- The E.U. making life difficult for U.S.-based monopolists, and the U.S. making life difficult for E.U.-based monopolists? For a net effect of life being difficult for all monopolists?
Well, that sounds like a wonderful idea!
I am all for it. Through this model, we might actually enjoy effective antitrust enforcement, and escape regulatory capture! Who would have thought that this day would ever come? Once again, it turns out I have been too cynical all my life.
- I wouldn't do a take-home unless they do an interview first, to signal they value my time and are acting in good faith. (HR people don't count).
Then, when they give me the take-home, I would ask how many other people are in the stage with me. If it's 20, with only one candidate getting hired, forget it. My expectation in such situations would be that they won't be able to trim the pipeline as much as they will need/want to by applying purely objective/rational criteria, and I'd end up getting rejected on grounds of "inability to mind-read subjective preferences".
- CachyOS and openSUSE have you covered with btrfs and snapper pre-configured to take snapshots before/after doing potentially damaging things (and, of course, you can make them manually, whenever the thought occurs to you that you're entering the "danger zone"). You can boot into a snapshot directly from the boatloader, then rollback if you need to.
Immutable distros just one-up that by trying to steer the system in a direction where it can work with a readonly rootfs in normal operation, and nudging you to take a snapshot before/after taking the rootfs from readonly to read-write. (openSUSE has you covered there as well, if that's your thing; it's called MicroOS).
Both of those distros use KDE by default, so the value-add of KDE having its own distribution is basically so they can have a "reference implementation" that will always have all the latest and greatest that KDE has to offer, and showcase to the rest of the Linux world, how they envision the integration should be done.
If I were to set up a library computer or a computer for my aging parents, I would choose openSUSE Leap Micro with KDE, as that would put the emphasis on stability instead.
- > [...] due to their strong nationalism.
The problem IMO is politics, not nationalism (which only enters into the politics indirectly). European integration is a half-done project. Political forces that want to finish the job get cancelled out by political forces that want to undo the progress we've already made with the net effect of nothing getting done in any direction, maintaining a status-quo that pretty much nobody wants, and nobody (nationalist or otherwise) ever wanted. And that status quo is that doing business in a pan-european way is a bureaucratic hellscape.
- A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds
https://peps.python.org/pep-0008/#a-foolish-consistency-is-t...
I wonder how a code formatting tool is going to implement that.
- Thanks a lot!
I have a section on my reading list for books that are available as e-books, but not as audiobooks, and that section just keeps growing ad infinitum. I seldom find the time to read, but I often have time for audiobooks, as I listen to them while driving, or doing household chores, etc.
So, when I saw your post, I immediately tried it out, and it works really well for my purposes.
One feature request: It would be awesome if there was a control for the speech rate.
- What jumps out at me is the paragraph: "Governance and leadership reforms." in the original letter sent by the government to the university.
The other stuff is hard to make sense of, but this part is crystal clear: The authoritarian government is asking the university to restructure itself along more authoritarian lines. ...essentially Trump wants continuity of reporting lines ultimately leading up to him, and going down to the individual faculty member, student, and foreign collaborating partner. That sort of thing could come in handy for all kinds of things in the future, not just the silly demands of the present.
- Services are ignored by Trump for precisely the reason you mention. The big question is: What will other countries do, like Germany, who tend to export goods to the U.S. but import services. Right now, those are the countries who would rather prevent this thing from escalating, but if escalation it must be and they run out of ammunition within the scope of tariffs on goods, where will they go next?
- Services aren't traditionally part of tariffs; tariffs apply only to physical stuff moving across borders.
That being said: I work in a services-oriented business right now "exporting" services to the U.S. and the leadership of that company is seemingly getting very worried, trying to diversify their customer base out of the U.S.
If, in the cycle of retaliatory action, they run out of ammunition with tariffs on stuff, who knows what other crazy ideas will come to the surface: Tariffs on services do come to mind, maybe restrictions around recognition/enforcement of foreign-owned intellectual property,...
- The place where my argument is coming from is that the MxN nature is pretty much inescapable.
> What kind of integration do you mean?
See? The "integration" is something you only notice when it breaks (or when you're working through LFS and BLFS in preparation for your computer science Ph.D.) -- This kind of work is currently being done pretty well, so it rarely breaks, so people think it doesn't even exist. Also notice that a linux distro is what's both on the outside and the inside of most containers. If debian stops doing integration work, no amount of containerization will save us.
