If you’re going to forbid any 2-letter initialism because it might have naughty connotations, you’re not going to be left with many options.

Yeah, Display Port is old, but I’ve never seen that P and D symbol before, or at least never noticed it. And, even if it existed before Display Port over USB, you’d think that that potential confusion was a good opportunity to come up with a new logo for something that would be put next to a USB port.

It’s almost as if having all these different features would be easier to differentiate if they had different physical shapes.

I think the goal was always that you’d only ever need one type of port and one type of cable and that that port and cable could do anything. Unfortunately, because there are so many revisions and so many features are optional, you’ve now got a situation where the port is the right shape, the cable fits into the port, but you can’t get the thing to work without reading the fine print, or without decoding obscure logos.

I just love that in a world with Power Delivery (PD) they decided that the best way to indicate Display Port (DP) was to have an ambiguous symbol involving a P and a D.

Ah, I would say that is worse than piracy, since you deprive them of the ground for a time.

Maybe, in my mind I was picturing a situation where someone had lots of property and didn’t realize that anything had happened. I see your point though, that in theory you’re depriving them of the use of it whereas with copyright infringement there isn’t even a second where they can’t enjoy their own property. They only potentially lose out on a sale.

Sneaking into a concert that isn’t full is probably a better analogy. You get the experience of the concert without paying for it, and the venue owner maybe loses out on a sale without knowing it.

Also, “piracy” or “copyright infringement” isn’t theft in any sense.

A key element of theft is that you deprive the rightful owner of something. You now have it and they no longer do. What makes it wrong is that the person who should have it no longer does. It’s not that you have it. That’s why the punishment for “mischief” where someone completely destroys something belonging to someone else is similar to the punishment for the theft of that same object.

Copyright infringement is breaking the rule that the state imposed giving someone the exclusive right to control the copying of something. You’re not depriving anyone of anything tangible when you infringe a copyright. They still have the original, they still have any copies they made, any copies they gave out or sold are still where they were. The only thing you’re doing is violating the rule that gave them exclusive control. If you’re depriving someone of anything, it’s depriving them of the opportunity they might have had to make money from selling a copy.

If anything, copyright infringement is more similar to trespassing than to theft. Just like copyright infringement, trespassing involves not allowing someone to control who accesses their property. If you sneak onto someone’s campground property and have a bonfire party, the person loses the opportunity to rent out the campground for the bonfire, and any money they might have received for doing that. But, if you sneak in and sneak out and leave no trace, you could argue that nobody is harmed.

Most of the time the fact there’s a beginner-friendly option doesn’t mean that there aren’t also options for more advanced users. This is especially true with Linux.

On phones both Apple and Google lock things down so much that your options are limited. That’s mostly an issue with monopolies not with phones. Macs have a bit more freedom than phones by default, Windows has a bit more than that, then you can go back to Mac if you’re willing to hack around and run QT apps and so on. But, I can’t imagine a Linux distro that didn’t let you ditch a beginner-friendly UI for something more powerful.

I’m still hoping that the success of the Steam Deck will get the ball rolling. Steam Deck success might lead to more games that work really well under Linux. That means less of a reason to keep using Windows. More people using Linux might lead to more software being fully available for Linux, which might get more people to use it. I still think eventually you’re going to need non-hobbyists to come in and smooth a lot of the rough edges. But, stage 1 in that whole process is getting more people using Linux, and maybe that’s actually happening now.

(It also doesn’t hurt that Microsoft keeps shooting themselves in the foot with things like the Cloudstrike bug, and the Windows Recall snoopware failure. Long may that continue.)

I don’t think Linux Bros will ever find a way to appeal to women newcomers. I think it will take a company that can afford to hire UI/UX designers, marketing people, etc.

But, that’s hard because there’s a chicken / egg situation. Selling a Linux-based computer to the general public is going to be very difficult because of the network effects around Mac and Windows machines. Everyone else uses them and so there are people you can ask for help, there are software vendors who make stuff for the platform (also with nice UIs meant for normal people). I can only see someone spending money to make a mass-market friendly Linux in some limited circumstances.

One situation where a company might make a truly user-friendly Linux distribution is if a company like Valve decided to make a game console. They already have the Steam Deck which is doing really well, but nobody’s going to be doing their taxes on a Steam Deck (although they could). But, if they made a desktop-replacement game console that could both play games and also act as a normal home PC, they could afford to spend the money needed to sand the rough edges off the experience.

