Well, hello there friend. It must have been very uncomfortable to sit in a cryo cam for all these years, but while you were gone messaging apps have become more relevant than SMS-es and any carrier trying to ban them is to have a fecal storm on the matter, with billions of users for WhatsApp, FacebookMessenger, Hangouts, Viber, Line and whatnot.

They claimed it's TextSecure's algorithm, but, client is closed-sources, so who's going to check? Also, big question is key handling - if server assigns them or even generates them or at least verifies them - then whole "end-to-end" is just theater. I would believe them if key verification was given into user's hands and client's code was opensourced to check that it won't start black carbon/copying all the messages to some "friendly third parties".

The problem with WhatsApp is that it is closed-source, so you can't really check. You'll have to take their word for it. Also, they facilitate key exchange, so the whole "end-to-end" stuff is actually moot, since user is taken out of the loop and server can, at any time re-negotiate the keys and verify that MITM as a person A, that person B is trying to get in contact with. So it's all, once again, a lot of buzzwords, and zero security.

a. Telephone
b. Personal Computer
c. Email
d. Internet

h. Cellular Phones
i. Smart Phones

All hit stage 5 of mass acceptance at work before hitting mass acceptance.

Well, let's go over this once more:
Browser only shows "filler" tiles, that other companies pay to have there. Like an ad sticker on a wrapping paper on your brand new and free car. Firefox does not send any information to ad agencies, does not help them track you or do a full sweep of your activity (looks at chrome).

If you are so against predefined content, how come you were so totally OK all these years with Google search coming as default and Firefox getting a ton of money for it?

Now to adress the "bloated" part. Show me a slimmer browser, that uses less resources while retaining the same functionality? Browsers have become an OS in itself for running webapps. Don't like it - use mailer daemon to mail you the webpages you'd like to see. Richard seems to get along just fine doing that.

As for Pale moon - I am yet to see any usefull changes. They cut out features they don't like, claim they are faster and better, but except for dropping CPU's without SSE no useful optimisations have been introduced. The moment FF shuts down, Pale Moon is going down just as quickly without a main project to hold on to and to port all the changes from.

And last, but not least - when was the last time you donated to developers, that work hard just so that you and every other person on Earth has a reliable, auditable, privacy-caring, open-source browser? Donated code maybe, or at least filed a comprehensive bug report with logs and a case to reproduce?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and choice of browsers. But taking a dramatic stance and feeling all betrayed is way out of bounds. I draw the line at browsing experience and user tracking - as long as Firefox doesn't do anything that hurts end-user, they are fine to pursue other means of monetization, as long as the money goes to developing a better software.

I judge by what's been actually done, not by hysteria, that a lot of people like to fuss up around any issue as long as it has trigger words that get them going. They see an article titled "Mozilla adds ads" and they start running around with a sign "The end is nigh" without even familiarizing themselves with the issue and coming up with "ad absurdum" arguments.

Sure, I mean who cares about the truth as long as we can run around screaming bloody murder and probably soiling ourselves in the process. The "ad tiles" are placed on quick dial instead of empty ones until users get them filled with their browsing history or just drag and dropb pinned stuff from their bookmarks. That's it. But everyone and their dog are starting to whine and threatening to go to Chrome or Pale moon, which is twice as funny as just the wining, because if first browser was built by an advertising company for tracking users and increasing ad efficiency, while the other is nothing but a measely fork, sucking on Firefox codebase and proud of removing a lot of features (websockets anyone? Nah, who needs direct calls from browser, let's all use proprietary Skype), while it is Mozilla that keeps improving JS and HTML rendering engines and yet still keeps all the customizability that was there to begin with.

Apple was forced to get read of DRM by court order, not by competition.

But that's all you need. User have control over their own bandwidth, you can't ask to prioritize your traffic over someone else's traffic. ISPs should provide a pipe with a fixed bandwidth the user pays for. And user can decide what traffic to prioritize inside his own network. That's it.

Supermarkets have a much lower entry barrier, small need for infrastructure and are forced to adapt to buyers' habits, not vice versa. ISPs on the other hand, hold a monopoly in most places while providing critical infrastructure. Your comparison is totally invalid.

Because Net Neutrality is exactly this: not discriminating traffic based on its origin or type. Providing internet as a pipe, not a toll-road. But ISPs want to have control over what is being sent over that pipe and extort money from services not to throttle them. This "fast lane" is not a dedicated line provided straight to your home to show you youtube, nope, it's a reserved bandwidth (from the bandwidth you paid for) that will be used to deliver you content from services that agreed to pay the ISP for not throttling them.

Well, this.

"No, sir, this is the windows, that doesn't run windows apps. Well, I mean it does, but only the new, Metro, I meant Modern Interface (or whatever MS rebrands their interface to this time). To run old windows apps you'll need a different kind of windows."

I guess someone at MS thought that after using FUD on Linux and seeing it's success they should try go and FUD themselves in hopes of having the same effect.

The thing that shines most of all is lack of VPN support. We all know how corporate world hates to use secure connections for their employees. Oh, wait...

Because Google is not interesting in developing an offline OS. They are interesting in rushing everyone into " the cloud" (read: their services) so that they sift through your data, catalog you and sell you off by a dozen to advertisers, while still milking you for "extra storage" in the said cloud.

That's you answer. Don't worry about "web focus", MS is moving there as well. Hint: see how easy it is to skip registering with MS online account when installing Windows8 and, consequently, when updating it to Windows 8.1

>> Make everything into one big integrated binary instead of something that you can see into or hack on.

Last time I checked - source was available. And several distributions have written shims to replace parts of systemd. If you can't fiddle with anything but a shell script - tough luck, buddy.