So, what kind of breakage might there be? Well, my containerized desktop app isn't working. It crashed and told me to go look for details in the logfile. But the logfile is nowhere to be found. ...oh, of course. The logfile is inside the container. No problem, just "docker exec -ti /bin/bash" to go investigate. Ah, problem found. DBUS is not being shared properly with the host. Funny. Prior to containerization I never even had to know what DBUS was, because it just worked. Now it's causing trouble all the time. Okay, now just edit that config file. Oh, shoot. There's no vi. No problem, just "apt get install vi" inside the container. Oh "apt" is not working. Seems like this container is based on alpine. Now what was the command to install vi on alpine again? ...one day later. Hey, finally got my app to start. Now let's start doing some useful work. Just File|Open that document I need to work on. The document sits on my NAS that's mounted under "/mnt/mynas". Oh, it's not there. Seems like that's not being shared. That would have been too good to be true. Now how do I do that sharing? And how does it work exactly? If I change the IP address of my NAS and I remount it on the host, does the guest pick that up, or do I need to re-start the app? Does the guest just have a weak-reference to the mountpoint on the host? Or does it keep a copy of the old descriptor? ...damn. In 20 years of doing Linux, prior to containerization, I never needed to know any of this. ...that's the magic of "system integration". Distros did that kind of work so the rest of us didn't have to.
- In what I wrote above, I wasn't referring to NixOS or Guix. I was thinking of the other ones (SteamOS, Fedora Silverblue, OpenSuSE Aeon, Vanilla OS, etc.) -- In fact, I think it's a bit misleading to lump them together in the same category of "atomic" or "immutable". This term has come to mean way too many different things.
- I'll offer a less charitable framing of the whole topic of immutable / atomic distros: This is pretty much Linux distributors deciding they want to stop doing their job (or redefine what their job is to a much smaller scope). -- I'm not saying it's not justifiable that the ecosystem may need to be reshaped in that way. I'm just cautioning people from drinking the “this is the future and the future looks bright” Kool-Aid all too easily.
The job of making a Linux distribution has always been what, in an old-fashioned term, used to be called “system integration” work. They would start with a bewilderingly huge array of open-source packages, each being developed without any centralized standard or centralized control over what the system actually looks like. Then they would curate a collection of build recipes and patches for those packages.
The value a distro delivers for the user is that, for any package “foo” that their heart desires, a user can just say “apt install foo” and it'll “just work”. There will be default configuration and patches to make foo integrate perfectly with the rest of the system.
The value a distro delivers for package maintainers is: “Don't worry about the packaging. Just put your code out as open source, and we'll take care of the rest.”
The job of a distributor is extremely difficult, because of all the moving parts: People select their hardware, their packages, and they mess with the default configurations. It is no wonder at all that Linux distributions don't always succeed in their mission to truly deliver on this. But it's a huge engineering achievement that they work as well as they do, and I think we shouldn't lightly give up on that achievement.
What we have now is basically distros going: Awwwww. Fuck it. This is too hard. I'm done with this. You know what? Instead of “any package your heart desires”, you get a fixed set of packages. The ones that everyone needs regardless of what they actually do with their computer. Instead of being allowed to mess with your configuration, we'll make your rootfs read-only. (In the case of SteamOS): Instead of doing our best to make it work on your hardware, we'll tell you precisely which piece of hardware you'll need to buy if you want our software to run on it. User: Well, that's additional money I need to spend. And, how do I install my favourite app “foo”? The one I need to actually get useful work out of my computer? Distro: Don't worry, we've got you covered. We'll provide a runtime for distrobox and flatpaks. Package maintainer of “foo”: How do I get my package out in a way that perfectly integrates with distros? Distro: Make a container. Congratulations: This is additional work you have to do now, that you didn't have to do before. And about that idea of perfect integration: You can kiss that goodbye. User: I don't know. I'm also in favour of integration. Distro: That's alright. You can share and unshare stuff between containers and the host system. This, of course, is additional work you didn't have to do before. Less work for me, more work for everyone else. The future looks so bright.