Another situation might be if a big country mandated Linux for something, either for government computers or for kids in schools. They’d probably have to have a support contract for that, and whoever was supporting those systems would want them to be as user-friendly as possible so they didn’t have to deal with as many support issues. So, if say Brazil mandated that all government employees switch to Linux, that could result in some company making a Linux desktop experience that was comparable to Windows.

That’s not really a common situation though. Sure, people might use the BSD license on something they did as a hobby, or just to learn things. But, the scenario described here is more like:

A group of people all have the same little problem, and they work together to come up with a solution for it. They solve the main problem, but their solution has a few rough edges and there are similar problems they didn’t solve, but they’re not motivated to keep working on it because what they have is good enough for their current needs. So, they put out some flyers describing how to do what they did, and inviting anybody who’s interested to keep working on improving their fix.

A company comes along, sees the info, and builds a tool that solves the problem but not quite as well, and for a small fee. They spend tons of money promoting their solution, drowning out the little pamphlet that the original guys did. They use as much IP protection as possible, patenting their designs, trademarking the look and feel, copyrighting the instructions, etc. Often they accidentally(?) issue legal threats or takedown notices to people who are merely hosting the original design or original pamphlets.

Maybe the original inventor didn’t get screwed in this scenario, but you could say that the public did.

Almost everyone who starts a new tech company has worked in a different one.

Yes, most people have previously held jobs.

And sometimes Google sues former employees.

That may be the law, but Google isn’t likely to just accept it without fighting it.

Just because you think of something while eating a sandwich that Google paid for, that doesn’t mean they own it.

Ok, feel free to argue that against Google’s lawyers. The law may be on your side, but the lawyers aren’t.

He’s retired, hasn’t been involved with Google for years. He’s just insanely rich, and still holds billions in Google shares.

Part of the plan (a big part) is that any big ideas you come up with when you’re in the office and not working belong to Google.

Scenario 1: It’s 5pm so you go home, after dinner you hang out with a bunch of friends, many who work at other companies. While you’re hanging out, someone has an idea for the Next Big Thing in tech. Everybody talks about it, gets excited, and a year later everyone quits their jobs to start NBT.com.

Scenario 2: It’s 5pm so you go to the on-site gym, you stay on campus for dinner, and you hang out with a bunch of cow-orkers / friends, all of whom work at Google / Meta / Amazon. While you’re hanging out, someone has an idea for the Next Big Thing in tech. Everybody talks about it, gets excited, but since you all work for the same company you don’t quit. The company has ways for employees to work on projects like that while not having to quit. And, if you did quit, they might be able to sue you since you came up the idea on company time, and used company resources to develop it.

Depends on which Google office you mean.

but some of the Atom devs are now working on Zed

Ok… but just because someone’s working on an alternative doesn’t mean that alternative will be able to unseat VSCode. Microsoft is spending tens of millions per year to gently lock people into VSCode.

The thing is that many developers are a vengeful bunch who hate big corps with their enshittification fetishes and love open source solutions. Microsoft has to tread really carefully here.

And they have been treading carefully for decades, and it’s working. The people who supposedly hate big corps mostly use GitHub and VSCode. They’re heating the water very, very slowly, and the frogs are staying in the pot.

It’s ironic that your alternative for GitHub is hosted on GitHub. That doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.

I just wish GitHub wasn’t part of MS anymore.

Too bad. Microsoft is using it as part of their extremely long term plan to control the software that developers use to do their jobs. VSCode is another front in that battle. Things are going slowly, but they’re winning.

I don’t think tech people understand how bad it is that Microsoft owns GitHub.

GitLab is one of the few places people could go if GitHub enshittifies too much. Google’s stake in it (or full ownership of it) would probably be a good thing, because it would be seen as an important strategic hedge against Microsoft. If it’s bought by a smaller player, I can see GitHub squeezing it into irrelevance.

Scenario 8: Gitlab is acquired by Wal*Mart

Also, Mozilla says that it spends only $220M on software development expenses, so if 100% of the money went to that it would only require 3.7 million people paying $5 per month.

But, IMO, if the Google money spigot is turned off, it might be that other companies that rely on web browsers (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, etc.) will want to spend at least a few tens of millions on Firefox. That would mean that end-users wouldn’t need to support the entire cost of developing it.

Right now, everyone except Apple uses Blink which is a Google project tied to Chrome. Since Google has been found to have been illegally abusing their monopoly, the status of Chromium / Blink has to be uncertain. It would be smart insurance for these companies to ensure that Firefox doesn’t go away in case something happens to Blink.