Woot! Another shill review of a Packt Publishing book by RickJWagner!!! Keep the shilling coming, bro!!
Is anyone actually surprised that a bunch of Ruby developers can't write secure code? Besides, the performance is probably going to be as shitty as Ruby on Snails as well.
Wow you people are still whining about Microsoft using BSD code in a completely legal and consistent way to the spirit of the license? Oh noes!!!
Considering the usual size of a BK worker, I'd be more worried about the ground being hurt if she fell out of the window.
Why should someone be rewarded for not being able to meet a deadline or for submitting work that produces inferior results as others? The real world doesn't reward yot for participation alone.
What's with all the slashvertisements for Packt Publishing? They going to pay for Taco's penis enlargement surgery?
To counter with an example from the real world just look at the malware infections of people installing screensavers for ubuntu. Where was the magic open source pixie dust to stop them. Oh yeah it doesn't exist.
Mod parent down for posting under the FP to be at the top.
Except they aren't regulating interstate commerce. They are only taxing energy companies within their state and only based on the impact of their emissions within the state (assuming they do business in other states).
What's unconstitutional about it?
Your very false assumption is that Google engineers would have access to the code in the first place.
So you claim they wouldn't have access to their own Android code (you know, where the bug lies).
Droid is a Motorola phone on the Verizon network. Google is one of many participants in the Open Source Android project, which Motorola wisely chose to use in this case. In the past they have used Linux, but they have never went Open Source in the application domain. This meant that in the past, an Autofocus problem would need to be fixed by Motorola engineers. Since it was closed source only a few Motorola engineers would have access to, and famliarity with , the code.
If the code in question was really a bug in Motorola's code then it would have most likely been proprietary software and as such as you claim Google wouldn't have gotten access to it. That Android itself is released open source under the Apache 2.0 license doesn't mean that the customized versions created by say Motorola is going to be open source. So actually, your the one making false assumptions that go against the very words of Google's own people.
In case you are still not getting it, try looking at your broken "Google would work on it anyway" argument this way:
Why wouldn't they work on their own code base?
Number of Open Source handset projects in which Google is Involved: 1 or more
You do realize that most of the changes Motorola did to customize their version of Android are proprietary right? And that the phone manufacturers are under no obligation to open source their additions. But this is all moot since the bug is an issue in the base Android itself.
So your claim is that somehow these Google engineers who found out what the bug actually was wouldn't have found out the bug as fast if the code wasn't open source? Why would it matter whether the code was open source or when these same people would have had access to the code regardless.
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
And yet when Microsoft included UAC in Windows Vista to address this very complaint they only got lambasted by you same Linux people. What hypocrisy.