- One problem I see with the current state of the IndieWeb having not yet "taken off" is the negative selection effect you get from having the corporate web in existence next to the IndieWeb. Back in the 90s you might write a website advertising your services as an accountant in Word, save as HTML, and upload that HTML to geocities or to webspace provided by your ISP. You can still do that today. The shocking difference is that back then it made actual business sense to do that: People would just stumble across your website. You could reach actual normies. Nowadays, because of the presence of the corporate web next to the Indie Web, the normies are trapped in the corporate web and the only eyeballs your website will attract will be the people who share in your own brand of weird. They might admire the "art" inherent in your crappy HTML, but they won't hire you as an accountant. And they're probably not strong enough in numbers for this to make any business sense.
- Reducing the dependency tree gets a bit more complicated once you consider that now you have to satisfy not only runtime dependencies for all packages but also build-time dependencies. There may be ways of cleaning that up after a build, but next time you want to emerge a new package you'll just end up having to re-build the build-time dependencies, so in practice you'll just end up leaving them there. There is an ability to emerge packages to a separate part of the filesystem tree (ROOT="/my/chroot" emerge bla), so that you have one build-time system act as a kind of incubator for a runtime system that gets to be minimal. But you'll end up encountering problems that most other Gentoo users wouldn't encounter, having to do with the separation between build-time dependencies and runtime dependencies not being correctly made in the recipes. Personally, I had been relying on this feature for roughly the last 10 years, but there has been steady deterioration there over the years and I eventually gave up late last year.
- I had had Gentoo continuously in use since 2003, and only very recently moved off of it (late 2024) when I tried Void Linux. On Void, buildability from source by end users is not a declared goal nor architectural feature, but you have a pretty decent chance of being able to make it work. You can expect one or two hiccups, but if you have decent all-round Linux experience, chances are you'll be able to jump into the build recipes, fix them, make everything work for what you need it to do, and contribute the fixes back upstream. This is what you get from a relentless focus on minimalism and avoiding overengineering of any kind. It's what I had been missing in Gentoo all those years. With Gentoo, I always ended up having to fiddle with use flags and package masks in ways that wouldn't be useful to other users. The build system is so complex that it had been just too difficult for me, over all these years, to properly learn it and learn to fix problems at the root cause level and contribute them upstream. Void should also be an ideal basis for when you don't want to build the entire system from source, but you just want to mix & match distro-provided binaries with packages you've built from source (possibly on the basis of a modified build recipe to better match your needs or your hardware).
- I 100% agree with you that a Stiftung like that (possibly with a for-profit company as a subsidiary) would be the right structure if you wanted to maximize credibility around your community-interest status.
This stuff actually gets a lot of attention from lawmakers: For example, in the U.K. you have the “CIC” (community interest company). Some 13 years ago, David Cameron tried pretty hard to motivate enthusiasm for the idea of a “third sector”, something that's not government and not for-profit. In the U.S. you also have the “L3C” (low-profit limited liability company). In Germany, you have the idea of “Verantwortungseigentum” which was on the agenda for the previous government, though they then didn't get around to it, and you had Sahra Wagenknecht making it into a big talking point for her campaign.
But I don't think a lack of legal infrastructure is really the limiting factor here: As you noticed, we do have foundations (Stiftung) of various types, as well as coops (Genossenschaft). In addition, regular partnerships (like KG, OG) have recently been opened up so that their bylaws can now prescribe a purpose that isn't for-profit. A club (Verein) which in and of itself isn't for-profit, can have a sort of dual identity because it can become the proprietor of a sole proprietorship with a for-profit purpose (at least I seem to recall reading that such a thing is possible). Oh, and, of course, a corporation can, in theory, own 100% of its own shares. I recall reading about that, just please don't ask me where. You can basically wipe out ownership that way, without being subject to the stringent rules around foundations.
So, legal structures are as powerful and flexible as they are underutilised: I think it's the psychological side that explains why.
Usually, even if you have very good intentions, your best bet initially is to start your entity as a for-profit. Being able to operate cheaply and without cumbersome decision-making structures beats lofty aspirations for any business that just gets started. Not turning a profit in a given year (and not paying taxes because you don't turn a profit), is an option you always have. (There's no special paperwork needed for that). In fact: Not having any profit to worry about when it comes to your structure is the likely outcome. Having a profit and trying to decide how to make it so that your profits won't corrupt you in your idealism is a problem you would quite like to have! (Again: From the perspective of a founder who is just getting started).
Then, the day comes where you turn a profit quite regularly. And, at that point, once the flywheel has got going, truly giving up control will be psychologically difficult.
