From what I've seen the gaming benchmarks are fantastic. Beats the mobile 5070 for some games and settings, or slightly behind on others. While being very far ahead of every other iGPU.
I have a laptop with an Nvidia GPU. Ruins battery life and makes it run very hot. I'd pay a lot for a powerful iGPU.
Arko kind of did address it in his most recent blog post. He claims he was doing what was in Ruby Central's best interest.
Unfortunately for him he basically admitted to a crime because it came after he was terminated. He tried appealing to community and whatnot but anyone who's ever worked for a corporation knows that once you're terminated, it doesn't matter if HR forgot to take away your credentials or not, you simply don't attempt to access anything ever again. Having keys to something doesn't make you the owner.
Yes, and he already explained why he did it. Yes, he should have communicated it clearly. That's on him.
At the same time, why didn't RC call him to ask? Was it easier to write about a security INCIDENT throwing shade at Arko?
With that said, let's keep focused on the real issue: RC did a hostile takeover of the projects. That's not been properly disputed so far. Matz is, therefore, accepting to steward stolen projects.
It doesn't matter why you break into your former employer's server. That's the point.
> Matz is, therefore, accepting to steward stolen projects.
You know Arko didn't even start working on Rubygems until it was nearly 10 years old, right?
One of the original authors is in here and on X saying he supports it being taken over by RubyCore. Which matters much more than whatever the maintainers who were locked out think.
"Please confirm that you cannot access the Ruby Central AWS root account credentials, either through the console or by access keys."
Alternatively, we could see the whole issue for what it is: a power struggle between political factions of an open source project that is unprofessionally handled by at least one side.
> It doesn't matter why you break into your former employer's server.
Arko already stated that he didn't know he had been fired. Geez.
> You know Arko didn't even start working on Rubygems until it was nearly 10 years old, right?
The project was stolen from a set of maintainers, not just Arko. Let's stick to the facts: someone with admin rights over the repos revoked the access of other admins without their consent. What do you call this?
> One of the original authors is in here and on X saying he supports it being taken over by RubyCore. Which matters much more than whatever the maintainers who were locked out think.
How in the world is that relevant? I have a lot of respect for Rich, but he wasn't a maintainer.
> have a lot of respect for Rich, but he wasn't a maintainer.
LMAO
No. He's one of the few people on the planet that could lay claim to it's copyright. He also gave the insight that Rubygems has literally ALWAYS been a part of RubyCentral.
Arko tried to copyright Rubygems and file a claim against RC. That's literally part of the issue here... Because the repo doesn't matter that much, it's OSS, you can fork...
But if you do care about the repo, once again, RC has always controlled Rubygems. From the day it was written. The maintainers were even paid by RC. That makes it RC's, not the maintainers'.
Well - I'd actually argue that it would be better and simpler if there would be just one binary. How it is called is IMO secondary. It would be better if the whole API would be unified. Bundler came later though.
Apparently so. That shouldn't be a surprise; Amazon Web Services turned out to be hostile to WikiLeaks, CDDB's hosting turned out to be hostile to the community that built CDDB, coal mining company towns were hostile to miners' unions, and, in the final analysis, turkey farmers are hostile to the turkeys.
Imagine if you opened up your laptop to discover Microsoft windows has locked you out of a your entire machine, because you were writing a novel in RTF and it could be opened in Microsoft Word. Microsoft's executives started posting they "took control of the your machine/the novel to maintain security".
- Corporate entity doesn't have copyright over your creative output. Just because word can open and view ("run") your novel does not give them ownership.
- Locking your access completely on your resources would be akin to a ransomware attack or account compromise
Would you label those actions hostile? Or just accept it as right because "maintain security"?
If you would label the above hypothetical actions as hostile (if not outrageous overreach, something akin to theft?); what is fundamentally different to what Ruby Central did by taking over the source code of a GitHub repository?
This is a bad analogy. André Arko was a contractor employed by Ruby Central. His employer terminated his contract. He continued to access their server which is literally a crime.
The "maintainers" weren't volunteers. They were paid employees.
Also none of the ones complaining were the original authors of gem nor bundler.
You work for Microsoft as an independent contractor, as a night watchman/groundskeeper. So do a number of others. You were hired because you and your crew of weirdos were writing the story of advanced gardening and building maintenace; which people including those at many famous and powerful companies used and found useful.
A number of years ago someone said "huh, maybe these guys should get funding", and a few others agree; and Microsoft ends up in charge of distributing that funding.
The above still happens. They have locked your computer with a ransomware message that says "we will give you back access if you get rid of one of you".
To lock your computer, which is airgapped, it would require someone with admin privileges to your computer to walk in and manually do this. It turns out one of your has colleagues done this, added an account for the Director of Night Maintenance at Microsoft to your machine.
You and almost all of the "paid employees", again, a number of whom are independent contractors, resign in protest; leaving only the person who tampered with your computer.
> The behavior Ruby Central exhibited was so egregious that I sincerely thought someone's account had been compromised at one point
During this chaos; which all happened between September 9 and September 18;
- at midday LA time/2:40pm New York time; Microsoft terminates the contract with one specific individual; who was the one they demanded the group gets rid of if they wanted access back
- 8 hours later, that person locks the doors; changes nothing else, etc.
Some basic analysis about the situation you need to do:
- Did the actions on September 19th, even if you believe it was a crime of the most serious nature, justify the actions on Sept 9-18 where Microsoft took access, said whoopsie, then did it again?
- Treating the Sept 19 actions as a crime; did the person who did it do so with a criminal intent? (Mens rea). Did they intend harm? Or were they indifferent to the harm caused? Should this be prosecuted, has that person provided justification or similar that could in any way be reasonable doubt?
- If the actions on September 19 are a crime in your viewpoint; would paying/influencing someone to lock the accounts of all of the maintainers also be a crime? Why or why not?
First off, was anything involved a "protected computer"? No, probably not, not by the legal definition there; yes by what we as laypeople would assume.
But, let's roll with the assumption it's "literally a crime" and not a civil matter; but apply that standard equally.
> (4)knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
* Is the draft novel/rubygems source code a thing of value? Yes. $5000 worth? Tricky to say with the open source licencing! But RC were distributing $ to maintain it; and that cost them more than $5000/year. Cost does not equal value; but I think we can argue yes, kinda here.
> (7)with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—
* Did anyone attempt to extort anyone else to remove a person? (Get rid of x if you want access back!)
* Did that have value? (Gee, I hope the treasurer didn't post, it was about the funding deadlines/only to have that walked back!) Also a bit murky as the value isn't coming from the extortion directly, only indirectly.
> (b)Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
* Did anyone conspire? (Two or more people agree to criminal act, followed by an overt act)
Can you plausibly see how if you try to apply US law to argue one individual on one side is a criminal; that same law would likely make the other side just as criminal; if not more so?
---
> none of the ones complaining were the original authors of gem nor bundler.
"I joined the team at a pivotal moment, in February 2010, as the 0.9 prototype was starting to be re-written yet another time into the shape that would finally be released as 1.0. By the time Carl, Yehuda, and I released version 1.0 together in August 2010, we had fully established the structure and commands that Bundler 2.7.2 still uses today."
IE: Claims to be a significant contributor, predating any "stewardship" by RubyCentral. I would argue this can be born out by contributions and the fact he proposed the darned merger with RC in the first place; and that merger assigns no intellectual property rights or similar.
Because most in North America are made with margarine or a mix of margarine and butter, so much of the butter "taste" is fake. That's also why the lamination is worse.
