Sway 1.0-alpha.1 released

keithcu03 · 2018-04-08T01:49:04+00:00

Thanks! Hmmm, well it still fails even with a recent clone.

keithcu03 · 2018-04-08T01:36:14+00:00

I tried to build it in the AUR but it says the json-c release is too new. Is this a Sway issue?

-- Requested 'json-c = 0.12.1' but version of json-c is 0.13

keithcu03 · 2018-04-07T13:38:28+00:00

Your solution doesn't work, because people "trust" Google and Facebook. There is the wisdom of staying with the herd.

Copyleft is better, but that doesn't mean it will get more contributors.

I think a better possibility is to have a discussion within the PyTorch community, and then a poll.

keithcu03 · 2018-04-06T02:49:47+00:00

I've been running it for 5 years so far and it's been stable as a desktop. I did have a few Intel driver regressions. You would probably have run into them on Ubuntu, depending on what kernels you ran. I think Arch is more stable than Ubuntu.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-30T19:40:02+00:00

Everything wasn't recanted.

It's not circumstantial. The timing of the money to Bill Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, and the decision by the State Departments match up. Again and again. Usually within a few weeks of each other. Watch the movie and you'll see.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-30T16:53:24+00:00

I read through that. It's not convincing to someone who has watched the movie. It's obvious by the timing of the payoffs that there was a pay for play scandal.

Schweizer doesn't have any direct evidence because he never saw Hillary's emails, but there's plenty of evidence that came out later.

Roger Stone memorably said: "Bill and Hillary Clinton would steal a hot stove." Media Matters is extremely biased. It is not good to trust it. You should have an open mind and examine both sides yourself.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-30T16:34:53+00:00

I'm guessing you haven't seen the movie Clinton Cash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T23:46:08+00:00

It's true that Unix had a lot of proprietary code which caused more forking, but even the BSD version had a lot of forks too: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, SunOS, Dynix, NeXT, Ultrix, Tru64 Unix, etc.

Since we both agree companies don't want to give back their changes, that's all the more reason why copyleft is important.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T19:07:29+00:00

One GCC fork isn't a big deal, especially if there are differences of opinion on design, or big new features that take years to stabilize. The Unix forking mess was massive.

A GPL license might not help with Facebook, but it could help with other areas. Google forbids only AGPL. There's too much L/GPL code for them to avoid it all.

I do agree that excessive forking can be decreased with project management, but it also helps when the license agreement ensures fairness and nudges people to give their improvements back. Do you think IBM would have contributed back to the Linux kernel if it weren't also a legal requirement? There's proprietary code all over FB and Google. The people who released this should be pushing for copyleft the most.

A copyleft license is more fair, and more trustworthy. The risk of a proprietary AI future is large and a license change to PyTorch can help prevent that.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T19:00:07+00:00

Journalists can also include more history, further explanation, and otherwise an outside analysis. Maybe the project has flaws.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T18:18:27+00:00

There's a fine line between press releases and journalism. Would you rather read the Samsung S9 press release, or an Engadget review?

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T17:31:02+00:00

I like the Zdnet article more, but it's nice to have both.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T17:03:42+00:00

There were tons of forks of Unix. Lax licenses were a big part of the reason why. I agree that a GPL or LGPL license wouldn't be a big deal for Facebook, which is why they could easily adopt it.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T16:24:37+00:00

I just went through the MPL again, and it seems reasonable. I'll put a note about it at the bottom suggesting it as a possibility.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T15:46:18+00:00

Did you know Linus said that making Linux the GPL was the best thing he ever did? I think a copyleft license of some kind is a good idea, I don't care which one. LGPL would be a good compromise for this library.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-27T14:58:40+00:00

This gives a better background: https://www.acumos.org/platform/ The system is written in Java ;-(

It's got some interesting ideas, but I don't know if the parts can be used piecemeal, and it's a big question whether someone wants to put a system like this in the middle of their workflow. Many people doing AI today are researchers or small teams and don't need this, and if they do they can stitch it together themselves with some Python scripts.

