> not-particularly-reasonable assumption that Apple would want to own a fab, and the wildly unreasonable assumption that they would accept any outside customers for the fab
Isn’t running a fab only while it makes top of the line chips a bad idea because you can still make good money from it in later years?
If so, I think they, _if_ they ever want to own a fab (unlikely, IMO), they’ll want to accept outside customers for it when it has stopped being best-in-the-world.
“the programmer himself had a very modest view of his own work: his work derived all its significance from the existence of that wonderful machine. Because that was a unique machine, he knew only too well that his programs had only local significance and also, because it was patently obvious that this machine would have a limited lifetime, he knew that very little of his work would have a lasting value”
I think technical debt started to be somewhat of an issue somewhere in the early 1970s, maybe a few years earlier.
> I was once told that the tab key can be represented in different ways on different systems, and that's why spaces are safer because they're always represented the same.
The main counter argument is that users have different preferences for the amount of indentation, so giving them control over that, just as they (nowadays) have control over the font used and window width, is a good idea.
The tongue-in-cheek counter argument is that fixed-width spaces are preferable over ‘normal’ spaces. They also give you more control over indentation, allowing, for example, mixing usage of THREE-PER-EM SPACE (https://unicode-explorer.com/c/2004) for indentation with FIGURE SPACE (https://unicode-explorer.com/c/2007) for right-aligning numbers.
And? If you mount a Unix file system on another system, you may see ‘invisible’ fuels whose name starts with a period, may even see weird files named “.” or “..”, may not see ACLs, and may not see any file attributes such as user and group information.
In 1970 it already was not true that one could treat all filesystems the way Unix did, but it certainly isn’t true anymore today.
Because the archive created by tar is capable of preserving file information and directory structure, tar is commonly used for performing full and incremental backups of disks”
And yes, that same page also says:
“You can create an archive on one system, transfer it to another system, and extract the contents there. This allows you to transport a group of files from one system to another.”
> You can't have this problem if your packaging system pulls in a specific portable `tar` library.
You can’t pull in specific portable stuff all the way down (not even when running in Docker or a VM), so that will decrease the risk, but it cannot completely remove it. As an example, I think GNU tar will happily include .DS_Store files in archives.
> What people realy want: as little OS as possible to let them run just the things on their computer they want to run.
Citation needed. “As little OS as possible” would mean not having a standard clipboard, not having a standard way to install fonts, etc.
Even interpreting that as “all the functionality, but limit applications to utilities for managing the hardware”, I think there people who want that, but I doubt that’s what people, in general, want. Having to choose (and, likely, pay for) a photo manager, a simple word processor, etc. is just too much of a hassle for many.
Also, why would any commercial entity develop such an OS? The margin is in the
The margin is in the exact place where players on the market left it. With macOS being free but paid by expensive hardware, and Windows having practiced hiding in OEM to be popular rather than to bring money, expectations have been set. It's entirely these companies' doing, not an immutable reality that's impossible to overcome.
I will not stop using a demanding tone for my expectations towards companies which can't deliver on them, because they shat their bed years ago and have to now deal with that. The fact that your uncompetitive practices caught up with you does not constitute a reason for me to shed a tear for you and to tap over your shoulder in sympathy.
There is a huge difference between having a text editor included and running it by default on startup to pretend fast launches.
And then there is the whole world of nearly impossible to avoid 'services' you realy do not want but will keep popping up regardless of your wishes ('Telemetry', Onedrive, Copilot, Edge, Recall, Bing adds in the start menu ffs...).
Let us also not forget being forced into a Microsoft account against your wishes ... does it still feel like it's your computer?
Isn’t running a fab only while it makes top of the line chips a bad idea because you can still make good money from it in later years?
If so, I think they, _if_ they ever want to own a fab (unlikely, IMO), they’ll want to accept outside customers for it when it has stopped being best-in-the-world.
reply