It's a privilege to have any service done for you, not just waiting tables.
You are free to give them extra money if you feel that service received exceeds the price that you paid for but it shouldn't be mandatory.
Customer should pay for products and services that's agreed upon. Employer should pay their employees to ensure the quality of the said products and services. There's no reason why a quality of service should be variable based on how generous I feel.
In the places where I am immediately able to tip, I do. Coffee shops, bars, salons, tattoo artists, valets, servers, furniture movers, you name it, I've tipped them.
I think the difference is that I get a tinge of embarassment having anyone wait on me. There's a weird power imbalance I don't like. Tipping helps offset that imbalance and lets them know I appreciate their service.
I'm Korean and if I were to write an article titled "Program like the cowboys of old west" (I've no clue what that article will be about but), would Americans be offended?
Within Korean culture, Doh (도) is a same concept as Tao but I'm not offended.
The big difference is that Tao has religious overtones to it, while cowboys of the Old West, doesn’t. I think OP was more concerned about the fact that this is grabbing something out of another culture and potentially misusing it or using it in a way that others might not approve. A perhaps more apropos analogy might be The Ten Commandments of Programming, which would be OK with most people, although the Torah of Programming, which employed Jewish stereotypes in its telling would be more problematic. And having typed that, this is where the potential issue with the article could lie: less in the title and more in the body and whether it employs stereotypes or culturally insensitive appropriations.
Seems all harmless enough, but I suppose the risk is that when you use imagery of a different culture, you don't know what is held near and dear to people from within that culture, that you might twist out of context in a hurtful way.
> Even as we speak, systems programmers are doing pointer arithmetic so that children and artists can pretend that their x86 chips do not expose an architecture designed by Sauron.
> You might ask, “Why would someone write code in a grotesque
language that exposes raw memory addresses? Why not use
a modern language with garbage collection and functional
programming and free massages after lunch?” Here’s the
answer: Pointers are real. They’re what the hardware understands. Somebody has to deal with them. You can’t just place
a LISP book on top of an x86 chip and hope that the hardware
learns about lambda calculus by osmosis.
> "Program like the cowboys of old west" (I've no clue what that article will be about but)
Probably about doing things without modern sensibilities of safety precautions, skipping normal testing procedures to fix an issue quickly, editing the live production server, stuff like that.
I wonder if these were independently derived, or if there was some cultural cross-pollination between China and India? Seems plausible since they're right next to each other.
I block ads by default and turn it on for the sites that I want to support. Main reason for blocking by default is privacy. I don't want super targeted ad. If I'm on a particular site consuming particular content, that should be sufficient context for choosing what ad to show me. Do not follow me around all over the internet trying to sell me on stuff.
"Using the UBI image, it is easily possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered... Another method... is pay-per-use public cloud instances. With this, anyone can spin up RHEL images in the cloud and thus obtain the source code for all packages and errata."
I wonder how stable the cloud path is ... can RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders? (Kinda like how subscribers "agree" that distributing GPL'd sources could put their subscription renewal in jeopardy.)
>an RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders?
I mean, maybe, but does it matter? You only need one person with access to the code to distribute it to everyone else, and the identity of that one person doesn't have to be public, so I really don't see how Red Hat could ever hope to stop it.
> That confusion manifested as accusations about us going closed-source and about alleged GPL violations. There is CentOS Stream the binary deliverable, and CentOS Stream the source repository. The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate. CentOS Stream moves faster than RHEL, so it might not be on HEAD, but the code is there. If you can’t find it, it’s a bug – please let us know.
> Anyone is allowed to create an account, get GPL'ed code and redistribute that code as much as they want according to the license. But they don't actually want the code because as I've said over and over, its not about the code (Free as in freedom). The code is out there (as proven by the fact that none of these rebuilders stopped nor will they stop)
PS: How many people do you see linking to the actual Red Hat posts? I don't see many, which is why I think many comments on these threads are not made with honest intentions. The misinformation is rampant.
While it’s important to get both sides, RH’s actions are the exact opposite of what he’s saying there. And your belief that this somehow absolves them and that their anti-FLOSS actions are “misinformation” is incredibly disingenuous.
What actions? What anti-FLOSS? They are complying fully with the terms of all licenses of RHEL and CentOS Software. Don't believe me? Here is what Fedora says about it [1]. It's no problem for them. "There is no change in Fedora or with anything related to Fedora."
> 3) So what happened?
>
> - CentOS Engineers will not be producing that git
> repo of exploded SRPMs anymore because there is
> no need for them in CentOS project.
>
> - Red Hat recommends to take RHEL sources from
> CentOS Stream repositories because that is the
> actual source from which RHEL packages are built
> by RHEL Engineers.
>
> Can you still get access to SRPMs and create
> exploded sources repo - Yes. But there is no
> practical reason for Red Hat or for CentOS
> Project to maintain such a service.
>
> There is no change in Fedora or with anything
> related to Fedora.
>
> --
> Aleksandra Fedorova,
> member of Fedora Council
> RHEL/CentOS Strem CI Engineer
I didn't try to be smart, I just got super confused what verb to use for telegrams (weirdly enough, to me "encoding" was only used in the context of computer... which is wrong; I tried to use "codify" also, but I'm pretty sure it's also wrong... from there the confusion spread in the whole article).
I'm not a native speaker. It doesn't excuse my mistake though.
You are free to give them extra money if you feel that service received exceeds the price that you paid for but it shouldn't be mandatory.
Customer should pay for products and services that's agreed upon. Employer should pay their employees to ensure the quality of the said products and services. There's no reason why a quality of service should be variable based on how generous I feel.