Something tells me that if HP announced that they weren't going to open source WebOS and instead were going to kill it for example there would be much wailing and nashing of teeth on Slashdot crying "Why don't they just open source it?"
Some people just like complaining.
I still want to know why the Linux kernel should contain anything from a company that constantly assaults the community. A company who calls us thieves and intellectual pirates. Microsoft is going after Android OEMs saying that Linux violates their patents so they have to pay up on licensing fees. Yet Microsoft won't publicly announce what any of those patents are. In fact when Barnes and Noble called BS on Microsoft and refused to sign the NDA. It turned out Microsoft didn't sue over Linux they sued over web browsing and the interface, which is a long long way from Linux itself or even any Linux distribution.
Maybe because some of us just want to Get The Job Done(TM) and couldn't give two shits about all the political bollocks
I didn't say anything about whether the hate was justifiable or not - in fact I didn't express an opinion of the quality of any browser. But don't let what I actually wrote have any bearing on your frothy-mouthed ranting
Really?
"A non-free program is a system of unjust power and shouldn't exist. The existence and use of non-free software [which] is a social problem. It's an evil. And our aim is a world without that problem.'"
Sounds pretty clear to me (taken from TFA) Stallman appears to be (continuing) to bang on that any non-"free" (under his definition) software is inherently wrong. At the moment I have the freedom to choose to make my software non-"free" and users have the freedom to use my software or not, RMS has the freedom to have his own opinions and to use whatever software/devices he chooses - I wouldn't want to take that choice away from him yet it appears he won't be happy untill he has taken mine from me. Who's the more oppressive?
.. but I'm kind of expecting Stallman to eventually be found in a darkend room with both himself and the walls shrouded in tinfoil. The man is definately crossing the line into frothing lunatic.
RMS only believes in a very specific view of "freedom" - his own. What about my "freedom" as a developer to choose the license model for my software or my "freedom" as a software consumer to choose which software I get?
People who hate IE currently will still hate it (for some its almost a religion - IE could give them free money and they would still hate it), those who like it will probably still like it (having used some of the Betas I can't see anything that would piss off an existing user). There will still be lots of frothy-mouthed ranting on the internet and those of us who really don't give a shit about who uses what browser will still just pick the one we like and get on with our lives.
I'm no fan of the extremes that Apple take their control of the app store to - but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons and app should be banned and this is most definitely one of them.
As a general rule I've found Google's stance on privacy of users data to be pretty poor so on this one I say Bravo Google! It would be interesting to see if what (if any) steps they take to protect the platform as a whole from things like this, after all the app store isn't the only way software can be installed on an Android device.
I know the US is the litigation capital of the world and based on the information I've seen it sounds like they are mainly right in their arguments but I'm not sure what they hope to gain by suing, companies make products all the time that fail to be "fit for purpose" but unless you've actually sustained damages or injuries as a result (Think Toyota with stuck throttle type failure) then there isn't really any need to sue - personally if it was me I wouldn't have bothered suing as I would just have returned the phone - probably stamping my feet enough to get rid of any "re-stocking fee" in the process and then I'd go buy something better. Maybe they are just band-wagon jumping to try and get some cash in their pocket. To be fair I don't really know how the legislation works in the States for this sort of thing though!
While you come across as a reasonable guy who not doubt had good intentions trying to put the onus on SCEE to "play nice" as you put it doesn't really wash. After all the responsibility was on you to "play nice" and establish permission to use the name etc. first before you submitted the game to the app stores. FWIW I think you might have had a better chance of getting permission had you asked before you took so to speak.
Saying that you tried back in 2001 doesn't really work either since for a kick off that was 9 years ago and even if you weren't sure who owned it there surely was never a doubt that somebody did. It's like milk in a fridge, just because you aren't sure who it belongs to doesn't mean its OK to use it!
remember: manners are free but lawyers are expensive!
Only if your company is Microsoft
..to browse the web in complete security.
this, and this from TFA:
And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.
are quite scary really. Are Google honestly claiming that the whole thing is (and will remain) completely invulnerable to any attacks? And people are believing this? Yeah.... Good luck with that.
I'm not denying that it will probably be fairly secure out of the box - after all the less functionality something offers the easier it is to secure, but to claim "complete security" is just foolish.
Sounds like a fairly straight forward case of there being a few dodgy units out there to me - not exactly the biggest surprise when you consider the number of units produced and the short development/testing cycles people have to get new gadgets out these days. Apple aren't the only ones this sort of thing has happened to and they certainly won't be the last.
Watching all the fanbois go up in flames (bah-dum-tish) was however pure internet entertainment!
"nuh-huh didn't happen!"
"they are using it wrong"
"its normal!! laptops can browse the internet and gets hot - the iphone can browse the internet and gets hot. Same thing innit?"
"it's cos of the mega-fast hardware - it just shows how awesome it is"
"YOU'RE ALL JEALOUS!!"
As I expect there will be some of the same along here shortly I'll grab some popcorn
I've got to agree with this - the time spent in-flight gives me an ideal opportunity to have a quick breather. Something that is essential in a time-intensive game that doesn't pause.
If you think by using windows in any form will get you 'assimilated by a botnet' by default, then are you sure you can administer any OS that well?
Remember MSBLAST.EXE? You obviously don't, or you wouldn't post such rubbish.
well since the way that generally happened was by connecting a fresh install to internet without any firewall then yeah I'd class that as pretty poor in the OS administration department!
Who cares that web/dns servers etc keep running if there are no clients to make use of them?
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
