Bozo, it's not a pedestal. It's a complaint about the pathetic CPU power on the typical home router and the fact that they choke traffic with even one device trying to use a reasonable amount of bandwidth.

WiFi is useless by design for anything but the most casual of surfing.

No worries here. I always disable the WiFi on my routers. I prefer hardwired connections that don't give the router fits trying to perform encryption with their underpowered chips.

What's bad planning is to design and build the engine at all if you're only planning to use it once.

I see one -- this article.

Maybe if you went into your options and disabled the Microsoft news checkbox option... :P

Standards have a notorious habit of becoming bloated with rarely used features that never do get properly tested. Rethinking what is actually useful and needed is great for pruning code and handling the majority of use cases. Sure there will be edge cases it can't handle, but that's the whole point: they're edge cases that most programmers aren't going to need to use.

Verizon committing fraud. I'm shocked, I tell you, absolutely shocked.

HTML5 was supposed to be the be-all and end-all compatability standard that would render all browser differences irrelevant.

Then reality kicked in...

Linking GPL code is considered the same as copying in the source code. The library has to be released under the LGPL to be used by non-GPL source.

But you are correct about invoking canned binaries of GPL products or sending IPC messages to a GPL product, provided you're not using the GPL messaging libraries provided with the product, but rolling your own which happen to be compatible at the messaging layer. But I'm pretty sure your messaging code would have to be written in a different language as well in order to avoid any claims that you copied code from the GPL source.

The same is true of any "GPL compatible" license, not just BSD.

If GPL part "A" calls BSD part "B", then yes, that is true. But if BSD part "B" calls GPL part "A", it is in violation of the GPL license.

GPL-compatible means you are allowed to use software under those licenses *from* GPL'd code, not that the GPL copyleft requirement doesn't apply.

My assumption on reading the OP was that they didn't realize MPL and GPL are different animals.

"Flamebait" my ass. You punk ass little kids are so full of shit and know so little about licensing issues that it's absolutely laughable. You rant on about how Novell "owns" the POSIX APIs without knowing SHIT about how the POSIX APIs were developed in the midst of the *nix vendor wars and published as a STANDARD that all the vendors AGREED to implement.

You spew FUD and bullshit about how "interfaces aren't code", have no respect for the work that goes into a clean and well defined interface specification, and generally are so damned wet behind the ears that I think the whole INDUSTRY pissed on your collective heads.

There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.