Offline syncing of outlook could reveal a lot of emails that would otherwise be on a foreign server. A lot of people save copies of documents locally as well.

Most enterprises have fully encrypted workstations, when they don't use VM where the desktop is just a thin client that doesn't store any data. So there should be really nothing of interest in the office itself.

French has a password disclosure law.

Even if you seize the workstation and obtain the password, the files are unlikely to be stored locally.

Wow, what is the context for all of these spam PRs?

Tldw: a popular YouTube video on “how to open a PR on GitHub” by an Indian channel (targeting Indian audiences) showed how to add their name to a PR step by step. The rest is just the scale of the Indian population in action. I hope the maintainers of expressjs can rest easy

Advise from low-quality bootcamp-like training programs that encourage open-source contribution, providing low-quality examples of such contribution, in order to improve one's resume and career chances.

This particular issue really hits a nerve.

Consumers _do not care_ if it is the firmware or Windows.

Dell was one of the earlier brands, and biggest, to suffer these standby problems. Dell has blamed MS and MS has blamed Dell, and neither has been in any hurry to resolve the issues.

I still can't put my laptop in my backpack without shutting it down, and as a hybrid worker, having to tear down and spin up my application context every other day is not productive.

Yeah I hear you. One of the reasons I’m still inclined towards Mac laptops for “daily drivers” is precisely because it’s disruptive to have to do a full shutdown that obliterates my whole workspace. Other manufacturers can be fine for single-use machines (e.g. a study laptop that only ever has Anki and maybe a browser and music app open), but every step beyond that brings increased friction.

Maybe the most tragic part is that this drags down Linux and plagues it with these hardware rooted sleep issues too.

That's a great analogy, but could be taken one step further. Because Adobe would also have to rename the rest of their products to come close to what MS is doing.

  - Adobe Neural Filter Acrobat
  - Adobe Neural Filter App (previously photoshop)
  - Adobe Neural Filter Illustrator
  - Adobe 720 Neural Filter app
  - etc.

By the way, why is app lowercase in "the Microsoft 365 Copilot app"? Is it not part of the trademark but even they couldn't deal with how confusing that was?

'app' isnt part of that trademark, but on other products (Windows App) it is.

Searching the store or a company portal for one of these rebraned apps returns dozens of hits because 'windows', 'copilot', '365' and 'app' are all common words in most application descriptions.

I know Java has a complicated history of ownership, but I'm not sure I understand why Oracle is able to block contributions to OpenJDK. I thought the point of OpenJDK was to be separate from Oracle. I'm not a Java developer, just curious how this works.

It's still their project and the Oracle Contributor Agreement means they get to asset joint ownership of your contributions.

That's broadly the point of CLAs, but for a beefy project like OpenJDK with so much shared code baked deep into enterprise deployment, Oracle will feel it's critical they can pull freely given code into the depths of their closed Java builds.

It's their project. It does absolutely block contributions (employers are unhappy sacrificing their engineering output to Oracle). If you don't like it, fork it.

Not really. OpenJDK is exactly what OpenJDK is, and there are plenty of builds provided by other vendors who have nothing to do with Oracle. All Oracle "owning" it really means is that they basically have unilateral ability to make changes to Java[1], where said changes will be reflected in their official binary releases. And they charge for their releases (and have some auditing / licensing terms which many find off-putting) which is only important if it's really important for you to use an Official Oracle Build for some reason, as opposed to Eclipse Temurin, Amazon Corretto, BellSoft Liberica, Red Hat's build, etc.

Personally I just use the OpenJDK builds provided by my linux distro and never give it a second thought.

[1]: And so far, Oracle haven't shown much, if any, propensity for abusing their control of Java. There's a process and they seem to mostly stick to it.

Dude, Oracle controls who can contribute. I don't understand how you can say it has nothing to do with Oracle.

Well, kind of.

Oracle might only accept upstream contributions but OpenJDK is GPL2, so anyone can host their fork of OpenJDK with whatever GPL2-licensed patches they like, regardless of the OCA/CLA being signed. Indeed there are enough distributions of OpenJDK that there's a site for picking which is best for you. I can't really speak to how current that information is, or how good it is, but it exists: https://whichjdk.com/

But yes, you might be right to be suspect of Java as a whole if this is how they treat contributors.

