Being Microsoft, I can almost guarantee that this package manager has done almost everything wrong.

1) Identify theft.
2) Slander of Title.
3) Copyright Infringement.
4) Trademark Infringement.
5) Defamation of Character.

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

And no, a warrant cannot authorize those things. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for committing the above crimes just because a judge issues an illegal order to do so.

You just restated his argument using different words.

I now expect Apple to launch a billion dollar lawsuit against Samsung over the lowercase letter, "i" in Android. Alternatively, I expect Apple to launch a billion dollar lawsuit against Samsung for showing atmospheric pressure in millibars; thereby infringing upon Apple's invention of the word.

I snuck PostgreSQL into the organization in 2005 to handle certain Web activity. It worked great for years, and my boss later decided to use it for other projects that were slated to use Oracle. All of those projects were so maintenance free at the database end that we later decided to replace Oracle with PostgreSQL for all of our database needs.

We found that the Oracle "features" we paid for failed when they were needed most, and therefore didn't work as advertised. PostgreSQL's replication and standby features would have been good enough.

I use PostgreSQL for all of my low end needs, too. I tried MySQL off and on for years, and it is still a terrible database (alter the data to fit the contraints!) when data are important. Even more exciting, though, is that PostgreSQL is slowly adding high-end features into its core infrastructure. And those features adhere to the PostgreSQL ACID philosophy.

Why should anyone care what you have to say, since you're almost always in your own little Bizarro universe that is devoid of anything resembling the reality in which the rest of us live?

All of these things are basic, fundamental, principles encountered early in the process of learning programming. If you're not extensively practicing these things by your second or third week (if not sooner) of learning object oriented programming (with recursion not needing OOP), then you should probably reconsider your career path and stop thinking of yourself as in any way, shape, or form, "extensively self-educated" in programming.

Buy Nuance, raise licensing fees charge to Apple for Siri, make iCrap more expensive, make back money lost in court, make Apple pay for its own court victories.

It's poetry.

Maybe I'm giving so-called intelligent life too much credit, but I would hope that by the time a species could traverse the immense distances needed to arrive at Earth from whatever planet they come from, they would by then have the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

I truly hope that KDE isn't falling victim to the, "We're successful, so let's abandon everything that got us here!" syndrome that infects so many formerly-usable systems.

Netscape wasn't free until Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer (IE) into Windows, which had (and still has) a (what should be illegal) monopoly on desktop operating systems. At that point, no one could charge for a browser. That was leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another area, which is a felony (for which Microsoft was rightly convicted).

Switching from IE to anything else was almost impossible for most people, because Microsoft's browser dominance was so thorough that a huge number of web sites was created to fully work only with IE. Phoenix/Firefox broke Microsoft's stranglehold only through a rare convergence of events.

I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.

Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?

Did Google conspire with other companies to put Yelp out of business?

Did Google somehow leverage a monopoly position in search to gain a monopoly position in reviewing stuff?

As far as I know, Google is just a better competitor.

Several years ago, a kernel developer submitted a patch that greatly increased Linux performance for desktop-oriented tasks; but the patch was rejected because it harmed server performance. In that case, there was no way to reconcile the needs of the two types of systems. Under that kind of situation, the logic for a server/desktop split increases.

Not only is 4/1 not nearly enough, it needs to be symmetrical. 20/20 is just barely servicable for a household. 100/100 would be adequate, but 1000/1000 should be the standard. These companies want to stay at 4/1 so they don't have to "waste" any of their cocaine/hooker money on infrastructure.

Just a wild guess (and I may be wrong), but perhaps it's for better communication of events between the underlying system and the GUI.