- Okay, well it sounds like you're deeper in the rabbit hole than I am, then. (I also live in Germany and have a passing interest for the law, though I'm no lawyer).
Regarding your last paragraph, where you say that a foundation provides better insulation from founder control, it sounds to me like you answered your own question: Retention of control vs. insulation from control is precisely the distinction here.
Foundations are typically for people who don't have the option of retaining control, even if they wanted to, because they are typically close to death and in the process of structuring an inheritance. Handing over control to person X is something they see as a threat, because they assume that X will screw it up, so they'd rather make it so that no one can have control.
With social entrepreneurship like Ecosia, founders are typically still young and somewhat idealistic. They want to retain the control, because them being in control is not something they see as a threat. Rather that's what they see as the best possible mechanism for their company/cause retaining its idealistic values. (Also, they are looking for something meaningful to do with their lives).
A cynic might notice that you're kind of looking at regular narcissism vs. communal narcissism here.
If you wanted to structure your social entrepreneurship type business as a foundation which owns 100% of the shares in "your" for-profit corporation, that doesn't work as a "have your cake and eat it too" solution, because either that means that the trustees of the foundation are actually your boss and you're just a replaceable employee with replaceable employee wages or, if you try to pull any shenanigans to make it so that this is not the case, the trust loses its tax-free / "community interest" status. Trying to game this system is something that rich people are routinely trying to do. I'm not saying that some don't get away with it, but the authorities generally have a lot of tools at their disposal to fight this sort of thing.
- They have a brief paragraph here [1] that indicates they considered these and decided against it: "The team considered several alternative ownership solutions to address these questions, including converting the business to a German non-profit and establishing a foundation. Both of these solutions had constraints, though, and neither offered the mixture of entrepreneurial flexibility and structure security they sought."
Stiftung (Foundation) generally work well if you have a bunch of money and you basically have a fixed "algorithm" that you want to execute around the money like: "Invest it all into an index fund, and in any year in which the fund returns a profit, pay out the profits to the family members of person X in the same ratios that would apply if those people came into X's inheritance". You then appoint a bunch of lawyers to serve as the board of the foundation. Because the "algorithm" is so precisely defined, the set of circumstances where the lawyers do their job wrong will be well-defined, and will constitute a breach in their fiduciary duty. There's basically no room for making entrepreneurial decisions along the way. It's a bit like taking a pile of money, putting it on a ship, putting the ship on autopilot, and giving up any and all direct control of the ship. Depending on what precisely that "algorithm" actually is, this might get you tax advantages. Or it might create non-financial positive outcomes you might be trying to achieve like making sure that your progeny will continue to enjoy the wealth you created for many generations to come while limiting the probability that any one generation can screw it all up for the later generations.
Social entrepreneurship is different from that: A social entrepreneur wants the goodwill and favourable tax treatment that comes from giving up their claim to ownership of the money generated by the business (this is what the gGmbH status does; it's a bit like 501(c)3 in the U.S.) -- But they want to retain control over the business. They want to make entrepreneurial decisions as they go, changing strategies along the way in whatever way they please, without restricting themselves too much to the execution of any predefined programme.
- FWIW: They have provisions in their bylaws (which can only be changed with the assent of their public interest asset-locked shareholder) that restrict salaries to a level that's commonplace in the industry specifically in Germany. In Germany, software engineers and managers tend to make a lot less than they do in the U.S., certainly not an amount of money that's a meaningful tradeoff for giving up rights to dividends and other distributions.
- I looked up the bylaws just now (mostly because I'm procrastinating). It looks like they have a gGmbH that owns 99% of the shares (by number of shares), but founders retain 99% of the voting rights. Founders' shares are barred from receiving dividends, and the gGmbH has veto rights in relation to any certain changes that would fundmentally alter this ownership structure.
- Does anybody happen to have a pointer to further research this "Steward Owned company" legal structure? Since they're based in Germany, I assume this is a translation of a German legal term of sorts, but I couldn't find the original or anything that would let me learn more about it.
The quote is usually delivered as a punchline of sorts, but we're rapidly approaching a world where there truly will be only five computers. If you define a computer as a system capable of truly general purpose computing, and if you count the computers as systems each capable of operating truly independently of the others. The term "general purpose" needs the further qualification, that a great deal of power and political capital will be needed to have any say in what purpose one of these five computers will be put to, and it will then be forced on the other people who are forced to work with that computer.