You are right, this thread is an example of a misunderstanding, but not the one you mean.

The originating poster is not talking to those open source developers who don't care about wider Linux adoption, or who are only scratching their own itch, etc. The poster is speaking (and responding) specifically to that subset of the community that DOES care about wider adoption, that advocates for wider adoption, or that belittles those who don't use Linux on technical, moral or other grounds. Your response IS understood, but you are not who the conversation is targeted towards. To those who don't care, fine, we accept it. But there are those who DO CARE, and the conversation is directed to them. It would be nice to stop getting constant feedback from the don't care group since it does not add to the conversation.

It's like someone asking "What can we do to combat world hunger" and lots of people piping up saying "We don't care about world hunger, we don't feel guilty about it, it is not our problem or interest" whereas they should have realized the intended meaning was really "For those who are interested in combating world hunger, what can we do to combat world hunger?, and if you are not interested, that's fine, but let us who are talk about it"

(By the way, I don't care whether Linux adoption grows or not, but I find it disturbing for people to constantly talk past each other.)

I just want to add that KDE communication regarding 4.0 was horrible. They might have communicated its beta (or even alpha) status in one way, but naming conventions are also a type of communication and in their choice of 4.0 they communicated a different message. Therefore the KDE developers are clearly to blame for the misunderstanding. It would have been soooo easy to simply call it 4.0 beta.

Bzzt. But there would be a large point to searching for Hera.

I wish I had mod points as I think this is important. The reality it that being able to modify Javascript as suggested may be philosophically pure, but is simply not important or reasonable when evaluated by any practical considerations. And eventually practical considerations do have to be weighed when one is choosing what battles to fight.

RMS did specifically mention that the "problem" of server software would be discussed separately. (Also, for what it is worth, I think worrying about non-free Javascript takes things a little (a lot) too far. Might as well waste time worrying about the non-free software in your microwave or electric toothbrush, although I know many will disagree.)

The MOST valuable technology they had were refined metals. If they wanted to keep the entire population from starving to death they needed to make such things as metal plows, and pronto. At the VERY least they would have landed the ships (that could be landed) and mined them for their metal. The ending was stupid. And I loved the show so I hated that. It left me feeling empty inside.

I am going to chime in and say: I don't need a large capacity iPod. I get by fine with my 8 gig iPhone. However if someone wants a high capacity iPod because it is more convenient for THEM and the way THEY do things, then that is the iPod they want. It is as valid a preference as someone who changes out their playlists each week, or someone else who maintains a remote server with all their music. Why criticize? Why even argue that ones (highly personal and subjective) way of doing something is the only reasonable way?

I think for an open wireless network, it is different. A garden variety wireless router running a DHCP server hands out IP address when asked. In fact many computer are configured by default to automatically join open networks. By leaving the network open you are in fact inviting others to join and the router is functioning normally by broadcasting its name and then assigning computers that connect a private IP address.

As soon as the network owner takes any action to secure the network, such as turning off SSID broadcast, or setting up encryption, then the situation has changed, but otherwise by leaving the network completely open you HAVE given permission. To go back to the house analogy, it would be like hanging an OPEN HOUSE sign on your front door and then assigning someone to stand at the door and hand out name tags.

Speaking as someone who DOES NOT use IE I think part of the point should be to note that when a study comes out that shows Firefox being faster than IE the average Slashdoter jumps all over it to trumpet the virtues of Firefox, but when a study shows the reverse then suddenly speed is not important. I reminds me a bit of Mozilla's reponse to ACID3.

If these results are true then we should give IE at least a bit of credit.

I am not trying to start (or continue) any long discussion, but the poster was responding to having their choice to use a Mac devalued. Therefore they were pointing out that their choice did have value (and merit). You cannot understand the post without understanding it was a response. If the post had NOT been a response to provocation then perhaps you could see it as a "shot", but as it was you (of all people) should understand someone bristling at being insulted.

They were only saying that their choice had merit, not that yours did not. Original poster please correct me if I am wrong.

Someone saying their own choice was sophisticated is NOT the same as saying someone else's choice isn't. It is not an obligatory insult. You are employing false logic.

Saying Mac users are "fooled into paying for pricy stuff they really do not need" is absolutely insulting. If you are going to respond to someone who you believe is calling you (or someone) unsophisticated, at least try to have a sophisticated response.

Every Mac that includes a mouse includes a two-button mouse (functionally) that is configured by default to act as a one-button mouse. That has been true now for quite some time.

Just change the mouse preference to have it recognize both the right and left button.

Since webkit and the new JS engine are open source (and have been) Linux enthusiasts can create a webkit based browser for themselves. I thought that was much of the point of FOSS. Make the code open and we will built it ourselves. Now you want Apple to do it for you?

I believe the point of contention from the investors is: The money being used for R&D is their (the investor's) money, and that compared to a number of other companies MS is getting much less bang for their R&D buck. Thus the feeling that MS is not spending the investors money on R&D wisely.

Core data was introduced in 10.4.