The inertia of large enterprises makes Oracle largely immune to perceived bullying or negative reputation. While the "boots on the ground" developers may be displeased with how Oracle increases friction, project managers and directors are happy to continue renewing their contracts in order to keep their systems "supported."
Oracle are shrugging their shoulders all the way to the bank.
> The inertia of large enterprises makes Oracle largely immune to perceived bullying or negative reputation.
The inertia of current large enterprises using Oracle sure, if the cost to move from Oracle is very large then they'll accept the risk if they even consider it.
Not so sure that applies to new customers though, they won't hemorrhage customers but they could see a slow gradual decline as the odd large enterprise folds, moves to something else etc.
I think if Microsoft continues down the path it appears to have really committed to the potential for .NET (Core) to go toe to toe on Java on none-microsoft platforms is there.
I certainly think that is the intention (along with making Azure a more attractive platform).
Millenials don't want to pay for software tools so Microsoft needs to take .NET to where they are, free OSes and compilers, so that they can earn them back in Azure with *BSD and GNU/Linux VMs.
It would be really cool if Github let users know when they are about to do something that is almost certainly a horrible mistake. However, is it their responsibility to stop them? I hope not. They provide a service that does exactly what it says on the box. Github shouldn't be obligated to prevent people from committing files that are otherwise valid and legal.
A better question would be: Could Github be successfully found liable for other users leaving their own keys in a public repository?
Would it be alright, then, if it said, "WebM for Black People?"
It isn't important to quibble over what words we consider offensive in the past, present, or future. The real problem is speaking about a classification of human being as being less than fully human or using those classifications as shortcuts for "inferior."
A person with darker skin is no less human than one with lighter skin. Similarly, two people with differing sets of abilities are both also fully human. Just because someone else is made of slightly different stuff doesn't make those differences fair game for ridicule.
Normally, I don't argue with people on the internet. Tonight, I'm bored and I'm making an exception.
That being said, this isn't an argument about how we should treat people. This is an argument over whether we should be allowed to say what we wish and let others react how they will. If people don't want to use this individual's code because of his questionable mentality, let that be their choice. Instead we're now papering over it and making him perhaps look nicer than he is.
Would you also like to halt publication of Mein Kampf? It's available in bookstores near you, and I assure you there are many people who are offended by its content, myself included.
Shall we reword the sections of the Bible chastising homosexual behavior?
While I did not speak to censorship, nor did you in the comment I replied to, I do agree that blanket censorship is not good for anyone. That does not mean that casual discriminatory speech shouldn't be considered foul in general.
Insert bit here about it not being illegal or immoral to police discriminatory speech on a private service.
Say whatever you like. Do it on your own resources. And when you run a server, boot off whoever you like for acting against whatever standards or lack of standards you choose to have. And if you run a bookstore, you're welcome to carry or not carry whatever books you like.
GitHub is not the center of the world. They are not establishing law. You can publish Mein Kampf if everyone else decides not to. You can edit the bible if you wish.
Or you can try to foster the development of a professional community by taking steps to prohibit needlessly offensive language.
You can publish whatever you like on your personal website and link to it from anywhere. I don't see how this is an over-reach of censorship.
It's not, and this isn't a big deal. I agree. But I'm bored and I hate seeing people censored over little things, drops in an ocean, so I'm sharing my opinion, which is that this doesn't accomplish anything useful in any way.
Some ( many! ) years ago there was a popular how-to entitled something like 'Kerberos for Imbeciles' which I had to save to disk and edit to retitle before printing it in work.
It was a useful guide but several people were offended by the original title.
You are absolutely right guys, I tried to communicate with the popup provider to fix the issue that causes it to display twice, they failed to do that, and I'll replace the provider soon. Thank you.
Agree with this sentiment. A popup asking me to subscribe before I read the article, and another when my mouse left focus towards the top of the page (headed to the back button).
I think a very positive change for HN would be to vote down meta-comments about article design/ads/fonts/pop-ups.
I don't see how they add any substance to the discussion. We all got the same pop-up, we all find it annoying. Voting it up to the top of every HN discussion is not likely to change it. Who even knows if the author will ever see this thread.
The topic of this post is whether Google can listen to, and presumably record, our conversations with little to no warning. To me that seems more worth a discussion than yet another pop-up email form.
> A reader emailed to complain about how this and other HN discussions often become derailed by off-topic carping about blog design. I agree completely. Could there be a more classic form of bikeshedding? It would seem parodic if it weren't sadly real. This has become more of a thing on HN lately. It needs to become less of a thing.
> I don't mean to pick on you personally, or just on this one comment. (Your second sentence alone, by the way, would have been a helpful contribution.) The problem is the tedious stampedes such comments spawn.
I agree. I used to make those comments. I've tried to cut it down.
I generally agree with you. My comment did not add to the discussion meaningfully, and I apologize for that.
I chose to comment because the author of the linked post and the HN submitter are the same person; my reaction came directly from this association. All the same, the remark doesn't belong on HN.
Also the guy just read the story that was previous on HN how that was discovered in Debian https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9724409 (but it doesn't affect them) and made a post about it. 1000 thumbs down for him.
I always struggle with this. On the one hand, advertising used iPhones after searching for "used iPhone" is the most relevant of relevant advertising. It presents information that's actually interesting and useful. If we are sitting around acknowledging that we're hitching our wagons to ad revenue, this is what everybody wants.
On the other hand, those ads might be burying a search result that offers a better, cheaper, or more reputable place to buy that used iPhone. This is a win for the advertiser since the game is influencing behavior, but that consumer might kick themselves for missing a better alternative because the ads were in the way. This reality subverts the ideal mission of an Internet search engine: to return the most relevant and interesting result first. It's not as if Google hasn't been working hard since its inception to improve this, too.
Disclosure: I work for a company that makes (almost) all of its money from ad sales.
Exactly. If you want so badly to bring your services to those markets, why not just bring your services to those markets? Why not challenge the inherently monopolistic nature of cable franchise agreements in court? Why not prove to your market that you are a superior competitor?
This is a very interesting redesign, and it shocks me that they chose to do it. On the one hand, this update is beautiful with a tasteful front page and familiar-yet-fresh documentation pages. On the other hand, the old design was also fantastic.
Despite kicking around for just under 10 years, the old Django look never felt old, ugly, or clunky. It had a clean, thoughtful layout with good color contrast and an unmistakable Django identity. To me, it never gained the "cruft" that similarly-aged designs seem to take on. It always felt modern.
Loving the new design, but I would have never guessed that there were plans to ditch the old one.
I'd personally disagree, if only because the actual text space columns were so thin that it made everything I was reading feel very, very busy. It took me weeks to get comfortable regularly going to their documentation instead of looking at SE, even though their documentation was very, very good.
Oracle are shrugging their shoulders all the way to the bank.