I think in this context, it is meant to describe how the underlying hardware AND software work together and to describe the potential cloud (public or private) opportunities of both.
FreeRTOS was previously GPLv2 with a couple of added clauses (anything linked with FreeRTOS is now GPL too and you can't publish performance metrics without approval). I'd imagine there were a lot of companies not wanting to GPL everything they made with FreeRTOS (i.e. Amazon) so with a new MIT license, anyone can do whatever they want.
> As a special exception, the copyright holder of FreeRTOS gives you permission to link FreeRTOS with independent modules that communicate with FreeRTOS solely through the FreeRTOS API interface, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting combined work under terms of your choice
It was GPL with an exception that allowed you link your app code to the OS, with your app becoming GPL.
>you can't publish performance metrics without approval
Curious to know if anything knows if that's actually enforceable. The GPL gives you permission to use an distribute a program and code. I can see where if you got your copy straight from RTOS, they can enforce that clause. But, to me, the GPL seems to give everyone the right to distribute the source without that clause. And it seems to explicitly forbid the addition of additional licensing terms:
You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein
And there is nothing stopping you from taking the original GPL'd FreeRTOS codebase and merging in all of the MIT licensed improvements. If you make a better FreeRTOS, that's what people will use.
I've seen this happen many times in open source. For example, to this day LGPL's LibreOffice, which started as a fork of OpenOffice, reviews all OpenOffice patches and cherry picks the good ones.[1] On the other hand, Apache OpenOffice can't benefit from any of LibreOffice's patches.
Viral licenses like GPL have an edge and will win out if there is a community that actually cares.
GPL licenses tend to discourage adoption due to their onerous restrictions, which is why most projects today choose anything other than the GPL family of licenses.
The virality of GPL actually results in most companies explicitly banning the use of GPL tools and code to prevent the GPL from "infecting" their own code.
For what it's worth, LibreOffice is probably LGPL because of OpenOffice's history with the Oracle buy-out. Oracle gave OpenOffice to Apache for the same reason Google gave Wave to Apache: They run a sort-of paliative service for software projects.
Their "fork" is additional libraries for FreeRTOS specifically for IoT kind of stuff packaged into the kernel. Not everyone needs an Amazon version of the FreeRTOS and most users wouldn't want extra junk in the kernel considering the kind of hardware that an RTOS is meant to be run on.
Or like $400,000+ if you are hiring a team of mechanical, electrical and software engineers to design an make it for you because neither you nor any individual on your team has his entire set of skills.
Or like $1,000,000+ if you are hiring some company to design and build it for you
Fortunately for the OP that's not how he thought about this. People who put a value on their time for everything are invariably terrible company for anything that is fun, will teach you something or that is useful to others rather than only immediately to themselves.
OP obviously enjoys building and showing stuff off. If they valued their time they would be building smart watches instead of mindlessly browsing social media or watching TV.
Hey Greg - serious question - The A320NEO has a very similar engine placement as the Max8. Wouldn't that air frame be faulty too if the problem was solely due to engine placement being in front of the wings?
Because the A320neo can fit the engines under instead of in front of the wings, thereby negating the nacelles contribution to leading edge flow separation.
Exactly. Except it’s not flow separation that is the problem. It’s the lift that the nacelles generate combined with their mass and moment far ahead of the center of gravity
Agree completely. Being isolated from people and not making connections can be detrimental. Being in a co-working environment and being able to have small interactions can make a big difference.
My opinion is if you don't need a tech lead, great. But, most teams do. Someone needs to be there making a final decision. Also, it depends on the company and the type of team. If it is a government organization and the majority of the development team are contractors, a tech lead is most definitely needed to advocate in the best interests of the government entity. In this scenario, the tech lead would need to be a government employee.
I also think it is hard enough to get the Tech Lead and Product Owner on the exact same page even with good requirements documents. If you give all team members the requirements and have them present them to each other in terms of vision and goal of the product, there is would be differences of understanding. I see the Tech Lead role as keeping everyone on the same vision and (in a lot of companies) organizing the team to be most effective.
You bring up a valid point. Presenting a picture as the only means for authentication removes the benefit of digitized confirmation. Pics on the app store link appear to show a clock of some sort over the picture, but even that could be easily recreated.
You could add a visual icon as a sort of two-factor authentication. Set the icon to change every few minutes and do a push notification with the current icon to the people at the door.
This is a great, great article. It gives you insight and makes you realize how intelligent he really is. Compared to Steve Jobs, I would bet Gates' IQ is a full 10-15 points higher. However, what Jobs lacked in intelligence he more than made up for with charisma and ability to relate to people. Highly enjoyable read.
