Overture Maps

[Rothman]

I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.

Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground. Meta, on the other hand...

I wonder how Minecraft is dong since they totally changed the mining dynamics and increased the world size.  Some older players like me consider it ruined. 

[kalvado]

I wonder if sharks smell blood, and Google is loosing steam. My recent experience with them was... pretty underwhelming, to put it very mildly.
On the other hand, MS and FB... Well, we'll see.

[webny99]

Oklahoma City's trouble spots are predictable enough in times and locations that I have no need to look up routes around them. If there is a surprise backup due to an accident or whatever, the detour will invariably be "exit to the surface street grid, jump over a mile, and run parallel to the freeway until you think you're past the backup".

In many cases, the reason to look up routes around congestion isn't because you're unfamiliar with the alternatives, but rather (1) to find out if those alternatives are also congested and how much, and (2) to find out where exactly the backup ends so you know when to head back to the freeway (especially if it's an accident or other non-recurring backup).

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma City's trouble spots are predictable enough in times and locations that I have no need to look up routes around them. If there is a surprise backup due to an accident or whatever, the detour will invariably be "exit to the surface street grid, jump over a mile, and run parallel to the freeway until you think you're past the backup".

In many cases, the reason to look up routes around congestion isn't because you're unfamiliar with the alternatives, but rather (1) to find out if those alternatives are also congested and how much, and (2) to find out where exactly the backup ends so you know when to head back to the freeway (especially if it's an accident or other non-recurring backup).

(1) they aren't ever
(2) most of the time I just take the surface street the rest of the way home because it's not like the freeway saves me that much time anyway
(2a) if I really wanted to get back on the freeway, I just go back to it and look at it to decide whether or not to get on or keep going

I just really don't care about the traffic feature, guys.

[US 89]

I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.

Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground. Meta, on the other hand...

I wonder how Minecraft is dong since they totally changed the mining dynamics and increased the world size.  Some older players like me consider it ruined.

I just hate how long it takes to find iron now.

[vdeane]

It's worth noting that the traffic feature doesn't just have real-time traffic, but Google also knows what the typical traffic will be in an area and adjust the projected drive time accordingly.  Very handy if, say, driving to/from Long Island.  It's very good for estimating how long route clinching trips will take, though I do have to make sure to check the time at a similar time/day of the week as when I'd take the trip.

And yeah, avoiding backups isn't nearly so easy in places where the roads aren't a grid.  And around here, if the Northway is sufficiently bad, the one parallel road (Wolf Road and old Wolf Road from NY 5 to NY 155, Wade Road from there to NY 7, and US 9 north of there) can sometimes get congested too.

[kphoger]

I've put business names into Google Maps as a shortcut to looking them up on their website. For example, if I have reservations at Fancy Inn in Anytown, I'd have to look up the inn's website to find the exact address. I can look it up by name on Google Maps and find how to get there.

Generally, I find that I'm better served looking it up on the business website anyway–businesses frequently update their hours on the website but not Google Maps, there is additional information like menus or terms and conditions that don't fit the Google Maps template and so are not displayed, etc.

That's assuming you know what the business's website even is to begin with.  There have been plenty of times that I searched Google for a small business's website but couldn't easily find it on a Google search, then went to Google Maps and simply clicked on the link for its website.

I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.

*trigger*

Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux

Aw geez, someone just had to say the L-word...

Street view is another big one.  Every other product that has attempted it is either less pervasive, doesn't update often (or at all), isn't panoramic, and/or has other interface issues.  It's not just fun to look at - it's how I make sure I know where I'm going when driving, by checking out every single turn I'll be making in advance (where possible).

Glad I'm not the only one who does that!

In March, my pastor and I flew into Monterrey (Mexico), where our friends picked us up, then we all went to the historic district for lunch, and then we headed out of the city to the west.  I had detailed directions for how to find our exits, including guide sign legends.  I was able to give point-by-point directions to the driver, telling him in advance which lane to choose and what signs to look for.  And all of that came from looking at GSV in detail ahead of time.

[webny99]

And yeah, avoiding backups isn't nearly so easy in places where the roads aren't a grid.  And around here, if the Northway is sufficiently bad, the one parallel road (Wolf Road and old Wolf Road from NY 5 to NY 155, Wade Road from there to NY 7, and US 9 north of there) can sometimes get congested too.

