Nothing is funnier than someone who is actually mad that other countries might *gasp* not just allow employers to fuck over their employees at will.
SourceForge, the code repository site owned by Slashdot Media, has apparently seized control of the account hosting GIMP for Windows on the service, according to e-mails and discussions amongst members of the GIMP community—locking out GIMP's lead Windows developer. And now anyone downloading the Windows version of the open source image editing tool from SourceForge gets the software wrapped in an installer replete with advertisements.
Link to Original Source
Because open sourcing has nothing to do with giving up copyright. Sun didn't give up their copyright when GPLing it and Orcale now holds it.
Upshot is that just like other submissions, and position on the page aside, we're going to run polls that the editors think are a good idea
How is that an upshot? No one was asking for this "feature".
Because the Slashdot code monkeys are absolutely horrendous at making a decent UI.
Timothy really isn't that bad.
Except for everything related to being an "editor". He's absolutely horrendous at that.
It's not and they didn't say it was. Chris Roberts worked at Origin. That was the joke.
It's sad that people are more concerned with what companies are doing with their information than the government.
Because people aren't allowed to be concerned about both things? Why this false dichotomy?
and they still do not allow the default email or browser app to be changed.
No, but companies can do like what Google does and just tightly integrate all your apps together where clicking something in one launches another one of your apps to handle it.
Are "alternate webkit-based browsers" capable of adding support for HTML5 elements and attributes that Apple chose to leave out of WebKit for iOS? Are they allowed to associate themselves with the http: and https: schemes?
No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
I didn't think so.
And I never said they could so I don't see the relevance.
Apple do indeed (still) have an infrequently enforced policy about competing apps
That there are lots of alternative web browsers based on their webkit does not suggest 'competing' browsers, because those browsers are unable to meaningfully compete.
They can't compete on the rendering engine, sure, but users don't actually give two shits about that. The browsers compete on the other features they can provide.
Apple doesn't allow any application competing with their own as far as I know
And what you know amounts to very little apparently. When was the last time you heard anything about iOS? 2009? What Apple doesn't allow is third-party web engines, but they allow alternate webkit-based browsers. There are probably hundreds of such applications in the App Store.
The problem is that they are essentially rudderless without Google's yearly handouts. If Mozilla had diversified their revenue long ago they wouldn't be in this situation of throwing tons of shit at the wall to see what sticks.
If they had compelling content people would pay for it directly. Sites like ehow and Buzzfeed create crap but can stay around due to clickbait spam.