Honestly, some of the worst aspects of SOAP were legacies of XML-RPC. Some of the remaining messy parts were often "yes, you can not implement that, but then if you ever need functionality X, Y, Z - you will be fucked without this complexity".
Similar to how we have DER in ASN.1.
The rest in my experience was often related to crappy "generate me XML interface from my crappy Java/.NET class" because enterprise software demands speed of development over everything else, even if that speed is taken away by meetings
Yes, the released, as well as final RC for 2000, were still 32bit mode.
There's a quote, possibly from Raymond Chen, about how they originally naively thought they will be able to just change size of an int, IIRC, and that backfired seriously.
That said, 64bit release of windows was supposed to happen on Alpha had Compaq not pulled the plug
Compaq dropped the bombshell about canceling Alpha just before Win2k RTM, surprising both Microsoft team involved and Compaq-side team.
Microsoft continued to use 2000 on Alpha to work out bugs in 64bit support since it was the only 64bit platform they had supported that had operational hardware (support for PPC was only for 32bit), making it important bit in support of Itanium and soon later amd64 ports.
Some of the details made for Alpha support (including extended support for software like FX!32) are now backbone of x86-on-ARM support in windows ARM builds
The reverse buyout story is popular, but totally ignores that a bunch of the decisions and policies were established under Condit who was "lifer" at Boeing, and in fact said policies were complained about by engineering from both Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas side, all before Condit was forced by procurement scandal to leave his position
Condit would probably still set in motion the moves that enabled the rot - moving HQ, unrealistic targets for 7X7 (now known as 787), selling off portions of Boeing to skim just the cream at the top, and so on.
Not letting Boeing grab McDonnell-Douglas military projects might have stopped some of that, but it might have also accelerated it.
It has also a presence in the financial world (under brand name "InterSystems Caché"), though mainly as no-sql database until Java and other foreign wrappers stop being enough, and suddenly you're writing stored procedures (or at least their equivalent) in MUMPS
There is however the aspect of how much a work is derivative of another work, and that's where the ultimate mixing aspect of AI models shines - as it was documented that removing or adding a specific work in some cases impacted around ~1bit - or less than the random number generator used in some of the processes.
This is also why the output of AI model can infringe - because while having copyrighted work in training set does not result in model being considered derivative, it can produce a work that is obviously a derivative - and as such can be claimed to be a derivative that harms original creator.
Just the fact that the model in general might impact some very vague notions of commercial income is not enough, it must do so through a derivative, and thus infringing, copy
Depending how recent the card is, you might need to implement UEFI & GOP instead. Might be better approach to read any open source driver code on Linux or BSD to find out how to get basic framebuffer
Unfortunately from what I understood a production line that makes "normal" digital chips generally can't make memory cells with concrete physical differences in the process pipeline
An important point in copyright infringement is that it generally applies on distribution to other parties.
So the process of acquiring inputs may or may not be an infringement, but with at least proposed EU rules it does not matter to created model itself.
The exception being that output it produces is judged similar to infringement as human output without any "transformative work" credit to model - so similar to how a human could learn a book or painting to memory and close enough reproduction from memory would be infringement, but not generally using the ideas taken from them
EU AI Act is moving towards genAI output being non-copyrightable and that you'd need to actually prove derivative character from a specific copyrighted work(s) to claim infringement.
AFAIK american law is going towards similar setup.
You can imagine many internal APIs as taking "look up this <name> from directory <handle>". Surprisingly often the only practical limit is that the name does not contain NULL bytes.
Path separators, whether to accept directory entries with path separator in them, etc. are usually handled layer above
Actually the licensing issues were from Linux developers' side - Oracle has nothing to say (as the license to the code and patents was given before Oracle got their grubby hands), and Sun IIRC expected CDDL to work similar to the AFS precedent where non-derivative, non-GPL code was allowed into kernel.
The only lawsuit specifically about licensing was from few Linux developers through SFC who disagree with common consensus on how GPL applies in that case and sued Ubuntu for shipping ZFS as a module.
It is, I was thinking more of the core of it. In the same way one might say modern Openshift is rebadged kubernetes, but I will admit it wasn't best word choice