Certainly agreed.. and even if the road network is somewhat coherent, congestion on the alternates can still happen quickly if they're only two lanes (see Winton Rd when NY 590 is congested, or Ridge Rd when NY 104 is congested). Four-lane arterials paralleling the freeway for long stretches aren't found on a consistent basis in the Northeast like they are in other parts of the country.

[Bruce]

I imagine that an open-source version of the live traffic data that Google provides would have to be managed similarly to the schedules and live arrivals/positioning information that is fed into a variety of apps by transit agencies (GTFS). They could attempt to create a standard and have various state and city/county DOTs sign on, but maintaining it would be difficult.

And adding to the previous discussion: live traffic data is a huge timesaver when out near popular hiking areas on weekends, as they can suddenly congest or have collisions/incidents that block off the only routes for miles around. And not to mention during inclement weather, where one can easily track where snow is really affecting traffic by looking at the orange/red/black lines:


(Taken just now at 10:45 pm)

[FrCorySticha]

I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.

I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.

Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.

This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.

[Rothman]

I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.

I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.

Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.

This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.

That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.

[kalvado]

I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.

I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.

Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.

This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.

That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.

it sounds like "we can easily collect fees that way" though

[skluth]

I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.

I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.

Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.

This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.

All this is ignoring the other major player in mapping services, ESRI. There are already plenty of ESRI map applications on the web from WISDOT's traffic counts to FEMA flood maps. ESRI is not in direct competition with Google Maps but both are major players in mapping services.

[Scott5114]

I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.

I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.

Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.

This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.

That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.

it sounds like "we can easily collect fees that way" though

If the Linux Foundation is involved, I'm pretty sure the goal is not to collect fees. That's never been something they've been into; they're into the philosophy of "make the best software possible by letting everyone see and critique the code". If the point was to create a product you could charge people for, the Linux Foundation wouldn't have signed on.

More likely, the play is to provide a free map library that is unencumbered by copyright restrictions and which can be used by everyone without having to ask permission from anyone. The Linux Foundation would like this because they're allergic to important services being solely under corporate control. Microsoft and Meta would like this because, while they don't get money off of it, it takes Google down a peg (and means that they don't have to pay their competitor any time they need a map).

[kalvado]

I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.

I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.

Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.

This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.

That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.

it sounds like "we can easily collect fees that way" though

If the Linux Foundation is involved, I'm pretty sure the goal is not to collect fees. That's never been something they've been into; they're into the philosophy of "make the best software possible by letting everyone see and critique the code". If the point was to create a product you could charge people for, the Linux Foundation wouldn't have signed on.

More likely, the play is to provide a free map library that is unencumbered by copyright restrictions and which can be used by everyone without having to ask permission from anyone. The Linux Foundation would like this because they're allergic to important services being solely under corporate control. Microsoft and Meta would like this because, while they don't get money off of it, it takes Google down a peg (and means that they don't have to pay their competitor any time they need a map).

True, question is who owns - and pays for collecting - map data. Even if the library is free, database may be more involved.
Then, governments naturally have a lot of map data for their use - and I believe that is not copyrightable. I wonder if that is a part of the game. For example, would charging governments for maintaining their GIS be feasible?  Our county tax maps are hosted on a for-profit company's site, so at least one government already  pays for that....

[Scott5114]

I think you might be somewhat misunderstanding what the underlying philosophy of the Linux Foundation is (and kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post, but I think it's important to understand where the Linux people are coming from if you want to understand what sort of project they're going to want to make). Linux is open-source software–anyone who has the inclination can just download the code and read it, and if you have the technical knowledge that will tell you exactly how it works. There is nothing secret there. 

Now, this has a lot of implications. First off, you can't really sell something like that, because why would you pay someone for something that anyone could just download for free and build their own version of?* But the benefits of this arrangement are enough to make up for it–because anyone can look at the code, if a technically-inclined user runs across a bug or a missing feature, they don't have to write in to the company saying "hey, the program crashes when I do X-Y-Z". Instead, their correspondence is more like "On line 2142 the greater-than sign should be a less-than. I fixed it and now the program works better; please fix this in the master codebase too." Everyone is familiar with Wikipedia these days–the people that invented the wiki got the idea from watching the Linux people.

Of course for all of this to work and be legal there can't really be any copyrights or anything, because that just gets in the way of programmers trying to make the software better. (This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.)

