(Excuse the following mini-rant: the last day or two I've been finding my ability to "get into" FirefoxOS quite frustrating, as described here)
I'm hopeful. I'd like to try it and see, and more importantly, learn to participate directly, but I'm finding it impossible because I'm too cash-poor to pay even $200-300 for a new phone or tablet (e.g. the Geeksphone Revolution), and there doesn't seem to be any other way to get a real FirefoxOS device in the US (where I am), an in any case being stuck in an area with only CDMA coverage, a FirefoxOS "phone" seems unavailable anyway, making that kind of money hard to justify even if I had it available.
I could come up with $25-50 for a device to learn on, but I can't have one. The ongoing announcements of affordable devices seemingly everywhere else but where I could use one feels pretty frustrating.
I also feel like an idiot because I can't seem to find any useful technical information about FirefoxOS at a level between "try to read the raw source code" and the very attractive but not very informative brochureware at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... .
It's frustrating: I'm too poor to buy a special-order device, and too "rich" (by global standards) to be able to buy the devices most recently announced. I'm too "smart" to get the information I want (from the brochureware) and too "stupid" (from the source) at the same time.
If I don't shut up here this is going to turn into a tedious, incoherent essay, so I will.
Glad I'm not the only one to spot that. This is like advertising "NON-GMO" salt.
It reminds me of all of those candies out there with big "FAT FREE!" labels on them...
"Clem claims he has been asked by Canonical's legal department to license the binary packages used by Ubuntu. To me this is a scary thought. Ubuntu is a base distribution for many projects, some of them (such as Mint and Kubuntu) are quite successful.
Clem's statement makes me wonder if Canonical has approached other open source projects about licensing the right to access Ubuntu's package repositories. If so, what might follow? Would derivative distributions need to pay to use Canonical's packages? How would Canonical enforce such a policy, with lawyers, by blocking access to the repositories if a user isn't using Genuine Ubuntu? ""
Link to Original Source
As I see it, the FSF's biggest problem is that their obsession with "not-proprietary" actually seems to overshadow their focus on "legally free".
However, at least this list has a couple of actual things on it that actually would be generous gifts (Heck, yeah, if somebody bought me that 3D printer, I'd cope with waiting a week or two after christmas to get it, and a nice laptop computer would always be appreciated). I was half-expecting it to be ALL "Give the FSF money and tell then you did it for them!"
Optimist that I am, I actually clicked hoping for a list of hackable routers, toys, phones, etc. Silly me.
It's not just you - this is precisely the word that I was coming in here to comment about.
Firefox is still my primary browser, and I still think it's the "most free" and potentially most "featureful" one left (even Chromium is subject to Google's whims and reluctances - as an example, in my case I find it irritating that Firefox has had native
Mozilla feels like it's turning more an more into a corporation more worried about "market share" than its original mission. Reading about how it's a "fun" browsing experience seems like those commercials of "fun to eat" junk food. It's marketing crap. I fear their "mission" may soon no longer be "promote openness, innovation & opportunity on the Web.[...]so people worldwide can be informed contributors and creators of the Web" but "making the Web the leading platform for the greatest number of users and developers" (i.e. it doesn't matter how open or participatory it is as long as it has the largest number of consumers).
I hope I'm wrong. It's possible I am - Mozilla DID throw quite a bit into development of the opus audio codec, which is the clear winner for performance, quality, AND freedom-of-participation (and seems to have a decent chance to take off as a real standard, despite Google's foot-dragging, Apple's terminal "Doesn't Play Well With Others" problem, and Microsoft's inability to keep up with the times), and they ARE throwing real effort and money into daala to be the video codec equivalent. These are awesome, and perhaps the problem is just that every time they poke their heads out they get shouted at by people who feel changes to the user interface are horrific insults, so they've taken to just listening to each other. ("Hey, General Public, do you think our browser is 'fun'?" "STOP CRAPPING ON ME AAARRGGGHH!!!" "Uh...okay, hey, just everyone who's getting a paycheck from Mozilla, do YOU think our browser is 'fun'?" "Oh, of course! It is the MOST fun, boss!" "Okay, tell marketing to go with that.")
For those that otherwise recognize the awesomitude of Slackware but have gotten too old and feeble to track dependencies themselves, I would recommend Arch. (Yes, that does include me...)
To me, it's got a very Slackware-like feel to it (including a SlackBuild-like system called ABS), but also a pretty comprehensive repository.
I think we should all be thankful to Microsoft for taking this crucial step to help promote uptake of WebRTC implementations to replace Skype.
Firefox has supported
However, Google has been horrifically lazy about
I could easily imagine Apple doing this intentionally, just to be jerks. Microsoft might be more reasonable, but given how far behind they tend to be on the web, their digression with the special "CU-RTC-Web" alternative to WebRTC may stall THEIR implementation of the standard and inclusion of
 It's only partially-functional on Linux - no "desktop"-level remote support, as I understand it, but I think you can remote just the chrome browser view itself.