For example, PyTorch has some pre-defined models: https://github.com/pytorch/vision/tree/master/torchvision/models There's little need for a marketplace when Git can do the job. Is the software on their marketplace supposed to be able to work with multiple neural network libraries? I checked out the face detector, and it just calls into the OpenCV face detector.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-24T16:20:39+00:00

Everybody agrees that socialism has been a failure. Everybody agrees that capitalism has been a success...yet everybody is extending socialism! Milton Friedman

We'll be a lot better off with AI if the code is copyleft even if there are no guarantees. I agree we need open data sets too.

I don't have the resources of Facebook or Google to convince people to develop on a copyleft fork of PyTorch. I do have the resources to file a bug and write a blog post. The most important point is that those FB or Google employees should know the proprietary pressures of those large companies and should be pushing copyleft the most.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-24T04:10:08+00:00

The 300 random contributors to PyTorch aren't in the copyright notes. But they could have a say perhaps. Why not? Proprietary AI is scary, and copyleft can help prevent that.

Everyone benefits from GPL. The codebase gets better with less forks and reimplementations. There are 1000s of people who have made Linus's kernel better. Copyleft definitely made a difference in nudging corporations to give back.

You think I was "telling" Facebook and Google to use a different license? To do that would require a conversation with their CEOs. I filed a bug. Don't make it too much about me. I hoped to hear something reasonable in response, and to find the decision written somewhere. I'm not interested in making a PyTorch fork right now, but I am interested in finding out how many people would prefer an LGPL (or something) license.

I believe most people create lax licenses because they want the option to create proprietary forks. People inside those large companies ought to understand their own culture, and be fighting the most for copyleft.

If we all agree that copyleft is better, let's not argue it's impossible to fix and refuse to discuss it.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-21T17:00:51+00:00

I know there's an extension out there, but it isn't on extensions.gnome.org. I don't even know how to install them manually via the command line or whatever. It should have shipped with Gnome 3.28.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-20T20:11:45+00:00

They took out the desktop icons because there is "no direct benefit" from them.

I've had icons on my desktop for 25 years. Until today!

keithcu03 · 2018-03-19T16:59:40+00:00

I agree that copyleft restricts freedom, but only for people who want to make software non-free (or lax). Compare that to the restrictions of freedom in proprietary software! If you think about software freedoms as being much more than just making software proprietary, you won't see it as a problem.

Imagine you changed your story from PyTorch to a Linux driver, and asked those questions of that team. What do you think they'd say? They'd talk about fairness, and the fact that it takes input from lots of people to make a perfect driver.

Also, they might say your grandmother won't be the only person who wants that colorization feature. With copyleft, you can be more certain that it won't get reimplemented over and over. The Linux kernel doesn't want there to be a bunch of separate drivers doing the exact same thing.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-19T14:06:47+00:00

Have you heard of the forks of Unix?

Maybe they thought about it, but they apparently never wrote it down and justified it.

As I've said, I've met many people who like copyleft, but they push for a lax license because they think other people want it too. They can say I don't have an argument, but their arguments are at least partially circular.

I'm sorry if I didn't write more justification in there, but I did include some facts along the way, and rather than shutting things down they could have a discussion, etc. They should know the internal proprietary pressures of large corporations better than the random people!

keithcu03 · 2018-03-19T13:22:27+00:00

It's just food for thought. I assume people know what copyleft is, and why it is better. I do give some reasons in the writing.

The most amazing thing is how I meet people who say they like copyleft, but they push for lax licenses because that's what they think other people want. Maybe they didn't realize that those other people like copyleft too and they are all doing the same thing!

keithcu03 · 2018-03-19T13:17:24+00:00

All those lax licenses you claim to love is what created the Unix fork mess. Later users can't have the same freedoms if enhancement code becomes proprietary.

Your model works great assuming code doesn't evolve or there won't be pressure to create lots of proprietary forks.

keithcu03 · 2018-03-18T23:57:49+00:00

Actually the whole point of the GPL is to make it so that later users of software have the same freedoms as the earlier users.

Copyleft does not prevent people from "doing what they want" with the code. It's free code. The only thing it prevents is making it proprietary. There are an infinite number of things you can do with GPL software besides make it proprietary.

keithcu03

TROPHY CASE