I remember organizing Linux install parties at my university (University of Lille (1), in France), each year for like 3 to 4 consecutive years.
It was always a pleasure to meet new people and explain how basically "their computer is working" and how they can free from Windows.
The most interested person at that time was a 55 years old woman who knew nothing in computer. I installed Ubuntu on its computer and she came the next year with strong system knowledge for a linux-newbie, and the same laptop... with Debian in it!
> Tensor G5 and the latest version of Gemini Nano work together to run Magic Cue privately and securely on your phone.
YES! Here we talk.
The fact we can now host a version of an AI model, and make sure everything is processed locally and is not sent to the cloud is the best feature of those phones.
I just hope that data do not leave the phone OR are encrypted to be stored in Google servers...
Would love to understand it better too. It looks like the use cases are similar but the tech is different. NetBird is an alternative to Tailscale that uses Wireguard under the hood while these seem to use Traefik under the hood.
Pangolin is "public ingress to private networks" and not a mesh VPN/network builder. As you say I think NetBird is an alternative to Tailscale and we are an alternative to Cloudflare tunnels, Ngrok, or Zscaler. It is more about exposing things publicly with authentication in the browser for people to access than about building a network for disparate devices to communicate.
It is correct that pangolin is something like pinggy.io or cf tunnels as you mention. But those do not give such fine grained access control it seems - like a firewall checking identity and all.
But definitely it is not a vpn or mesh network it seems.
Is it me, or "founders" are actually FREAKING dumb?
Why people continue to give them money, and praise their "work"?
Instead of making (indirect) ads for them we should publish their name and the company's name into shame publicly, and let their reputation die slowly...
I have no respect for them, and you should not too (if you care about justice).
Most of the time ROI is still bigger. You would think that some ”evil”companies would be dead but stock price just keeps increasing. Imagine what Facebook would be if they had good morals?
> So, genuine question here: do companies have to pay full price in order to finance a technology that is used by 5% of their daily users?
As far as I know; Valve has cut the rate for larger companies.
> Of course this is a "devil advocate" question, but I would not consider Valve as "safer" than any other game / tech companies to be honest...
I do not know what the point of this comment is. We were not discussing if a company is 'safer'. As one US judge said when an Indie game company sued Valve and lost; the 30% rate is common among digital platforms. The point myself and the above poster made was that Valve does a lot more then most platforms that do charge 30%. Myself as a Linux enthusiast is very thankful for Valve for their work on Proton and Mesa.
You are not investing in Steam, you are paying them for something. Whether that is marketing, content distribution, or additional features. When you buy a car and don't use the seatbelt or turn signals, you are not paying for everyone else to have a seatbelt and turn signals. It just comes with the car.
I applied early last year, and got rejected by a Senior from CodeWeavers but without any insight...
Just:
"The senior reviewed your work and it's a 'no'. However you may want to consider submitting patches to either Wine or Proton. Developers that get patches into either of these projects tend to be sought out and offered developer jobs."
I found it gross, and thought that it was actually an ad to contribute to both Wine and Proton first, and not hire someone.
I know I am not the best C programmer in the world, but I think that if you spend two hours of your time doing a test to have a chance for an interview, you might have a feedback of what was wrong instead of a "nope dude".
The test was composed of two things:
1. reviewing a bad C code and make comments,
2. you have an is an unimplemented string sorting API and you have to provide the implementation, the unit tests, etc.
First time and last time I applied to CodeWeavers.
Sorry I should have been clearer--the initial rejection email did not contain feedback. I replied to the rejection back asking for feedback, and the CEO replied back with the senior engineer's precise feedback.
Otherwise, the test and first response you received was identical to mine.
FWIW I've never received feedback directly from a rejection email. I've always had to reply back and ask.
Let me be honest here: I spent time to get a 'hey, nope.', and I should write an email to ask why?
If that's not a waste of time, I really don't know what else to call it...
The main issue in the room is that the feedback *should* be present with the rejection email, especially if they spent 5 minutes for a review and 3 minutes for the rejection email...
Unfortunately it is not the first time a good developer leaves the project for a famous "Linu(s)x shitshow", and it will not be the latest...
I don't believe in the Linux project since a few years now, especially as "the bearded ones" are not interested in moving the project to a certain future, but only jerking on their old own code.
Good luck for the futur Hector, and thanks for what you managed to do until now with your team.
> I don't believe in the Linux project since a few years now, especially as "the bearded ones" are not interested in moving the project to a certain future, but only jerking on their old own code.
I personally lost my confidence in it when they stopped properly triaging security issues and flooded everyone interested with just noise.
As they are linking with proprietary SDK they seem to have violated the GPL indeed.
I would be interested to see if this game is part of their "Carbon Engine" solution to release old games (with extra price)...
> As they are linking with proprietary SDK they seem to have violated the GPL indeed.
