You can stop reading when you find the answers to the requested questions.

Eh no not necessarily. This depends on the type of audit and the questions specifically, but should never be a default stance if you want to provide a full report. Moreover, if you are learning to do software audits, it would be beneficial to check everything because experience is key to know what you are looking for

WASM is great and as it becomes more accessible it will likely take over more and more

OPs meme is just a sign of someone not understanding the softer parts around development. The meme also seems to forget that we tried java in the browser for two decades and it was just… Horrible from all perspectives, in all layers

Not op but yes, I actually do. Dev for about 20 years, and the vast majority showing vim/emacs struggle when presenting. Could be presentation jitters ofc but the answer to:

You think thousands of developers are handicapping themselves for bragging rights?

Yes, yes I do. Thousands is not all, but they are definitively in the thousands

You are talking about synonyms here, and its highly subjective. The above poster has some good points with the more clear verbs but this whole end of the flow would work just as well as well with a “yes, I’m sure” and “no” instead of cancel

I find the amount of engineers who have built an “alternative to google on their spare time” truly fascinating. Because if you think that is possible, IMO, you have no idea what Google actually built.

Its just not a search engine, and also, as a search engine, it stopped being a good model to follow a decade ago.

Build on the ideas and build something new instead

I think you might have a point there. I for one was not aware of the gay frog situation before that whole drama and I’m grateful it was brought to my attention

I personally think it’s a bit of a fallacy to equal structure with less creativity.

Look at Calatrava https://duckduckgo.com/?q=calatrava&t=fpas&iax=images&ia=images

Further, you can’t design something like the Burj Khalifa without creativity

Maybe the line goes where you are risking peoples life or not, maybe somewhere else. It still makes me sad that you equal programming with chaos. But that is very context driven. The drive for new software, new interfaces, new tech overall naturally breeds less oversight and less structure naturally ofc. But it doesn’t have to be that way, nor should it be if you ask me

Your notion of an engineer is correct in a wide sense

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer

The fact that you feel programming is not that makes me sad. But likely dependent on what software and what you work with. For example, if you build software for NASA or Baxter and dialysis machines and the likes, you’ll get fired fast for not being structured. Working for Elon Musk and Twitter… Well…

This article talks about galaxy formations and stars bursting, curious how you jump to “life” from that?

This looks like javascript so let me guess the typescript definition

any|unknown

this is a joke, please chill

Here is one of the programmers who is quantum ready as well

Alright, thanks. Sounds like the existing fields could have been leveraged for that tbh, seems given that the newer field would be overused/misused

Oh, missed the plural, sorry about that. But is that one the same as “Album artists” or yet another one then?

I agree with most of your points but the artist tag in ID3 tags existed way before streaming music services was a thing. Hell it existed in versions.

So what’s that about?

It isn’t more generic than its the same IDE but with presets and plugins loaded already. Thats the point, sorry if that was unclear.

Could have been funny if you weren’t comparing their generic plugin based IDE with one of the pre-set, python ones. The descriptions are fine.

This also ironically highlights exactly the horrors and the business model of the intellij IDEs but that’s a rant for another day

But I never used a royal “We”, in fact “we” was never used in my text at all. I used us, to refer to all the other comments that you can note does not agree with your assessment of open source.

Instead of you arguing my “cheap rhetorical skills”, how about you actually answer more than, estimated, a fifth of my statements? How about you stop with your own victimization of " what really hurts me". Because that, in essence, is actually cheap rhetorics.

I fully agree that when companies do this, that it is disgusting. But you have to take a step back and look at the actual effect. This is not by any means new, it happened likely before I was even conceived.

What would you say your point is. To shame grayjoy or make a point that this is a threat to open source? Both? Neither?

Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument “i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point”. You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I’m past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn’t a threat to open source in whatever form

Imo it’s not been redefined at all. People are just pushing the boundaries of what it means and creating absolutist views on what it should mean. There is a space for that sure, but shaming companies that define where their own boundaries are is not the way of it.

If we do that, you are challenging what software freedom actually is if you ask me

Your argument falls flat because the Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses. Access to the source code does not mean you can redistribute it automatically. Hence its a choice. If you choose to redistribute closed source code, that’s on you.