On Arch, I think you could install a second "backup" copy of Arch Linux on a recovery partition that your motherboard firmware can boot into directly, and then use the `arch-chroot` program to recover your main OS. I'm sure something similar exists for other distros?

You can always do this on any distro, but not necessarily with the install wizard.

$800 was set out of desperation. CBP was overwhelmed and underfunded, so the executive increased the de minimis to significantly higher than any other country ti relive their workload. The proper solution would have been for Congress to increase funding to maintain a reasonable de minimis (many countries use around $50-200), but that wasn't happening.

Spot on. But humans aren't perfect.

So now we have to deploy a less than perfect solution. Doesn't make it wrong, its just flawed.

(The likely result looks like CBP problems from before are coming back, correct? Curious on your take - has demand shifted since the rules were set ?)

From talking to friends workings in imports and manufacturing, they expect what will happen is weeks or months of delay on most shipments as CBP is utterly unequipped to deal with the volume.

800 US $ is second highest, but not the highest limit around. Uzbekistan has a de minimis limit of 1000 US $ (yes, US $)

No, the argument for de minimis is that the cost to collect taxes on a $20 parcel is less than the collected tax.

Granted, the US' $800 de minimis, which was created because of a lack of funding to deal with the volume of shipping, was probably a bad decision in retrospect. But removing it entirely is another extreme.

The issue is that when the law was crafted, it wasn’t feasible for foreign companies to directly sell to consumers at scale.

The internet facilitated a direct to consumer model that allows foreign companies to almost completely bypass import taxes.

The $800 limit was set during the Obama administration, well after internet direct to consumer sales existed.

Yeah but the scale wasn’t apparent yet. Normal people didn’t commonly order firstly from Ali express in 2015.

If you look at the amount of de minimis goods shipped the year after the amount was raised vs today, they have increased over 10x.

Also the pre 2016 limit was $200, still low enough to allow the temu business model.

The EU generally has a de minimis limit of 150 EUR for custom duties but individual members levy sales tax from the first EUR onward. The USA could do the same. Of course, this would make things more expensive, too, but less so than sinking your trade boat through tariffs ;)

It applies to each parcel, not an entire shipping container. Note that a parcel can contain multiple physical boxes for a single order.

From the blog post it seems like existing users kept using Redis but new users adopted alternatives instead.

> it seems like existing users kept using Redis

Redis user since it appeared and I switched my servers (~15) to Valkey - partially because of the shenanigans, partially because Arch is moving Redis to archive.

In my current compagny (multibillions dollars kind of), most if not all redis has been replaced by valkey

Redis is a threat to the compagny and the licence change was taken very seriously, as all legal-related threat.

    > there are open legal questions about whether the GPL and its variants are enforceable.

At this point in history, there are multiple legal cases where GPL violators were taken to court and lost or settled. See: BusyBox and Linksys/OpenWrt.

GPL v3 also has a nice clause that allows companies to "repair/cure" their non-compliance.

    > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Red Hat also has a good blog post about their view of using the legal system to enforce compliance: https://www.redhat.com/ja/about/gplv3-enforcement-statement

your comment is logically defective

if that's your "good legal reason" to avoid the GPL, then it's just as much a "good legal reason" not to open source your work at all: if the GPL is not enforceable, that would mean you have used a non-copyleft license, which according to you is the thing you want to avoid for good legal reasons.

I didn't say you should avoid non-copyleft licenses? Indeed, all of my own OSS projects are non-copyleft.

loosely speaking:

you said "avoid gpl". reason? "unenforceable". eliminating gpl from consideration, thus you advocate non-copyleft licenses instead.

with me so far?

but gpl's "unenforceability" could only mean it turns into a non-copyleft license, one which you say one should not use, so if one shouldn't use gpl because in reality it is a non-copyleft license, then you must be against non-copyleft licenses.

just to state it again for clarity: "don't use gpl because copyleft is unenforceable so gpl is just MIT underneath, and I repeat, don't use it" is a recommendation not to use MIT license.

Please link to where I said not to use copyleft licenses. Check the usernames carefully.

Note that I don't agree that GPL and MIT are equivalent, or that GPL becomes a non-copyleft open source license if not enforceable. IANAL but it might revert to the regular copyright law for wherever you publish software, not an open source license.

just be honest, you don't like GPL. The reason you don't like GPL is not because it's not enforceable, but because you don't want to enforce it, or be subject to its strictures. Your argument that you use MIT because GPL is unenforceable makes no sense, as I pointed out.

(also, it is enforceable and has been enforced, but that's a separate topic.)

