I've read the thread when it showed up in my email. I didn't see any sign that OSI was upset. Someone brought up the fact that google was using a different license. There was a discussion about the license they used. OSI doesn't evaluate licenses unless the authors of the license ask them for their opinion of the license. Someone suggested they prod Google. Google responded and said they weren't ready to submit it and were still working out compatibility issues. They also said they wanted to discourage reuse of this license and asked for procedural changes to deal with that. They also asked for more openness from OSI on the discussions surrounding the license and for clarification of a corporate governance issue.

Nobody seemed upset. Rather someone just tried to turn a non-issue into news.

Actually you can change the system font size on OS X, it's just not exposed by the Apple provided configuration tools. Probably because it's not terribly useful for most of their users because most of their users are using machines with built in displays. If you really want to adjust the font size use TinkerTool:
http://www.bresink.com/osx/TinkerTool.html

First of all I think you need a timeline to help you understand how this vulnerability was handled:

Feb 1st, 2010: VulnDisco is updated with a zero day exploit for Firefox 3.6. No details on how the exploit works are provided. The exploit is only available in binary form when you buy a copy of VulnDisco. Some people buy VulnDisco and have difficulty in making the exploit work. https://forum.immunityinc.com/board/thread/1161/vulndisco-9-0/

March 16th, 2010: First 3.6.2 nightly builds that contain a fix are made available: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/

March 18th, 2010: Mozilla announces that the original discoverer of the problem provided them sufficient details to find and fix the vulnerability. They also link to the nightlies linked to above on the March 16th entry. http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/18/update-on-secunia-advisory-sa38608/

March 30th, 2010: Scheduled release date.

Assuming that they got the details on the 16th and actually came up with the fix the same day (which is probable), that's a 2 week turnaround. Given that there have been no further nightlies posted for 3.6.2 since the March 16th it seems pretty clear they're in the release stages of getting 3.6.2 out of the door.

I'm not really sure how you expect them to get it out sooner. The largest delay here is them getting the information they needed to fix it. Which accounted for a month and a half worth of time.

Should they work at reducing the lag between having the fix done and putting out releases. Yes and based on my interview there serveral years ago they were committed to doing just that. But there's still an awful lot of work that has to go into actually doing those releases. They don't just magically appear.

I interviewed with Mozilla a few years back when they were looking for a Release Engineer. I think you underestimate the amount of work that goes into producing a release. Firefox is released in 70+ languages for 3 platforms. On top of this they release upgrade versions and not just full binaries, which of course is different for each platform. So you're looking at around 420+ different versions. There are also branded versions as well, which adds even more versions.

This was a few years ago and they were looking to bring in another Release Engineer, do more automation with the goal of reducing their release turn around time. So I don't think it's as easy as "Why don't they just do more releases."

There are still quite a few warts on git's user interface. Want to wipe out local changes to a single file you use checkout. Want to wipe out a whole trees worth of changes you use reset. Don't get me wrong I think git has come a long way, but git was just built as they went. There was very little in the way of well thought out user interface design and it shows.

That's not always the case. Some states (not sure if it's the majority) allow this type of thing to be expunged. It typically takes a civil action to request the removal but I'd think in a situation like this where you were found not guilty of something that has such a social stigma that you'd bother to go through the process.

Has nothing to do with the iPod. Here's the story:
http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/macbook/is_apples_mac_u_pic_worth_a_thousand_words.html