Don't use default passwords.

Yes. How else will they prevent the competition from doing the same?

Funny! Especially when you consider the poster's handle. Hope others realize the joke.

How much additional money is actually being spent? Is this much more expensive than the costs associated with incarcerating Assange for up to 5 years?

Seems much quicker and cheaper to let Assange impose his own 5 year sentence.

How much is this costing Ecuador and how long are they willing to host Assange?

While GIT expresses the distributed development nature of open source projects much better nowadays, SVN fits the workflow of enterprise projects much better:

Actually... git fits the workflow better than svn. I have to manage a project that spans multiple institutions and two continents. Instead of forcing everyone to use VPN while they develop, they only need to use VPN to push to the official repository.

SVN has much better visual tools and is simpler to operate

What? I use SourceTree on OS X and my coworkers on Windows like TortoiseGit. Also there is "git gui"

SVN has a simpler merge policies which are friendlier when there isn't a central person pulling the changes.

What? I don't think you understand how git works.

SVN is very friendly for projects with a lot of binary objects (ie videogames)

Not necessarily. We use both svn and git to manage very large BLOBs and I haven't seen any noticeable differences. I have people that version control gigabytes worth of design documents that are stored in binary format and I haven't heard any complaints from them.

SVN allows different people to work on different directories individually, GIT doesn't.

We used to think this was a big deal, but the advantages that git has over svn more than made up for this.

-SVN has fine grained permissions, access and authentication controls, very useful when parts of your project (ie, APIs) are under NDA or you don't want them to leak.

What? First not by default. The most popular method https+ssh does not. You can use Crowd to make it a little easier.

Whereas in git I use gitolite. I manage their public keys and assign privileges based on the public key. Keep the NDA (or more importantly ITAR) in a separate git repository which makes life easier all around and satisfies the regulators too. They weren't too comfortable with trusting the single repository to handle the compartmentation correctly.

They are different systems with different scenarios in mind, comparing them or claiming that GIT is killing SVN is just ignorance.

I operate both SVN and GIT systems. My anecdotal evidence show that most of my projects left SVN and went with GIT due to its distributive nature. We have operational processes in place that eliminates the need for physical enforcement of a centralized repository. As an extra bonus, my co-developers like the ability to check in while they develop and then push the changes once they are confident that it won't break the build on the official repository.

If they freely give all their information to an unknown corporation in exchange for game within Facebook or a cool feature on a smart phone, does it really matter if the NSA was included in the disclosure?

Too long; Don't really care anymore... that ship sailed.

People volunteer all their personal information to Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc...

You are part of the problem. You are comparing an idealized version of the best part of your side

I think the NSA part of his comment was suppose to be humorous due to the meat of his argument being:

It's the Obama administration's idea, so it must be wrong. Just like when Obama has picked up old Republican ideas and tried to push them, they become wrong.

Which couldn't be any more obvious.

I'm not convinced that the "Microsoft Store" will be any better. It may be better for a short while, but soon the mini-store will be manned with the same retail people that couldn't answer a simply question about a HP laptop.

They did a similar thing for Apple. I don't know why BestBuy changing its floor plan is newsworthy.

Next thing you know they may have a game section with all the Xbox related stuff separated from the Playstation and Wii stuff, or better yet have a mobile phone store within a store... oh wait.

I believe the biggest problem Apple has with GPLv3 was that they couldn't use their signing keys at least this is the reason someone gave for dropping Samba.

Not a shock but also not relevant to my coworker.

Let me clarify:

The reason I picked GPL for my open source projects is because I want the code remain open and the modifications to remain available to the project. The extra benefit being that people are more likely to contribute to the project because they also won't have to worry about their work being used for some commercial package without the modifications being contributed back to the authors.

some OSS projects view GPL (in all versions) as utter poison and something to be avoided due to the nature of the downstream user community.

Nothing wrong with other licenses for OSS projects. I personally use 3-clause BSD on work that I really don't expect any contributions from and I have made contributions to other BSD licensed projects. That said, if someone wants to use my GPLed code and not have to contribute anything back then they are free to go elsewhere for similar code that has a license favorable to them.

(And no, they don't "steal" it. They're just building their products on top with a lot of their own extra code as well.)

No one mentioned anything about stealing. I'm sure you didn't intend to sound entitled by being defensive about "stealing" code. Regardless no one is entitled to use anything that doesn't belong to them. If you use GPL code in your proprietary program without intending to release the source code then it is a violation of the license and a copyright infringement. Do feel free to use code in a manner that is in compliance of its license.

3-clause BSD for small utilities, library function or scripts that are pretty much feature complete. It has the disclaimers and lets others used the code as they see fit without worrying about disclosing their source code.

GPL v.3 for code that are meant for open-source projects. It keeps the source code available and encourages others to contribute. I find that people are less likely to contribute if there is even a slight chance that someone else could make a commercial product out of it and keep the modifications to themselves.

The overwhelming bulk of my code is public-domain due to work requirements.