I make an open source, MIT licensed piece of software. I don't accept unsolicited contributions, but I document that people are free to fork the code and provide instructions on how to develop, test and build on your machine.

Am I "fake open source"?

In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted.

In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just going to ignore my contribution, pretend it doesn't exist, or reject it just because - then that codebase is just pretending to be open source.

That's not to say you are required to accept all contributions - I'm saying you should be open to contributions that A) save you time B) enhance the codebase or C) fix confirmed bugs.

In Microsoft's case - I don't see a lot of that going on. I see lots of Issues (bug reports), some PR's, but mostly opaque decision making, and complete silence on things the Corporate side of Microsoft doesn't want to comment on yet. Which is the beef - it's a corporate project run like it's proprietary but you can go look at the code. Again, better than nothing, but it's not really what I consider true open source.

> In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted.

I disagree. There's nothing about open source or the various open source licenses that require accepting engagement from the community and/or contributions.

Open source means allowing modifications, and sharing those modifications. It's in most licenses that the software is provided as is and without warranty.

> In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just going to ignore my contribution, pretend it doesn't exist, or reject it just because - then that codebase is just pretending to be open source.

A project not accepting outside contributions is still open source, not pretending to be, and the beauty of it is - if you want it to accept outside contributions, you are able to fork it and accept contributions on your own fork, or otherwise share your modifications. But there's absolutely no obligation of the original dev/owner to accept or engage with anything from the community. It's in the license, the software is provided as is and without warranty of any kind.

Maybe it's worthwhile to coin a new term, community software, to specifically make a distinction between projects that are community developed (accept contributions) vs those that don't.

Wow, that's stretching it a bit, isn't it?

I'd say the spirit of open source is that others are free to modify the code and that's it. This requires a good license, the possibility to fork, some documentation and a way to build the project yourself.

But why would accepting contributions be required?

A lot of people are very entitled. They think that an open-source project gives the right to make request/demand of the project. Even if they are willing to write the contribution themselves, they still think they have the right to have their pull request accepted. They forget that 1) it may be outside the scope of the project, and 2) the project owners are going to be the ones that have to actually maintain the code they commit. Crazy stuff.

I am 100% in agreement with your sentiment.

This blog post is legendary (in my mind): "Open Source Maintainers Owe You Nothing" -> https://mikemcquaid.com/open-source-maintainers-owe-you-noth...

It perfectly sums up how this conversation is going.

What if you want implement a feature, but they don't have time to look at it and make sure it's secure, or support future bugs? Look at the xz (IIRC) hack - not everyone has tons of free time.

How long after they release their code are the required to keep this up? Do they need to respond to your requests within 5 business days?

If they retire / move on to another project, does the source code stop being open source?

IMO, no. The open source definition says nothing about requiring outside contributions, and IMO the spirit of it in the beginning was never about that.

It was about being able to have access to, fork/modify, and redistribute the software. That's the important thing - that the software I use can be modified by me, and if I wish to do so, the license allows me to then redistribute those changes vs. proprietary software, which cannot be modified nor redistributed.

I'm not sure why the zeitgeist went from the above and turned into "all open source must be community software and engage with users and accept contributions" because that was never what it was about. It was a benefit of some projects, sure, but at the end of the day the important thing isn't whether or not the project accepts contributions but whether I have the power and license to modify something to my liking, fork it if I wash, and/or redistribute my changes.

No, but you've deliberately chosen to not make it free software.

Netscape Navigator was sold to consumers as boxed software at retail. IIRC it was around $60.

Note that tariff categories can be pretty tricky. For example, a board game might be imported as a toy (125%) or as a table or parlor game (20%). Both categories are valid choices, and it simply depends on which the importer specified on the paperwork.

Is your comment pro-SLURM or anti-SLURM?

I took a serious look at SLURM for my problem space and among my conclusions were:

- Hiring people who know Kubernetes is going to be far cheaper

- Kubernetes is gonna be way more compatible with popular o11y tooling

- SLURM's accounting is great if your billing model includes multiple government departments and universities each with their own grants and strict budgets, but is far more complex than needed by the typical tech company

- Writing a custom scheduler that outperforms kube-scheduler is far easier than dealing with SLURM in general

We're not for nor against Slurm. I do believe it has use cases in HPC, scientific and academic settings. We think our web UI is a bit easier to use and we do offer a competing scheduler.

Our focus is definitely more on container-first, cloud-native Kubernetes environments like EKS, GKE, AKS. Also we're way more health monitoring of the actual GPU hardware rather than just scheduling jobs.