batat

First, you do realize that when in some your-employer's-boring-CRM-system a certain field cannot be edited until a specific 5 conditions is met and that conditions allows an object to transition from "new" to "processing" status before field become available etc. then there was a reason for this.

Before Claude these people used to automate their processes in Excel. Then new people would come along and say, "None of this makes any sense to me so I'll just build my own even better automation in Excel". And again, and again. "Random sales people" won't ask Claude:

- Find out who was the PO in 2019, analyze why it was decided to introduce an additional status in FSTP-14475 instead of (...) What happens if the driver currently outside mobile coverage area and the task processing will return a 202 instead of a 200 (not described in the documentation; refer to FSTP-14385 for additional information), but the status will be updated before the deferred change returns (...)

Instead, they'll do something more like:

- I need to be able to quickly change this and that right here, get it done, don't make any mistakes.

Would be good if Claude could recognize an XY problem and respond "Understanding what you don't want is even more important than understanding what you do want" or "If you try to cut corners here again instead of following the established process - thereby making things more difficult for the people in the warehouse - I will inform your manager" instead of just charging ahead "you're absolutely right, see the goal, ignore the obstacles".

Second, it is easier to fix a flawed but already functional system than build a perfect one from scratch - without running into a problems, contradictions, previously unknown nuances during implementation. Because these contradictions, problems, and oddities over the last 10 years naturally gave you the requirements and specifications that no one of the sales-people and decision-making-people were able to articulate in a coherent way. And yes, now, having these specifications, you can rewrite it in Rust and do things better.

So it’s neither "yes" nor "no", but some kind of philosophical note somewhere in-between a "Pop!_OS 24.04 LTS Released" and "CodeWeavers tests their ARM64 compatibility on System76" that isn’t even linked to noticeable on the main page.

I mean Wikipedia hung some huge banners to raise awareness, the German wiki even had a "blackout" because of "Directive 2019/790", there was something similar on Reddit etc. I don't expect them to leave the US market or anything like that, but also I don’t even know what to say, as if everyone has already resigned.

> A "Core Isolation: Memory Integrity" feature of Windows 10+ prevents creating such memory area (leading to BSOD).

> We tried to attestation sign the driver via new EV certificate by MS to fix the driver's limitation, but failed (see #108).

> So for now users have to disable the "Core Isolation: Memory Integrity" feature

Disabling HVCI doesn't sound like a good idea honestly. I mean they abuse kernel memory protection to bypass EV Certificate restrictions leaving the system in a state where another driver can mess with FW's internal structures using the same trick.

It doesn't matter really because nowadays all of them are just a front-ends to Windows Firewall.

Also legitimate software (i.e. firewall/AV) cannot use "oldschool" tricks like system service descriptor table hooks to obtain godlike privileges these days, while malware sometimes can do this by exploiting vulnerabilities, so in such cases it may be an unequal fight.

Madness, this should not exist at all, it's broken in so many ways.

You are right, good catch.

Yes, silent-majority, exactly.

Because we (or this is me only?) were taught that expressing point of view which differs from current "course of the party", while may not be a subject of criminal prosecution (therefore, your freedom of speech is not formally violated), but leads to "deplatforming", you may lose your contracts, your job etc. "Cancel culture" instructs us that instant breakdown of all relations is normal, and many of those who break off relations with you do this not because they disagree with your point of view, but "just in case" to avoid consequences for themself.

Brendan Eich? Eric Steven Raymond? Media personalities like Johnny Depp, Joanne Rowling, James Gunn... All these people didn't break the law, they are not criminals, but they suffered for saying something. This is not "normal"! These cases are well-known and people will now may think twice before saying a word in defense of RMS because they are afraid! This is where "spiral of silence" comes from.

People who are against bullying of Richard Stallman exists too! And there are lot of them - quiet developers, incapable of social interaction. We are not reading Twitter 24/7, we are not speakers nor evangelists. We write commit messages, not tweets. We are doing things, not loud manifestos.

And all powers currently is seized by a loud crowd who believe that person should be judged by his words, not his deeds. They believe that "enough words, show me the code" is a meritocracy.

If you fear that your signature in RMS Support letter open letter may have negative consequences for your career, then just write some support words to [email protected] and [email protected], this is fine too!