So if the Linux people are involved in this, they are going to insist that all of the code be free of copyright (probably licensed under the General Public License, which governs just about every open-source software project), and that all of the data be free of copyright too. That's the way OSM works already, and they're building on top of OSM, so it would make sense to follow the same kind of licensing OSM uses. This basically will guarantee that anyone in the world can take the Overture data set and software and use it for anything they want, for free.

Now, that's all well and good for the Linux people, but why would Microsoft and Meta be interested in this? Well, I would imagine it's because they want to include maps in their products, but aren't all that interested in selling maps as a product. For Meta, for example, perhaps they want to embed a map in an event page on Facebook showing where it will take place at. To make their own cartography system would be a tremendous expense that they're not going to be able to recoup easily. So it makes sense to farm that out to someone else. Right now, the big kahuna is Google (and ESRI also exists), but you have to pay them for commercial use of their maps–and you know they'd salivate over the idea of charging Meta seven figures or so for that. So instead, they can go halfsies with Microsoft to establish an open-source project that they can pull free maps from whenever they like.

Microsoft already has Bing Maps, but with this project they can shove the actual mapmaking parts off on an open-source community so they don't have to worry about minutiae like where the exact termini of I-11 are at the moment. They can just grab the Overture map and layer their Streetscape, ads, business information, etc. over top of it.

Amazon is probably mostly involved because then they can charge Microsoft and Meta to host all of this stuff. Amazon has such an extensive server infrastructure system that they actually run a pretty big chunk of the Internet that has nothing to do with Amazon.

*Linux companies do exist, but the value-add there is basically "If you buy our copy of Linux, you can call our team of techs to help you fix anything that breaks". With the free stuff, "support" consists of either what comes up on Google, or what you can get out of a condescending nerd on a forum or Discord server.

[kalvado]

I think you might be somewhat misunderstanding what the underlying philosophy of the Linux Foundation is (and kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post, but I think it's important to understand where the Linux people are coming from if you want to understand what sort of project they're going to want to make). Linux is open-source software–anyone who has the inclination can just download it and read it, and if you have the technical knowledge that will tell you exactly how it works. There is nothing secret there. 

Now, this has a lot of implications. First off, you can't really sell something like that, because why would you pay someone for something that anyone could just download for free and build their own version of? But the benefits of this arrangement are enough to make up for it–because anyone can look at the code, if a technically-inclined user runs across a bug or a missing feature, they don't have to write in to the company saying "hey, the program crashes when I do X-Y-Z". Instead, their correspondence is more like "On line 2142 the greater-than sign should be a less-than. I fixed it and now the program works better; please fix this in the master codebase too." Everyone is familiar with Wikipedia these days–the people that invented the wiki got the idea from watching the Linux people.

Of course for all of this to work and be legal there can't really be any copyrights or anything, because that just gets in the way of programmers trying to make the software better. (This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.)

So if the Linux people are involved in this, they are going to insist that all of the code be free of copyright (probably licensed under the General Public License, which governs just about every open-source software project), and that all of the data be free of copyright too. That's the way OSM works already, and they're building on top of OSM, so it would make sense to follow the same kind of licensing OSM uses. This basically will guarantee that anyone in the world can take the Overture data set and software and use it for anything they want, for free.

Now, that's all well and good for the Linux people, but why would Microsoft and Meta be interested in this? Well, I would imagine it's because they want to include maps in their products, but aren't all that interested in selling maps as a product. For Meta, for example, perhaps they want to embed a map in an event page on Facebook showing where it will take place at. To make their own cartography system would be a tremendous expense that they're not going to be able to recoup easily. So it makes sense to farm that out to someone else. Right now, the big kahuna is Google (and ESRI also exists), but you have to pay them for commercial use of their maps–and you know they'd salivate over the idea of charging Meta seven figures or so for that. So instead, they can go halfsies with Microsoft to establish an open-source project that they can pull free maps from whenever they like.

Microsoft already has Bing Maps, but with this project they can shove the actual mapmaking parts off on an open-source community so they don't have to worry about minutiae like where the exact termini of I-11 are at the moment. They can just grab the Overture map and layer their Streetscape, ads, business information, etc. over top of it.

