I have a headache because a particular Docker container is not working on my Raspberry PI4 (Raspberry PI4).

From Raspi 4, the CPU has changed from AMD (CISC chip) to ARM (RISC chip).

I understand that Raspi cannot do without RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) architecture, which combines low power consumption and high performance, to increase performance at this size (business card size).

However, it is a disaster for the engineers dealing with such "transitional periods.

It's more of a disaster than "a surprise invitation for a drink from your boss."

Docker containers work regardless of chip or OS -- the building block is that they work irrespective of chip or OS, but that's pretty much not the case.

I have often run into this problem, especially with Raspi.

----

Understanding how to figure out the "time to melt" due to these system change issues is essential.

Do you see such time as an 'unproductive waste of time' or a 'necessary up-front investment for the future'?

This argument does not make much sense.

This type of technical challenge will always be solved if left alone.

Computers will continue to improve, and software that stopped working because of the chip change will eventually work again.

That's the kind of thing that people do their best to do.

In the digital industry, we can take advantage of the achievements of such people.

-----

The time it takes for prior art to become generalized is frighteningly short, and the first-mover advantage gained from previous development is not great.

There is a "patent law" to protect the interests of prior art inventors, and I believe it has specific effects on device, material, and machine inventions.

However, inventions in digital systems are less likely to be protected by patent law.

First, the algorithm itself is not patentable (JPO has decided that), and second, it is deathly challenging to prove infringement. Even if we prove it, the amount of money we can get is paltry.

So, why do significant companies force their engineering employees to apply for patents that don't pay well -- to "mount" other companies?

The purpose is to claim "territory" by filling a particular technical field with many patent applications (even without Patent approval).

It may be a sense of "effective occupation of the technological field.

In short, 'We're in this territory here.'

What they are doing is "legal," but the essence of it is the same as "anti-socialism."

-----

A capitalist economy is, after all, a "territory war.

As a lowly member of the organization, I am also protecting the organization's security not with a "Chaka" (gun) but with a "neta" (idea).