Rustmilian

1. Monopolistic business practices to crush competition (Netscape, Java, web browsers, etc.).

• Microsoft was found guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly and engaging in anti-competitive tactics against competitors like Netscape Navigator and Java in the 1990s antitrust case.

2. Illegal bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows to eliminate browser rivals.

• The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally bundling Internet Explorer with Windows to crush competition from other web browsers. Microsoft was found guilty of this tying arrangement.

3. Keeping useful Windows APIs secret from third-party developers to disadvantage competitors.

• Microsoft allegedly kept useful Windows APIs secret from third-party developers to give an advantage to their own applications, though this was not a central part of the antitrust case.

4. Embracing proprietary software and vendor lock-in tactics to prevent users from switching.

• Microsoft has been criticized for embracing proprietary software and vendor lock-in tactics that make it difficult for users to switch to alternatives, such as their failed attempts to establish OOXML as an open standard for Office documents.

5. “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” strategy against open source software.

• Microsoft has been accused of using the “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” strategy against open source software to undermine adoption of open standards. This is also shown in the leaked Halloween documents.

6. Privacy violations through excessive data collection, user tracking, and sharing data with third parties.

• Microsoft has faced scrutiny over privacy issues, such as the NSA surveillance scandal and their handling of user data with Windows 10.

7. Complicity in enabling government surveillance and spying on user data (PRISM scandal).

• The PRISM surveillance scandal revealed Microsoft’s complicity in enabling government spying on user data.

8. Deliberately making hardware/software incompatible with open source alternatives.

• Microsoft has been accused of deliberately making hardware and software incompatible with open source alternatives through restrictive licensing requirements.

9. Anti-competitive acquisitions to eliminate rivals or control key technologies (GitHub, LinkedIn, etc.).

• Microsoft has acquired many companies over the years, sometimes in an effort to eliminate competition or gain control over key technologies and platforms.

10. Unethical contracts providing military technology like HoloLens for warfare applications.

• Microsoft’s $480 million contract to provide HoloLens augmented reality tech for the military drew protests from employees and criticism over aiding warfare.

11. Failing to address workplace issues like sexual harassment at acquired companies.

• Microsoft’s failed acquisition of gaming company Activision Blizzard raised concerns about ignoring workplace issues like sexual harassment at the acquired company.

12. Forced automatic Windows updates that override user control and cause system issues.

• Microsoft has faced backlash for forcing automatic updates on Windows users, including major updates that have caused issues like deleted files and crashed systems. Users have little control over when updates install.

13. Maintaining monopolistic dominance in productivity software and operating systems.

• Microsoft has maintained its dominance in areas like productivity software (Office) and operating systems (Windows), making it difficult for competitors to gain market share. This monopolistic position allows them to exert control over the industry.

14. Vague and toothless AI ethics principles while pursuing lucrative military AI contracts.

• Microsoft’s AI ethics principles have been criticized as vague and toothless in light of their pursuit of lucrative military AI contracts.

15. Continued excessive privacy violations and treating users as products with Windows.

• Windows 10 has been criticized for excessive data collection and lack of user privacy controls, essentially treating users as products to be monetized.

16. Restrictive proprietary licensing that stifles open source adoption.

• Microsoft’s proprietary software licensing makes it difficult for open source alternatives to be adopted widely, as they have a history of undermining open source software and interoperability with Windows.

This isn’t even anywhere near everything.

This is absolutely true, but not in the sense this is trying to portray. They censor me hard, and I’m not even that political, just anti-spyware. They censor anything they don’t like, so if you slight them for being a mass-data collection organization that shit all over their own old slogan, they put you on their shit list actively keeping you from being able to speak. Really, Google isn’t “woke” more so just a bunch of pandering opportunist capitalist predators in sheep’s wool. The word “woke” itself has devolved.

Why should we have the same standard for two fundamentally different languages with distinct design philosophies and features?
Even if the C coding standard was used, it fundamentally will not make Rust more legible to C-only kernel devs. Imposing the C coding standard on Rust would be fundamentally counterproductive, as it would undermine Rust’s safety and productivity features. Rust’s coding guidelines align with its design principles, promoting idiomatic Rust code that leverages language features like ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes.
This ensures that Rust code in the kernel is safe, concurrent, and maintainable, while adhering to the language’s best practices. While the C coding standard served its purpose well for the procedural C language, it is ill-suited for a modern language like Rust, which has different priorities and language constructs. Having separate coding standards allows each language to shine in its respective domain within the kernel, leveraging their strengths while adhering to their respective design philosophies. Having separate coding standards for C and Rust within the kernel codebase is the sensible approach.

In any case, it’s the temporary file directory so it should be fine to delete them manually.
Just make sure that podman isn’t running while you’re deleting them, assuming it is podman.

That’s the way Vaxry spun it to try making them look bad while he downplays his own behavior and malpractice. Basically he just lied and spread misinformation, he really needs to get his act together if he ever wants to work with them again.

It’s FOSS, just don’t donate to the project or promote it and keep using it anyway. That’s the beauty of FOSS, the devs dumb opinions shouldn’t effect your personal use of quality tools. Imagine if you stopped using hammers just because “communism”, it’d be a pretty stupid self inflicted inconvenience.
If the project itself goes to shit and he starts using it to push his stupid agenda, then abandon it. But until then it’s completely understandable to keep using it for your personal workflow. Everyone uses GNU utilits, that doesn’t mean we agree with everything Richard Stallmen has ever said.
Hopefully Vaxry will learn and clean up his act.

That’s not what’s happening here. They are barring him from participating in their project, he can still say whatever the fuck he wants on his own project. They just don’t want to work with him.

If you walk into a job interview and they find your tweets of you saying the nword over and over, and you don’t get the job, that’s a you problem. Nobody wants to work with people who’ll bring negative PR.

Wayland is a communication protocol that specifies the communication between a display server and its clients, designed to be a replacement for the X11 window system protocol and architecture.
I might be a little nitpicky here, but I feel it’s an important distinction to make as there is no single common Wayland server like Xorg is for X11.
A display server using the Wayland protocol is called a Wayland compositor, as it additionally performs the task of a compositing window manager.
Xorg on the other hand is basically one fat display server designed like a house of cards that everyone uses.

Windows 12 will be a massive hit, just like google stadia.