Comment Re:Compatibility (Score 2) 185
Wrong, there is a compatibility pack that can be installed. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Wrong, there is a compatibility pack that can be installed. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
It all reads like an ad for Kolab.
I said Windows Server, not Windows. It's based on Windows NT.
What's wrong with services.msc on a Windows Server machine? Any serious answers from people who actually used it?
Their offices sure look grand.
http://mettedesigns.com/galler...
http://blog.mozilla.org/places...
More excess http://ngokevin.com/blog/mozil...
I atleast hope they use the money for something really good, like desktop Linux, instead of chasing mobile with Firefox OS.
With Google clamping down with Chrome, promoting on Google and Youtube and paying to bundle it everywhere like with Java, Flash and Acrobat updates, I am surprised Firefox hasn't lost even more marketshare, but I do think the clock is ticking.
If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?
What if one of the extensions sends all browsing activity and form submission data to another server?
Why would Firefox want to be associated with that?
You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.
And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?
1) This is about the ads, not the organic search results.
2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel
3) Google does not need any grounds to tamper with even organic search results.
Google needs to clean up misleading apps in their search and stop malware instead of profiting from it.
Look at the ads for Firefox.
http://i.imgur.com/piER06h.png
It's the same for other apps, like Skype etc.
Experts: Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People Away
The exemptions were given because some Word macros and sophisticated Excel files could not be reproduced in LibreOffice or other open source productivity suites. These are examples of what Serp calls “some less mature features” in free software: “When it comes to making some kinds of presentations, for example, there is often a little extra to do [compared to the same process in PowerPoint]. So for some people the process is not so clear, and this can cause adaptability problems in everyday work.”
How about they use some of the saved money to either donate or contribute code to make the software work better?
Instead we have companies and other organizations making and saving tens of billions of dollars off Open Source(like Google, Yahoo, Red Hat, Facebook, Twitter, Apple etc.) and then we end up with catastrophic security nightmares like HeartBleed because no one could be bothered to send a couple of bucks over to the overburdened couple of folks that everyone relies on for security. And then we have asshats on message boards like this one who likely never contributed to OpenSSL or looked at the code for bugs but feel entitled to call the coders stupid for the bugs after the fact.
I don't see how that's true. On a Chromebook there's only a browser and Google apps, while Apple allows native apps from the App Store to run on an iPad.
You'll have to dev unlock and install a new OS in order to get native apps running on Chromebooks, so I fail to see how Google doesn't limit you.
On any PC I can set Linux to be the default boot. On Chromebooks you have to type through an annoying prompt every single time you boot a kernel that's not signed by Google and the message says that OS verification is off, implying that using your own Linux install is less secure. Even the much hated UEFI Secure Boot doesn't do this.
They used to track apps for education users, lied that they didn't track, got caught in federal court where they didn't have the cajones to tell the same lies to the judge that they were telling the public and only recently now say that they stopped.
Read these articles:
It isn't exactly trivial, you have to essentially unlock it and then click through an annoying prompt on every single boot. Even a PC with Secure Boot has better support for Linux than that.
>but for general purpose devices, Chromebooks can be great, especially when they are being compared to an iPad
How are they better than an iPad with a proper hardware keyboard? And it's a bastardization of the term 'general purpose' when it's locked down to run only Google's native's app and everything has to be done in the browser.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