What do you mean? Putting GPL software on proprietary platforms isn't a violation of the GPL. Tons of GPL software exists on Windows for example and needs to interact with Windows APIs.
> However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
The GPLv2 defines "system libraries" as things "that [are] normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs". On Windows, this would for instance cover libraries for interacting with the kernel and hardware (ntdll.dll, hal.dll, etc.), since they are distributed with Windows, as well as the various C runtimes (msvc*.dll) since these are distributed with the compiler (Visual C++).
Now, I don't know the Switch SDK and its license, but it is highly likely that it contains things that are needed to build the executable but which are not normally distributed with the console. If that were the case, you wouldn't have to hack your Switch to run your own software on it. Granted, to my knowledge, specifically the "system library" clause has never been tested in court, so your guess is as good as mine. In the ScummVM case on the Wii, which is mentioned in the issue, the problem was that Nintendo actually has a clause which forbids usage of the SDK with GPL software. It is also pretty likely that this also exists for the Switch SDK.
EDIT: Please note that "source code" in the sense of the GPLv2 explicitly includes "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". This really is the critical part of the SDK here which Limited Run Games will not be able to provide.
Aside from source code, it also seems that the game distribution is missing the written offer for the source code as well as the GPL license text. This alone would be a violation of the license.
> Now, I don't know the Switch SDK and its license, but it is highly likely that it contains things that are needed to build the executable but which are not normally distributed with the console.
SDKs are typically a compiler, a debugger, headers to interact with the system API and a C/C++ runtime. You can compile GPL code with a proprietary debugger, that's not a problem. Ditto for debugger. System headers and runtime are under the GPL exception.
> Nintendo actually has a clause which forbids usage of the SDK with GPL software
That's not a GPL violation, that's a Nintendo TOS violation and up to them to enforce.
> Aside from source code, it also seems that the game distribution is missing the written offer for the source code as well as the GPL license text. This alone would be a violation of the license.
The first comment says they see attribution. So there's a good chance there's text in some game menu that links to the source of the emulator. If not, that's a violation.
As for the game itself, shipping a game + emulator isn't the same as shipping a game built with a GPL library. The emulator runs on the platform and runs the game which can be built standalone.
A similar situation is Linux vendors that ship a piece of proprietary software with a Linux distro. Shipping them together doesn't require the proprietary software to be open-sourced as merely shipping them together doesn't make them the same piece of software.
> That's not a GPL violation, that's a Nintendo TOS violation and up to them to enforce.
It's a GPL violation if it prevents the developer from being able to fulfill the obligations of the GPL. That'd indeed be why Nintendo would prohibit GPL'd code in their TOS.
> As for the game itself, shipping a game + emulator isn't the same as shipping a game built with a GPL library. The emulator runs on the platform and runs the game which can be built standalone.
True, but they're still on the hook for the emulator itself and the obligations of its license terms.
> SDKs are typically a compiler, a debugger, headers to interact with the system API and a C/C++ runtime. You can compile GPL code with a proprietary debugger, that's not a problem. Ditto for debugger. System headers and runtime are under the GPL exception.
SDKs for game consoles contain more than that. They allow you to install executables onto special developer consoles, which are different from retail ones. The GPLv2 clearly says that you need to provide all the tools/scripts that are needed to install the executable onto the target system. This is why today's hermetically closed game consoles are fundamentally incompatible with (L)GPL code. While you might be able to provide the source code, the GPL explicitly states that the recipient of the code must be able to build and install the executable to run the code. This absolutely can mean that people will have to buy a commercial tool in addition (like Visual Studio Professional or similar), but herein lies the problem: you cannot just buy a Switch SDK and a developer console. They are tightly regulated and can only be obtained under NDA by officially recognized game developers.
The only way to distribute GPL code for consoles without a license violation is if the console has a special mode which allows to run arbitrary code. For instance, for a while, the PS2 was able to run Linux (until Sony removed that feature). The Xbox has the so called "Dev Mode" which allows for running UWP executables. The Switch has no such feature, unless you jailbreak it. Needless to say, the game we're talking about here does not depend on that.
Yes, this is almost certainly a violation. Technically, you cannot be sure yet, because in some alternate universe, Nintendo might have re-licensed their SDK under GPL as well, and if you ask Limited Run Games for the source of Tomba, they might give everything to you, thereby complying with the license. In reality though, these SDKs are of course not only proprietary but also under a NDA.
Alternatively, they might have found a way to run PCSX without using the Nintendo SDKs, but I don't think this is possible.
It's pretty crazy that they officially credit PCSX and didn't even realize that this is a problem.
It was always a pleasure to meet new people and explain how basically "their computer is working" and how they can free from Windows.
The most interested person at that time was a 55 years old woman who knew nothing in computer. I installed Ubuntu on its computer and she came the next year with strong system knowledge for a linux-newbie, and the same laptop... with Debian in it!