What's wrong with that is the reason trademarks exist: Confusion.
If something is called "alpine-glibc", it's reasonable to expect that it's by the alpine people and supported like alpine.
This, as we see here, annoys the alpine people because they now get bug reports and support requests from people using it, and have to direct people elsewhere. And when it doesn't work, they get the hit to their image even tho they've had nothing to do with it.
It doesn't outright state anywhere that it's not an official alpine product, and I don't know if everyone reads the site - many people will just copy the "FROM frolvlad/alpine-glibc" from elsewhere.
In any case, the Alpine people would know, and they apparently think it's a problem.
>Without context,
But you have context here! It has issues with symbol versioning! There is "strange behavior and possible crashes, ". This makes alpine look bad, because people think it's the alpine project's fault!
> what this guy is pissed off
Please don't assume everyone is a "guy". In this case, Ariadne is not a "he" (she uses "she"), so a male-coded word like "guy" is ill-fitting.
But do you know if alpine does official docker images namespaced as e.g. alpine/?
Is "alpine-glibc" an official project and someone just helpfully made the image (or an image including an official glibc package)? Or is this a prerelease?
Without a deep knowledge of alpine (or now reading this post) I couldn't answer any of these questions and I'm not sure I wouldn't try to go to alpine for bug reports. I think there's a reasonable potential for confusion, even with the namespace. (but granted, I don't use docker either, so maybe this is a common thing)
And I assume the alpine people (like the author) know that they get bug reports for it and that the issues with it cause bad publicity, and that that's the context for the post and the proposal to block the package.
The problem is the people who use Docker but don't know anything about it. Or don't know that mixing libcs is a problem. They use this glibc package, break their containers and then blame Alpine for the breakage.
>Please don't assume everyone is a "guy". In this case, Ariadne is not a "he" (she uses "she"), so a male-coded word like "guy" is ill-fitting.
Please do not mince words, people have a tenancy to refer to their own gender identity when referring to people who's gender identity they do not know. You knew what they meant.
from the hn guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I'm having a hard time here - do you really not see the connection between what I'm saying, what you're saying, and the use of a default masculine pronoun?
I see the connection, what I'm suggesting is that you knew what they meant when they said guy, meaning you did not need to suggest that they thought women didn't exist on the internet, nor did you need to suggest that they were assuming everybody on the internet is a man.
I don't think we're operating under the same impression of bad faith. You seem to be using it to mean "an argument or line of reasoning I don't find compelling", where I am using it to mean "bringing up a line of argument or discussion for some reason other than participating".
So to circle back around on this, some people feel like using male as the default gender is rude and exclusionary. Try assuming people are women, just as an experiment, and see what sort of push back you get. This isn't in any way a bad faith argument.
Except it's not, as it mixes glibc with musl in ways that induce undefined behaviour you don't expect. If it was recompiling all packages to use glibc, the name would be more appropriate… but also still a trademark violation.
So, of the 49,530 images that show up with several using Alpine somewhere in the name or description... you think this is a trademark violation how? Alpine is synonymous with lightweight images. Several people and vendors use it in their image names.
First, the repo name is alpine-pkg-glibc because it is merely a package you install on Alpine. The container name, created by a different individual is frolvlad/alpine-glibc, and they make it clear that it is based off Alpine with the glibc package installed. In fact, you can even look at the source code. This is ridiculous, and if Alpine starts going after people for using alpine in the container image name or tag then I now know what distro to avoid entirely.
Those names are clearly packages based on a distrop
So why not:
glibc-alpine
This would avoid confusion.
> they make it clear that it is based off Alpine with the glibc package installed
Well, seeing the number of issues opened on the official Alpine bug tracker regarding this package, it seems it's not that clear.
> if Alpine starts going after people for using alpine in the container image name or tag then I now know what distro to avoid entirely.
Alpine starts going after people for misusing the name and impacting their reputation. This is completely normal and understandable.
Marketing and communication is an important part of every projects, even open source projects, this is not exclusive to businesses. If you want people to support your project, you need to protect your image.
I do expect images with "alpine" in the name to be based on the Alpine distro. And not some weird bastard of Alpine. And I see no problem with them asserting their trademark here.
This is merely a package you install on Alpine so it isn't a fork. Did you not do any independent research and just assume? Want to move the goalposts?
It does not. They use Alpine in the name so people can find the image. Searching for Alpine on Docker Hub has 49,530 results. This image doesn't even show up on the first page of results. I think whoever wrote this needs to rethink how ridiculous they are being.
