Yeah that is often the issue.

It is rare a single company owns all the IP on code. So its common that companies are not releasing code because they cannot.

Yeah any reverse engineering of closed source code takes time. It’s a huge job on its own. Adding the need to avoid actions that may lead to legal issues.

Well yep, It’s very likely this may never round to a perfect replacement product.

But it still has value. For starters, it will encourage new open source projects to use it rather than the propria try version, long before it’s a direct replacement capable product.

So the effort is worth some excitement. At least a pat on the back and free beer for some of the guys trying.

Agreed. Most of us really do not think about this shit as often as we should. I know I am guilty of assuming he when typing. I know because I make an effort not to be. And notice how often I need to correct text. Being older than many developers. I just grew up with the assumptions. So like many my age needed my attention drawn to the societal indoctrination.

People politely pointing it out is important. As is people volunteering to help correct older documentation.

The direct numerics of moors law may not be definite.

But the principal it defines is. In the future computers will have much more power then they do now.

The reason modern GPUs use things like shaders etc is to allow them to archive massive manipulation of data in more efficient ways specific for the task desired.

Honestly this is why I mention time scale as the main thing that will make this possible. How modern gpus or other specialised processers do the task is less important then what the game code is asking the gpu to achieve.

The idea that at a unknown future date. The CPU GPUs or what ever future tech we have. will never be able to run fast enough to read current cpu or gpu instruction sets. And generate the effect defined using future techniques is not viable as an argument. The only questions are how long and is anyone going to have the motivation to reverse engineer the large but finite instruction sets used by secretive hardware corps today.

Not so sure about that. When you consider time spans.

Currently we can emulate the majority of early games consoles. So theoretically with time and Moors law any hardware will be emulate able in a few decades. With enough information.

The advantage of open source software. Is it can be used with the original binaries to reverse engineer the instruction set even if the original manufacturer wishes to hide it. So with will and effort even the most complex hardware will be able to be emulated on future much faster hardware.

You can copy binary code. Just as easy as source code.

It is only when running on a different architecture it gets a bit more complex.

And give the binary is directly translatable by software. Not hugely more complex for any company of the size you are unwilling to fight in court over open source code.

Sorry but no you are wrong. Hading the source in no way makes code harder to copy. Its how most of us hacked into games in the 1990s.

After all binary code is just simpler instruction set that takes very very minimal effort to convert into assembly language. And can be read by many even without that effort.

Its hardly a secret encrypted format. (Unless you are also designing your own hardware and not letting anyone see that. )

Is it anymore the case with other licences though.

Obscurity is no security at all. If you have no ability to fight to keep tour copy right or patient. People will copy it open or closed.

Even direct machine code can be copied a reverse engineered fairly simply.

So non of this is purely a open source permissive licence issue. Its a big corperations acting like fudal lords issue.

Sorta why the FSF was formed.

Because thses lucences working effects folks other then yourself.

So best for all OS developers and users to work together.

Depends what nation you are in and how you obtained it.

Anyone can release software under any licence. As long as they are not breaking the licence they release under. Or the licence they use any 3rd party code is under

I do not think GPL has any rules about claims. Just actual actions. But if they released in under another licence. Then it is possible. (But unlikely). The licence has such rules.

So in most cases. Actual actions or lack of rather then claims. Based on the licence is your only option. And that would mean contact he authors of any included code. Or FSF etc.

Some nations have advertising rules. Depending on how and where it was obtained you may be able to contact their advertising standards association equiv.

But providng for free can often weaken this. Although it is likely far from an absolute excuse to false advertising.

Keeps getting harder for me to not want a 3D printer.

But honestly the odd project like this is all if use it for. Would be another expensive space hog most of the time.

Not OP. But a 40 plus year type 1 diabetic. Who knows from experiance how much CGM improove treatment for newer T1ds. Im now legally blond due to them not existing in the past. As are a high % of T1ds my age…

Sorry but phrasing seems like a bad excuse.

Your crossed out comment shows You clearly knew enouth from his pheasing ro recognise you were giving medical advice to a diabetic with out the qualifications to do so.

His phrasing was perfect. And i really would rather you not try to excuse your input when. So many medical profesionals are trying to encourage the usu of CGM technology. The consrant 5min rwading provide way more control information then any periodic test can.

That said. The watch is just a nice add. Bur a good reason to want one.

No use for my vision but would have loved the option 30 plus years ago. Would likely have good vision now if I had access to CGMs then.

2 or 3 programs.

Krita is great for creation. Darktable is the equive of lightroom and best for filtering photos etc. It really is great.

Gimp is a great tool. But has issues with colour depth. Takes some practice but well worth it for the correct projects.

Anything else you want to do. You will find simple command line tools to do it.

Like most you may find this daunting. But remember Unix plus OS has a very different philosopy to most commercial development houses. Where companies like Photoshop see any other software as competition that they must absorb costomers from. So anything they cannot do they try to replace. Constantly increasing the scope of there product.

Unix tend to have a right tool for the job attitude. This allows OS developer who are donating there own time. To concentrate on doing the stuff they are good at very well.

There is little motive to destroy competition. If another group dose something better. Use them.