OfCourseNot

It might not be written literally like that but for Microsoft not letting third party developers write kernel drivers for windows would be considered abusing their position in the market very fast. The problem isn’t they allow kernel drivers, this is just ms throwing all the balls they can, is that they certified this very driver, as tested and stable. Without this certification most IT teams would’ve been more reticent to install crowdstrike’s root kit in their systems.

Can confirm. I’ve crashed most Microsoft products from msdos 5.

Hard to say yet, if Microsoft is responsible or not. The thing is they certified it, as a stable and tested driver. But it isn’t just a driver, but an interpreter/loader that loads code at runtime and executes it. In kernel mode. If Microsoft knew this they’re definitely responsible for certifying it, but maybe crowdstrike hid this behavior until it was deployed to the customers.

‘He’s out of line but he’s right’. I mean, is a bit ironic to give this level of permission to a program that is too malware-like to protect yourself from exactly that. We’re talking about hospitals, airports and airlines, government agencies… many critical systems, so much information’s security rely on a (foreign for most of the world) private company.

I had an iPhone (4, don’t remember if it had usb tethering) but I didn’t even think of it. I think it was Debian 6 the one I was installing and there was one or two people with android phones…but whatever! Walking is healthy, isn’t it?

In the case of Debian I think it is philosophical. It’s been years since I’ve had to install proprietary things on Debian, but they used to be all in the non-free repository that you had to add manually. Honestly I like it, it reminds me I’m putting proprietary crap in the machine. Can be a pain in the ass when the wifi doesn’t work because some proprietary firmware is missing, and the laptop doesn’t have an Ethernet port so off you go to buy a usb-eth adaptor.

The man wouldn’t last an hour a minute working on an actual ranch.

PNG is a good format for graphics, lettering, logos… not photography so unless your video is some cartoons you’re using png compression for something is not meant for.

How so? Honest question, I can’t seem to find anything that is not super pro-corporations like the prohibition on modding consoles with tens of thousands dollar fines or even prison sentences…

Apple: ‘Mobile platform? Nah this is just a game console’ winks at Nintendo and Sony

No I didn’t, they might be everywhere but they aren’t very common (maybe in Italy…). I’ve seen the other small plagio truck (because that Ape is not a truck, barely a bit more than a scooter), but only a handful and it’s been like ten years since the last I saw, and they aren’t as small as these kei trucks (these are as long as a fiat 500).

Where exactly are these legal in Europe? I’ve never seen one, we have small-ish trucks (that get bigger every iteration) but not this tiny, that I know of. Pretty sure they’re not legal in my country at least.

Others had pointed the reasons, I wanted to add that you have to stop at the line, and if something obstructs your sight (at stop signs, not traffic lights) you have to go a bit forward and stop again.

Yeah and Google already has everything scrapped and indexed

They still have to provide fair upstream financial kickback imo

Then it’s not FOSS. I don’t see how it’s very different from Unity (for example) licensing model. So maybe a license like that can have a place, but not in the FOSS space and it will be definitely not compatible with any gpl.

I want to say that all this backdoor incident (s, not the first and certainly not the last) only shows how well the FOSS model works. Not only for catching it promptly before it even was released, but these attacks which require a good amount of skill and time, and therefore probably money, demonstrate that some bad actors are fearful of FOSS. Also I want to point that voluntary FOSS contributors are not exploited even if some big corp uses their software without paying anything, as long as they respect the freedoms they have to give to their users. Also many (maybe most idrk) contributions to FOSS aren’t made by volunteers, but through foundations/donations models paid professionals or companies putting developer time to them (I suspect this could be the case here with the guy from Microsoft that caught it).

Another user, toothbrush, has already posted a link to the 4 freedoms, I’d recommend reading that entire page for a most thorough explanation.

But basically your plan goes against three of them (assuming you’re going to release the source code, if you don’t your not granting any of them). Freedom 0 says you can use the software however you like, for any reason including for profit. You can charge the users but once you give them the (Free) software it’s completely theirs. Freedoms 2 and 3 state they can redistribute copies or distribute their modified version in any way they want provided that the give their users the same freedoms they were given.

No, there isn’t and there won’t be any since what your saying is absolutely against FOSS values. You are in non-commercial/commercial license territory, give a look at winrar’s/unity’s and the like, gpl is not for you.