It's worth noting that many larger open source projects have contributor agreements to strengthen their rights for redistribution that a standard license might not cover. What if they want to change the license? They don't want to be hamstrung by a million contributions. Moral rights are something you often see. And severability might also be a concern. Some like the OCA are worse than others. The Python one is pretty good because it limits any future relicensing to open source. https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/

OpenJDK is the "default" implementation of Java and it's maintained by Oracle. Beyond that, there exists at least OpenJ9, which is a completely independent implementation, maintained by Eclipse Foundation.

Isn't OpenJ9 "just" the VM and not the class library? Also it's IBM-backed so it's more a case of pick your poison there.

Corporations love open source when it delivers working code to their doorstep. They hate open source when it comes to actually maintaining and managing a community of developers who really do care about and use the core product.

So they create draconian "agreements" and "codes" to tilt the playing field entirely in their favor. It's entirely antithetical to the whole idea of open source.

These projects should be ruthlessly forked and all corporate development efforts ignored.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure why you're aggrieved here.

There's absolutely nothing in the "idea of Open Source" that suggests upstream has to accept contributions. Open Source allows you to tinker with the code, not force your changes on others.

Equally you are welcome to not sign anything you font want to sign. There are reasons for those docs, there are reasons to not sign them. It's completely your choice.

And of course you are free to fork anything anytime you like. You're even free to encourage others. So no beef there.

I presume you have at least followed your in principles here? I'm guessing you have forked Linux, and your browser, and your favorite language? And office suite? Posting links here would likely attract others who object to corporate development joining you.

> that suggests upstream has to accept contributions

Which is why I said they should be forked. There's nothing that suggests "upstream" has any actual significance.

> I presume you have at least followed your in principles here?

Yes. Thanks for asking. I appreciate questions in good faith.

> I'm guessing you have forked Linux, and your browser, and your favorite language?

Hmm.. do I have to sign an agreement to contribute to those? I'm not sure I have. Is this actually comparable?

> Posting links here would likely attract others who object to corporate development joining you.

That's sweet of you.

> These projects should be ruthlessly forked and all corporate development efforts ignored.

Please do and show that it can be sustainable. It’s easy to complain at home. It’s hard to actually keep it going.

> You're mad at me for razzing a corporation in the name of open source?

No, just that you're just complaining for the sake of it.

> I'm glad I left when I did.

How were you able to read and reply?

Where does oracle block contributions?

This was more of an unfortunate lack of attention/prioritization.

Don't assume malice where a simpler explanation exists.

I assumed nothing.

This is very common in all open source projects, not just Java/Oracle.

It's not common for a random company to gatekeep contributions to a community project, and OpenJDK brands itself as a community project that's more or less independent from Oracle.

Water levels have been down for years as-is. It may not seem like much now, but I think it's important to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" scenario in the future.

Greed implies excessive accumulation of wealth. Based on the public statements, they are laying people off because they cannot afford to keep paying them while keeping the project afloat. It doesn't seem like greed is a factor here.

AI putting people out of work is a very real issue, and it is discussed on HN quite often. Here we have a very real example of it (apparently) and the reaction is vitriolic, but not against the AI processes, but the creators who are losing their work.

There definitely is greed involved. But the other way around

A quick google search indicates the average tenure of a CEO is ~7 years.

I wonder if there should be a c) There is a lack of meaningful planning beyond the current status quo.

I'm excited for this, but I'm not looking forward to yet another round of refactoring for all of the linters, formatters, bundlers, etc. I still haven't fully migrated every project I maintain to eslint 9.

I'm unfamiliar with all the changes coming soon. What would you need to refactor?

I don't know, hopefully not much! Just reading the article about IDEs using one version of typescript and builds using another, along with some incompatibilities. It raises concerns there will be some hiccups with various dev tools.

Migrated to what? Rust, or Go? Or Rust and Go?

Have to constantly remind others (and myself!) at work that "we aren't focusing on that right now, that's not what this conversation is about". Technical minded people seem to have a real problem of missing the forest for the trees.