It didn't matter to me that half of the loading messages weren't funny. I could tell from the moment I opened the app that they understood who I was and why I was there. I was there to have fun, and they got me. Now they have started the journey to be all things to all people, and I will not be surprised if they end up as nothing to anyone.
You had fun because of a little bit of stupid jokes during loading?
Did that define your experience, or was you experience defined by what you did inside of discord after the loading screen had passed?
Why is all this bullshit important to people? Dumb gifs, emoticons everywhere, wannabe cute gamey jokes.
If you get invited to a whine tasting party with a bunch of boring stuck up people, but there is a kids-ball-pool thingie in the entrance, is the party awesome?
Has someone read the paper? I wonder if the effect disappears over time. This is, if the villi go back to having the length they had if they stop feeding the mice fructose.
I never use it because I know the process is automatic and I'm always afraid I will be missing part of the text or the pictures.
I've found ad blockers to be more or less competent in removing the stupid European banners, but they are far from flawless. Some sites get stuck without a scroll bar for example
> I'm always afraid I will be missing part of the text or the pictures
As for missing pictures, my argument is, either the text is referring to an image that cannot be seen in reader mode, then I'll notice and switch back to normal mode to see the image, or the image is not relevant to the text, so I just don't care for it.
I use it for the text to speech in Firefox a lot. When there isn't a pay wall in the way I'll open the page in another tab while reader read's it to me.
This way I can see the text and pictures the way they intended it to be.
Another downside is that text content for other articles on the site that aren't part of the article, will be in the content. On the full site they'll be links or something and you just skip them with out thinking. In text to speech reader mode, it reads them off.
There's no risk in invoking Reader Mode. If it doesn't render or omits text, you can simply toggle it off / navigate back to the native page.
Images in online articles are irrelevant the overwhelming majority of the time --- 75%--95% or more. At best they're eye-candy or distractions. They occasionally provide context. Some serve as a contextual reminder. I'd suggest that information-critical graphics (there's information in the image that's not available from the article itself) are in the neighbourhood of 1% of all images. These tend to be graphs, plots, charts, or maps.
They're also generally rendered by Reader Mode, unless the site is very poorly designed.
This is exactly why I don't use it either. Sometimes I have noticed that diagrams/images are stripped out. Sometimes a couple paragraphs at the end will be omitted.
I use Safari’s reader mode on Medium and it fails to load lazy-loaded images (unsurprisingly) so if I want to see those, I have to scroll down first and then enable the mode.
Sometimes images are missing. Especially banner images, of course, and sometimes those illustrate the story, but I think also background-level images (that are used for non-background purposes, if you miss them, of course).
Is it really a catalogue when there only are two of them?
I find it amusing that they probably ran this tool against a set of millions or even billions of images and this is the best they could come up with. They are practically praising Apple here lmao
If you tamper with the device it's your responsibility, innit? It's not like they disabled a properly functioning device that uses the original firmware with an OTA update.
> If you tamper with the device it's your responsibility, innit? It's not like they disabled a properly functioning device that uses the original firmware with an OTA update
And more to the point, Samsung is under no obligation to allow bootloader unlocking at all, much less ensure that it continues to provide any specific set of functionality.
The alternative here isn't "Samsung stops disabling the camera when the bootloader is unlocked," it's "Samsung stops allowing bootloader unlock."
This is always the game with Android phones - you have to do your research to understand whether you can install your own software on them, and what might be lost if you do so. If you don't want a bunch of headaches, just buy a Pixel series straight from Google.
It's not up to Samsung to allow bootloader unlock or not. There will be exploits that will allow for a bootloader unlock or worse unless they allow for it.
Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed.
> Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed
Unfortunately, that's not the world we actually live in. This thread is in response to the (great?) grandparent who suggested:
> On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality
Our governments may theoretically have the power to force vendors to provide functionality like this to end users, but it's hard to imagine that actually happening (can you imagine how hard Apple would lobby against unlocking iPhones, for example?).
The only thing we can do is stop buying devices from vendors who exhibit such user-hostile behaviors.
There is in my opinion a difference between a car and a phone.
If a car fails, people can die. If a phone fails, it normally doesn't have a huge impact.
If a car disables itself, because the central electronics were messed with by laymans, not some repair shop, it is in my opinion totally okay, as it would otherwise endanger humans.
But for a phone/other non-critical electronics, there is in my opinion no reason why its functionality should be reduced, just because you did something harmless like unlocking the bootloader. (In this case, the camera could still make photos, just without the fancy patented/copyrighted algorithms)
Is that a legal distinction where you live? If not, this all needs to be phrased in the context of “I think this is reasonable and am advocating for legislation with my elected representatives”.
