yaris

"Head cheese" from Watts' "Starfish", the beginning.

On my machine (Golden Gate):

   [2026-10-01 9:35:10] % which make
   /usr/bin/make
   [2026-10-01 9:35:39] % /usr/bin/make --version
   GNU Make 3.81
   Copyright (C) 2006  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
   This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
   There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

   This program built for i386-apple-darwin11.3.0

On Sequoia it was the same.

I'm not sure how much of a "LAN" that would be but some telecom clustering solutions use protocols other than TCP/IP (some don't even care if they run over Ethernet or ATM)

As part of my current assignment I see code and tests that are 15 years old (or more), and I only hope that people who wrote this code have become better as software engineers since then. Otherwise there is no hope for humanity.

Reading about manifests immediately reminded be of Clearcase/Clearmake. My memory may be not correct after all the years passed, but configuration records for derived objects contained the same information as proposed manifests + some more metadata about source (versions, at least). If I remember correctly SCons allows to implement a custom "checker" (or whatever it is called there) to compare files based on any criteria that are useful, not just timestamps. But this is about the only visible advantage of SCons over Make, at least for our case.

In my experience any software system (not just operating system) after crossing a certain limit on complexity and age looks exactly as hodgepodge of code pieces thrown together, sometimes from different sources even if developed by one org. All major OSs have long crossed those limits, I believe.

I imagine that if a company really denied a customer due to disagreement on some views there would be similar flood of comments like "my views is my problem, I pay you money you must do business with me". Maybe I'm wrong though

They got 43.9% in what Wikipedia marks as "semi-free yet questionable election". Also more correct question IMHO would be "was the NSDAP extreme in 1933?" and the answer is probably "no as much as by today's standards".

A thought experiment:

Let's think of the other extreme as well: exactly the same excellent VPN service, is run by an almost-the-best-person-in-the-world who has just one small quirk that makes them not 100% perfect for you (they pat kittens not as often as you'd like them to do). Obviously there is a border between your extreme and mine, which border defines "use" and "no use" cases for you. And now: wherever this border is - should it be the same for everyone?

This sounds a bit irrational. Where does "wealthy" start? Mullvad co-CEO donated ~ $500K, would him donating $100K have the same effect? What about $10K? What if a Mullvad _employee_ donated $500K?

I try to turn it other way in my head, like if Mullvad got to know somehow political views of some of their customers and say "We don't like what you say, so we decide to end our business with you. We don't want our infra to be used to spread opinions like yours."

The quote is taken out of context. The sentence starts with "Youngsters that are criminals - they should get out". And before "walk over corpses" he says that "they got swedish passports but have not become swedish [culturally]. They are not interested in it".

He says what is quoted when talking about criminals with immigrant roots. "Those [criminals] - they should get out, even if they were born in Sweden, because they do not have a connection to Sweden. They received a swedish passport but they have not become swedish [as belonging to swedish culture]. They are not interested [in becoming swedish] and here I'm ready to go on corpses...". Overall his stance on immigration (taken from this video) is not as extreme as one can imagine reading HN comments. It is extreme but not to the extent that he's ready to push out anyone whos granddad was not Andersson.