They could (and should, and clearly don’t) architect the services like this internally. There will always be some single-points-of-failure, but minimizing those should be a top priority. Just from reading their status updates it’s clear most everything is sharing way too much in terms of infrastructure and configuration.
But even this requires someone high up in the organization to have the insight that reliability requires some level of “inefficiency” — ie retaining certain highly paid staff, duplication of effort, over provisioning of resources, etc.
The irony is that the execs who could make those decisions are convinced that LLM tools obviate those needs, and shift all spare resources in that direction. But without heavy constraints from experienced humans, LLM tools will only multiply the complexity at the root cause of these sorts of outages.
Linux itself has always been GPL licensed. It's the license switch that I have a problem with, not GPL itself. Switching from a permissive license to one less so, just so others would stop using it in their MIT-licensed projects.
I agree that you shouldn't rule out devices that don't have official support for Linux. And it's amazing that the community brings it to some many devices.
But if you already know at purchase that you'll install Linux on the device, you might as well prefer those with official support rather than just a community port, simply to show support for companies that agree with your priorities.
Also you should inform yourself beforehand. Don't just buy random hardware and then make the surprised pikachu face when it happens not to support Linux.
Uhh, this ethos of “can I make Linux work on this hardware” has been a huge driving force of Linux’s success. This sort of effort is deeply embedded in the culture and always has been.
Apple makes very high-quality hardware, and unlocking the full capability of that hardware via strong Linux support is absolutely a noble cause. Rather than giving in to corporate lockdown, the Asahi folks are gifting the world a way to take advantage of this new lineage of Apple Silicon based personal computers.
In 10 years when Apple has long abandoned support for the M1, M2, etc, that hardware will still be able to run strong thanks to the efforts of this team. I salute them.
They’re switching to GPL and you think that’s anti-open source? MIT has basically zero restrictions and assumes a good-faith collaboration environment. GPL is more realistic about the motives of much of the tech world, and in practice is much more encouraging of collaborative, open, and free software development. Kudos to them on making the switch.
No, I am saying the maintainers are saying they're mad that people are using AI to extend Asahi, and in response they are switching to GPL.
Normally you do something in response that would solve your perceived problem. In this case, it seems to be a random unrelated action they've taken to the problem they identified.
You are pattern matching on the "AI" part and reacting to it, but I think you should re-read the original post. The main thing seems to be some people taking this code and then reusing it without attribution (and, incidentally, trying to use AI to obfuscate this fact)
I guess they picked a license that didn’t require attribution and then decided “actually this sucks” and are changing their judgement downstream of that
Sure, they can change their mind. But it’s childish to call that “exploit[ing] our permissive licensing to hijack our work” or to call the people who took the license at it’s word “bad faith actors”.
Once you choose a license you just cannot get mad at people who read the license and then do what it says.
the term "bad faith actors" exists for cases where people use the text of the license rather than the spirit of the license. It's _for_ when people are doing things that one might describe as anti-social! Very subjective, of course.
The cynical argument is that the spirit of the MIT license was kicking in, but most people would prefer for the spirit of the MIT license to not be like the way it is.
Here I think the Asahi Linux team came to some realization of this variety and made a change. I don't think there's much to argue over here.
They didn't even name the people in the announcement! This is fairly muted when it comes to re-licensing announcements.
Perhaps childish is right, but... hey, they are within their rights to re-license.
Uh, no, there is just the text. A license is a contract, and its terms are spelled out in black and white. There is no hidden subtext or “spirit” that you can hold anyone to.
I’m not saying that the GPL is a bad choice, or that they shouldn’t switch. I actually prefer for software to use the GPL over the MIT license!
But it is wrong to complain when someone sees your license and takes advantage of it. The whole point of a copyleft license is to give people extra advantages for using your software, so calling anyone who relies on those advantages a “bad faith actor” is pretty outrageous. In fact I think it is Asahi Linux who are acting in bad faith now.
I don't think they were "extending" Asahi, they were trying to hijack the project by making a new fork unrelated to their work, that's not the same, GPLv2 would force people to give attribution and not able to at least take the code without doing anything else for it, as you'd need to also have your own forks open source, that's more restrictive than MIT
Yes, but aside from the trademark issue (the fork cant call itself Asahi), GPL is 100% on board with letting you fork. It's on the tin, part of the freedoms it guarantees.
Do you boycott every company with a CEO that you don't agree with politically? Musk is much more open about it than others but you'll find that most of them are fine with screwing over everyone for their own (personal+company) benefit. For example, pretty much every major ICE automaker lobbies against EVs, including ones that sell EVs. Most people would be better off with an EV. They don't need to be expensive (see BYD) and the charging situation would improve with higher adoption rates.
Yeah, why worry about the politics you’re supporting with your money? Presumably you believe you aren’t a likely target for the hate and violence Musk spends that money you gave him advocating for. Must be nice not to have to worry about your or your family’s personal safety or emotional well-being. Thanks for the advice about “getting wound up” over politics.
It's surprising how out of the loop people are if you don't think a new Tesla is a political signal. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but there is a lot of doubt immediately if I see they have a cybertruck. And if you think that's the rough in the US I assure you in Europe they are likely to think even less of an owner.
Eh, if everything is a political signal then nothing really is. If anything, I find it more problematic that there are people who explicitly think that way. Frankly, that way madness lies. I don't even even drive a Tesla, but that is based purely on its anti-customer-features, reliability and so on.
As for Europe, it is possible. I have not visited in a while so I will take your word for it.
Yes, but there was no TLS cert issued that had these intermediate certs in its chain of trust at all anywhere. So why are they a CA if they don't issue any certs?
As far as I know, to become a CA, with the requirements and ceremonies involved, this type of mistake must never happen. Assuming malice instead of ignorance is reasonable here. The entire premise of a CA, is trust.
There are a lot of CAs that are essentially grandfathered into root programs (and there’s no “one” root program, every OS and verifier gets to choose their own inclusion policies). They might need to jump through hoops to stay in any given program, but being there in the first place is not a strong indicator of quality.
But even this requires someone high up in the organization to have the insight that reliability requires some level of “inefficiency” — ie retaining certain highly paid staff, duplication of effort, over provisioning of resources, etc.
The irony is that the execs who could make those decisions are convinced that LLM tools obviate those needs, and shift all spare resources in that direction. But without heavy constraints from experienced humans, LLM tools will only multiply the complexity at the root cause of these sorts of outages.
reply