Comment Spyware status (Score 2) 132
Will Ubuntu Touch for Phones include spyware, like the shopping lens that they ship with the desktop version of Ubuntu?
Ubuntu Touch For Phones Hits RTM, First Phones Coming This Year 132
An anonymous reader writes: In early 2013, Canonical showed the world Ubuntu Touch, a version of Ubuntu developed specifically for smartphones. Now, the mobile operating system has finally reached "release to manufacturing" status. (Here's the release announcement.) The first phone running Ubuntu Touch, the Meizu MX4, will start shipping in December. "Details are scarce on its hardware, but a leak from iGeek suggests the Pro variant may have a Samsung Exynos 5430 processor, 4GB of RAM, and a 2560x1536 resolution screen. ... This more powerful hardware is good news if true, and it bodes well for Ubuntu's vision of computing convergence." Softpedia has a preview of the RTM version of the OS. They say performance has improved significantly, even on old phones, and that the UI has been polished into a much better state.
Comment Re:~/.cshrc (Score 1) 208
Indeed, I just pointed it out as an easy to understand example.
Comment Re:Ars Technica speculates? (Score 1) 208
By convention patches are released under the same license as the version it applies to. I'm sure the GNU Bash maintainer is willing to clarify this to Apple if asked.
Comment Re:Yo, bash upstream (Score 1) 208
There are users using it, and it is documented.
Comment Re:FreeBSD has as well STILL not patched. (Score 1) 208
But it is part of the ports collection, which is managed by the FreeBSD project and that a lot of FreeBSD users use.
Comment Re:Ars Technica speculates? (Score 1) 208
The GNU project shipped officicial patches for all GNU Bash versions going back to 3.0, and I've seen other people patch versions going back to 2.0.
Comment Re:Ars Technica speculates? (Score 5, Informative) 208
What are you talking about? It is completely factual and a valid point. Apple currently bundles 3.2.51, which is licensed under GPLv2. The patched version of bash is the new 4.3.25, which is licensed using GPLv3. Including it would change the license they are using, which I imagine takes some consideration.
Here are patches for Bash 3.2:
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/b...
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/b...
Comment Re:Stallman would be proud (Score 1) 208
Actually, Apple uses an old version based on Bash 3.2 which is under GPLv2. Not really a problem, patches exist for as old as Bash 2.0.
Comment Re:~/.cshrc (Score 1) 208
First of all, do you run your Mac as a server? If the answer is no then you most likely don't need the patch anyway. The MacPorts binary will depend on libraries installed by MacPorts, there's nothing wrong about that.
Comment Re:~/.cshrc (Score 1) 208
It really has nothing to do with the default shell. It won't matter what shell is the default when your CGI script starts with #!/bin/bash.
Comment Re:Doesn't really matter! (Score 2) 316
You have obviously never used Perl.
Comment Re:When was this bash bug introduced? (Score 1) 399
It's been in there since Bash 1.4.
Comment Re:And this is why I insist on open source at work (Score 1) 318
When these things happen users typically have to wait until the next patch Tuesday.
Comment Re:Let's be honest (Score 1) 250
I went back to the
Gnome2 was an act of utter contempt against end users, it's still better than KDE but that's not exactly saying much is it? fluxbox, icewm & xfce4 are where it's at.
Yet people use it.
