I don't recall macos forcing it. They definitely over-suggest it and the ecosystem (especially for dev) is very full of it and I consider that a problem, but it's limited in scope. If you don't want the Apple ecosystem, as far as I know you never need an AppleID.
Yes, I was bunching up Xcode with "Apple ecosystem". I presume you can get clang/gcc without AppleID (but haven't actually done it myself), and for sure many other dev tools.
I'd definitely much prefer if even for "ecosystem" the companies would not require online account except where truly necessary (purchases?), but for operating the OS itself, I do feel there's a line in the sand where online account requirement = no.
It’s impossible to install XCode without an Apple account. It’s only distributed through the Mac App Store, and downloads from Mac App Store require an Apple ID. And even XCode beta downloads are locked behind an Apple login.
You can install XCode CLI dev tools without an Apple account, which comes with clang and swift for example. With this, you can build most Mac software, but I don’t think you can run Swift tests without a full XCode.
As the sibling comment notes, you can install GCC/llvm and whatever other open source tools and build Mac software without full XCode.
You can also install Apple container support without an Apple account.
Xcode is also available as a standalone download from developer.apple.com, which requires an account too, but at least it's way more reliable than downloading from the store.
I'd be ok with the rule only if the candidate liked the field. I respect anyone who is willing to have a bad time in order to put food on the table, and be upfront about it. There's plenty of psychopathic candidates where I won't get that datapoint simply because they were luckier with the job market.
I have the EGS with games on it me and my kids actively play. I don't resent EGS for exclusivity deals nor hold any other kind of grudge towards them. If a game I want comes out first on EGS, I'll buy it on EGS. I don't actively play with friends, so who is or is not on EGS to play with is barely a factor on my radar.
I still prefer to buy on Steam if I can, because using the EGS sucks in every way possible compared to using Steam. If I want to sit to rest I can do it on a cold and irregular rock, but if there's a bench right next to it, then I'll use the bench.
That said, you can do a lot worse than EGS. MS Store I'm looking at you. In the above metaphor, you'd like sitting on the wet and muddy ground.
> With a lot of things it takes trial and error to make progress
Way too often that is used as an excuse for various forms of laziness; to not think about the things you can already know. And that lack of thinking repeats in an endless cycle when, after your trial and error, you don't use what you learned because "let's look forward not backward", "let's fail fast and often" and similar platitudes.
Catchy slogans and heartfelt desires are great but you gotta put the brains in it too.
Without commenting about the frequency of negligence myself, I suspect at least that you and GP are in agreement.
I doubt GP is suggesting ‘go ahead and be negligent to feedback and guardrails that let you course correct early.’
Plugging the Cynefin framework as a useful technique for practitioners here. It doesn’t have to be hard to choose whether or not rigorous planning is appropriate for the task at hand, versus probe-test-backtrack with tight iteration loops.
I see indecision and analysis paralysis far more. And yes, you do need to thing about things, but far too often I see people not do something because they're worried it's not optimal. But not doing something is far worse than doing something sub-optimally!
I'll believe it when I see it. But I hope I will, I don't want to be cynical.
Back a decade or so, the Visual Studio experience was terrible, the team promised they were going to fix a lot of it, I didn't believe them, and they actually delivered. No VS is not perfect. But it was on a downward spiral and they got it out.
I hope they deliver now, and bring back my inner Windows fan which they eroded and then killed with the abomination that is current Win11.
I'm the same, I've seen some of my stuff pop up in the weirdest places and I was ok with it. But I understand and respect that people who published code under restrictive licenses may have a problem. The GPL is absolutely "NOT-a-free-gift" license, in both wording and spirit.
If someone published something as MIT and doesn't like it being used for LLM training, yeah that person can only blame themselves.
For GPL, it all depends if you consider a LLM "derivative software" of the GPL code it was trained on. It's fair to have an opinion on that either way, but I don't think it's fair to treat that opinion as the obvious truth. The same applies to art, a lot of it is visible on the Internet but that doesn't make it "a gift".
Absolutely not. GPL is freedom for the authors. The end users have conditions they must meet to use the software. Those conditions are restrictions. That is precisely the opposite of freedom for end users.
To anticipate objections, the conditions keep the software "free for everyone", which is true. But that's still explicitly freedom for the authors. The conditions preemptively eliminate end users who would otherwise find the software valuable. Because it is not freedom for end users.
Ahhhh yes that's one that lawyers might have fun with. MIT says:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
My personal thought on that: it's going to be almost guaranteed that, if an LLM is producing stuff it clearly derived from a certain piece of code XYZ, it will also be capable of producing the correct answer to the question "what's the license for XYZ?" And lawyers will successfully argue that this counts as "included".
> My personal thought on that: it's going to be almost guaranteed that, if an LLM is producing stuff it clearly derived from a certain piece of code XYZ, it will also be capable of producing the correct answer to the question "what's the license for XYZ?" And lawyers will successfully argue that this counts as "included".
The MIT license terms are not say the name the license if asked. They are The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
And this would be improbable for many reasons I think.
Same here. I have a Ghostty often open but end up using iTerm2 for pretty much everything. It's not just having to hack the TERM (which I ended up doing), it's that sometimes something about the TERM internally breaks anyway and I'm back to seeing ESC codes when I press an arrow. Quit & restart fixes it but it's just enough friction to keep me away.
reply