And the culprit here is... cloud computing (or clown computing). It's absurd that you have to give up your identity to download software in the first place. Because Google is in charge of the data, they can do what they want.
I'm sure now that it's been pointed out they will fix it, to keep the users happy. But that's besides the point. None of those users gave their own data to the developers. Users deserve better!
I'm guessing there are a lot of pelicans who, if they could talk, would be praising the use of the dispersants.
Perhaps not, there's some research that could suggest that the dispersants could have made the disaster worse.
There's always a line of people who are salivating to second-guess whatever decision gets made.
So we shouldn't be testing these things and being critical of how disasters are handled? That's how progress is made, and how we can improve for the next time it happens.
Aaron Swartz was facing allegations of computer hacking. He may have trespassed, but changing a MAC address is hardly hacking.
It's like getting banned on Slashdot, and then registering a new user name. Except with MAC addresses. If what Aaron Swartz did was hacking, thousands of Slashdot users just became criminals.
Maybe you think freedom doesn't matter. But would you say software works well if its inner workings are hidden from view and bundled with legal restrictions?
Non-free drivers can be abandoned at any time. That's basically what they did with their nv driver. We are talking about nVidia here.
Different definition of "free" actually. I guessed the title would have given away.
I meant "free software" (sometimes called "open source") not freeware.
Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store so they are basically losing at their own game. I would say that it serves Microsoft right, but unfortunately it's the end users that suffer.
In fact, I don't think microsoft bans having other keys besides their key in the bios by default.
Windows RT has Restricted Boot on it.
The article confuses Secure Boot and Restricted Boot. The linked FSF page clearly explains the difference.
The only "issue" is how to manage the certs.
Correct, and that's why the FSF is opposing Restricted Boot, not Secure Boot.
Agreed. I tried helping someone that was using VMWare, and the options were more confusing.
The VMWare EULA is rather dodgy and it's very long. There's also a clause where they can set a third-party (like the BSA) on you.
VirtualBox is free software, no EULAs, works fine.
Google is far more FOSS friendly than MS is now and ever has been.
Google has loads of proprietary software:
Sorry, but I don't necessarily consider the enemy of my enemy to be my friend.
e.g., Android, are becoming fragmented in ways that are gradually turning into a problem for developers and ultimately for end users.
I don't get this argument. How does having more Android OS create a problem for developers and end users?
BSD based Chrome over the GPL based Mozilla
Chromium is BSD-licensed. Chrome is available under a proprietary EULA. So much for freedom...
Partially BSD based OS X on the desktop over the clusterfuck of GPL Linux desktops
You say "on the desktop", but really Darwin is only a bare-bones OS with nothing GUI/desktop related on it.
* BSD based(outside the kernel) Android dominating the cellphone market over the effectively dead GPL based Linux cellphone efforts
Android has a lot of software licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. They also have a lot of proprietary software on it, especially drivers and firmware.
Mod parent up, very true.
The era of mobile phones presents a new set of hardware, most running proprietary firmware and controlled by proprietary drivers. A GNU hacker describes difficulties in producing free replacements for these:
one device - the HTC Universal - took four of us three years of part-time work to finally understand all of the hardware. the best i ever managed on one device was 8 weeks (!) - the Compaq ipaq hw6915 - and i had to stop because the last 3 of those 8 weeks were spent _not_ managing to get the device to come out of suspend.
...
by the time you have source code, it's too late: the device is out the door. it's obsolete already, anyway.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with some optimism, but people who care about software freedom shouldn't overlook these major blocking issues.
PURGE COMPLETE.