Amazon is probably mostly involved because then they can charge Microsoft and Meta to host all of this stuff. Amazon has such an extensive server infrastructure system that they actually run a pretty big chunk of the Internet that has nothing to do with Amazon.

That's all  great, now can you explain how  redhat enterprise linux fits into that rosy view?

[Scott5114]

That's all  great, now can you explain how  redhat enterprise linux fits into that rosy view?

You must have seen my post before I edited in the footnote. How Red Hat makes their money is selling support.

There are two versions of the Red Hat code base. One is called Fedora Linux, which is free and can be downloaded and installed without contacting Red Hat at all. I'm running it on the computer I'm typing this post on. Now, by running Fedora, I'm on the hook for fixing anything that breaks. If I can't figure it out, my support options are basically to Google frantically and hope I find a solution to the problem, or beg someone on a forum or Reddit for the answer.

Now, I'm an individual user that can put up with that (mostly because I've been running Fedora for 17 years at this point so I'm pretty decent at fixing it myself), but if I'm running a business that can't just take a day off to fix their computer when it breaks, that's not going to be acceptable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is made by periodically taking the Fedora code, cleaning it up a bit, and selling it. When you buy a copy of RHEL, you are buying the right to call up Red Hat and say "Hey, so this morning my computer can't find the printer drivers and I don't know why." And then they'll have the answer. But at its core? It's the same code as Fedora.

[kalvado]

That's all  great, now can you explain how  redhat enterprise linux fits into that rosy view?

You must have seen my post before I edited in the footnote. How Red Hat makes their money is selling support.

There are two versions of the Red Hat code base. One is called Fedora Linux, which is free and can be downloaded and installed without contacting Red Hat at all. I'm running it on the computer I'm typing this post on. Now, by running Fedora, I'm on the hook for fixing anything that breaks. If I can't figure it out, my support options are basically to Google frantically and hope I find a solution to the problem, or beg someone on a forum or Reddit for the answer.

Now, I'm an individual user that can put up with that (mostly because I've been running Fedora for 17 years at this point so I'm pretty decent at fixing it myself), but if I'm running a business that can't just take a day off to fix their computer when it breaks, that's not going to be acceptable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is made by periodically taking the Fedora code, cleaning it up a bit, and selling it. When you buy a copy of RHEL, you are buying the right to call up Red Hat and say "Hey, so this morning my computer can't find the printer drivers and I don't know why." And then they'll have the answer. But at its core? It's the same code as Fedora.

My point rather is that money can be made even in open-source world. Google maps are free for individual users (not open source, but still) - with certain limitations. Now those limitations can be seen every time truck roof is sheared off by a low bridge...
I am not sure how that would fit into mapping ecosystem, bit value-adding services on top of base map library isn't something hard to imagine. 

And if you wonder, I type this on PC running Ubuntu. Just saying

[Thing 342]

This appears to be a bunch of second-tier map providers banding together to better compete with Google Maps (plus Amazon, who I assume wants to do logistics things without paying tons of money to Google to use their directions API). It appears that their strategy to compete with Google's ginormous data lake is to turn over the data collection, identification, and curation to an open-source community project managed by the Linux Foundation. I think this is an interesting and commendable strategy (open-core vs Google's closed core), albeit not one that I'm sure will work.

Google's advantage is and will continue to be its massive reserve of and access to data from which it can produce useful and richly populated end-user applications. Google knows current traffic and typical patterns because it has access to roughly a billion Android devices and their locations. Google knows business information because it crawls the entire Web for business web sites and correlates that with data gathered from Street View to produce location imagery. Google knows street sign and address information because it has Street View to cross-reference. Only Google currently has the scale to manage this size data operation and they rightfully charge a large premium for others to gain access to it.

OSM is proof that a project like this can potentially work (indeed, MS and Meta are notably large contributors to OSM), however as others have noted, the project has governance issues that have limited its usefulness as a Google Maps replacement. A big issue will be the license of the OSM content that they plan to ingest; it's a share-alike license, meaning that any data set that is derived from it must also be open-source. This will limit the number of companies willing to invest in this ecosystem as they won't be able to turn the data into any sort of secret sauce logistics model. I assume this is why they went to the Linux Foundation to handle governance as they have experience in getting corporations to participate in open-core projects and building value-added paid products on top of them while preventing them from taking their toys and going home.

