "In 1973, AT&T released Version 5 Unix and licensed it to educational institutions, and licensed 1975's Version 6 to companies for the first time, ... Anyone could purchase a license, but the terms were very restrictive; licensees only received the source code, on an as-is basis. ... Unix was entirely unsupported by AT&T"
From the same link, "Perkin-Elmer began distributing Wollongong Unix for Interdata as Perkin-Elmer Edition 7, the first version supported by a computer company". That was in 1980.
So while yes, "Traditional UNIX was entirely proprietary" and could not be redistributed to non-licensees, it was also provided with "full user control and manipulation of the OS", and not merely "connected with well-defined text-based interfaces", quoting jdiff at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50033080.
Sure, if by “you” you mean universities, Sun, DEC, IBM, etc.
As a non corporation end user with a sublicense from one of the above licensees (which is the apt analogy for an individual user in my opinion) you most certainly did not receive the source or have the rights to it.
I regard "traditional Unix" as the 1970s era. There were no sublicensees. You bought the source code from AT&T. That was the only option.
You then likely hacked the source code to make it work on your machine.
I can understand that others might include the commercialization of the 1980s and the Unix wars as part of "traditional Unix", but even then, my IRIX system ca. 1990 supported end-user kernel extensions, to handle new types of devices. Our imaging hardware was not "connected with well-defined text-based interfaces".
There's no way that would be legal to sell. The whole point of the sugar in jam is preservation - you may get away with it for a while in a home canning scenario, but really a jam with 5% sugar is not shelf stable, and needs to be stored under refrigeration (commercial low sugar jams have to add an additional preservative like potassium sorbate instead).
> Wool is a free by-product, sheep have to be sheared
One of the problem here is that while yes, you have to shear sheep raised for meat, the wool is going to be of an exceptionally low quality, because (a) you generally aren't raising a wool breed for meat, and (b) you aren't keeping your sheep in a manner that minimised damage to the wool.
We receive a fair bit of free by-product wool from meat herds, the processing cost is roughly double that of wool from a proper wool herd, and the end result is inferior.
The best use of by-product wool is often quality-insensitive bulk applications, like wool pellets for roof insulation, at which point there is very little money in the whole value chain
FWiW, in the actual sheep for wool trade there's still a high demand in China for ultrafine low micron merino wool for modern high end breathable suits. So:
> Then, everything closed and the only thing left was to send it to China.
really depends on the grade and quality of the wool - a lot is low grade rag fibre for stuffing and insulation, some (many tonnes per annum) is for quality tailoring.
> why? unless cloudflare's CEO is a friend of cloudflare people, so just want to financially them bail out...why acquire and kill?
Aquihiring is a time-tested strategy to build out a team. The Deno folks likely have a bunch of experience that Cloudflare is well placed to make use of
> Unless you dangle HEFTY stock options with incremental maturity dates
That is indeed how this whole thing works. I used to work with several folks who were kicking around FAANG for 4 years till their acquisition stock fully vested
When you consider how much time/money it takes to hire an experienced engineer, and how quickly they are liable to jump to the competition, acquiring an existing team of experienced engineers and tying them with the golden handcuffs is not a bad deal
If the talent wanted to work at Cloudflair, they'd apply there. Being acquired is a loss of agency and the project you care about is shut down. Several public research papers say retention is hard.
Which also leads to considerable questions about if the thing being shut down in the acquirehire was the real purpose and any momentum of the team itself moving to new projects a bonus.
that just means they might not be actively looking to join cloudflare but are willing to do it if the price is right. nothing wrong with that, it's how employment works for the most part. likewise retention in these cases is typically solved via golden handcuffs, another "the price is right" thing.
I guess we may be talking at cross purposes here - idiomatic usages of the pin macros don't really mean you need to understand whats going on here (beyond "async futures need to be pinned in order to repeatedly mutate them").
If you need to produce a type that interacts with Pin, it's a whole other level of hell.
Whereas today, with the 5000 series in the market for quite a while already, a 4080 is still well over MSRP
reply