Anyway, a few questions I have lingering:

• Does this mean that MS or TomTom will open-source their Street View imagery?
• How will Overture Maps get its traffic data? Inrix isn't open-source and both Google and Apple are getting very stingy about handing device location info for client applications. Apple recently killed a large chunk of Facebook's business model essentially overnight with its user tracking changes.
• Apple's lack of explicit involvement is interesting, though I wonder if their relationship with TomTom might be in effect here?
• Does Amazon plan on incorporating the technologies developed by this project into AWS? Does MS plan to with Azure?

[kphoger]

kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post ... This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.

Actually...  What is the relationship between Unix and Linux?  In all seriousness.

[Scott5114]

kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post ... This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.

Actually...  What is the relationship between Unix and Linux?  In all seriousness.

The answer is sort of complicated, so this is a summary from off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm getting the details wrong (and there's lots of stuff that's up for debate as to who was responsible for what when). There's been books written about this, though, so if you want more information it's out there.

Unix started out around 1970 as a side project of Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs. (These two guys were also responsible for inventing the C programming language, which pretty much the entire world runs on top of; if it's not written in C it's written in something that runs on top of something written in C.) This was mostly intended as just an interesting research project, not a product for Bell Labs's parent company AT&T, and as such the source code was shared around with comp-sci people at various universities, most notably UC Berkeley. However, once it reached academia, it started to be used for actually useful stuff.

The suits at AT&T eventually found out about Unix and decided they wanted to monetize it. This turned into a total mess, because while they could enforce copyright on the code that Bell Labs employees wrote, they couldn't over the code that was written at Berkeley. The project basically got balkanized between System V Unix and the Berkeley Standard Distribution (BSD), and some other minor versions of Unix that various companies had the rights to sell for some reason. That being said, Unix was useful enough that everyone agreed they needed some way to keep all of the various Unixes on the same page, so they came up with something called the POSIX standards. But it was still a pretty contentious environment, with various Unix companies suing each other all the time over who had the rights to which code and things like that.

In the early 1990s, random Finnish college student Linus Torvalds, who had nothing to do with any of this, bought his first computer with a 386 processor and a textbook called Operating Systems: Design and Implementation by Andrew S. Tanenbaum. Tanenbaum had written a small Unix clone called Minix that was distributed with the textbook as a working example of the concepts therein, which Linus installed and learned the basics of Unix from. As a fun way to learn how the 386 processor worked, he started writing a program in the Unix style that talked directly to the processor, instead of going through Minix. (Linus has stated that this was mostly because there is nothing else to do during winter in Finland.) This was all well and good and just a fun project until one day he tried to connect to the Internet, but because of a bug in his code, his modem sent the data to his hard disk instead, destroying his Minix install. He could have reinstalled it, but he looked at how much code he had written for his fun project and thought "Gee, I might as well just write the last little bit to make this a full standalone operating system". So he ended up getting a copy of the POSIX standards and finished it off according to those. When he was done, he showed it off on the Internet. He initially wanted to call it Freax but the guy who was hosting the files thought that was a dumb name and renamed it Linux.

What Linus wasn't counting on was that now, all of a sudden, here was a brand new Unix-compatible operating system that AT&T had absolutely no copyright claim to–it was written in isolation in a Finnish college student's bedroom, so what possible claim would they have had?–which instantly cut the Gordian knot of legal issues surrounding Unix. Since Linus had written it according to POSIX standards, it was trivial to port software from the old Unixes to Linux, so pretty much everyone who had a stake in Unix basically swapped over to Linux within a few years. Unix still exists in the form of various flavors of BSD that are still chugging on, but for just about anything serious Unix used to be used for, Linux is now used instead.

[MCRoads]

I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.

Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground. Meta, on the other hand...

I wonder how Minecraft is dong since they totally changed the mining dynamics and increased the world size.  Some older players like me consider it ruined.

1.18?
I mean, it's different, but it isn't ruined... at least that update didn't ruin it.

The chat moderation fiasco, now THAT has basically ruined it. Now you can be permanently banned from multiplayer for basically no reason.
Yeah... GG Microsoft, you pissed everyone off again!

[Scott5114]

Yeah... GG Microsoft, you pissed everyone off again!

It's a company tradition dating back to 1981.

[LilianaUwU]

Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground.

One of the most false statements of all time, considering the tone-deafness when it comes to the chat reporting system.