Frameworks are good only if all of the following are true:

1)You want to do exactly what the framework was set up to do. (in other words, everything about your app is cookie cutter)
2)You aren't a very good programmer
3)You already know the framework
4)You don't want to do something wild and crazy, like write an sql query (the framework way tends to use 3 objects which define interfaces and require you to jump through hoops, all so it will automatically grab the data and unbox it for you in the format it assumes you want it in, rather than the format you actually want it in).
5)You absolutely don't want to use any advanced database functionality whatsoever, since most frameworks these days assume that they can create and alter tables at will.

If those first two things aren't true, you're going to spend an order of magnitude more time working around the framework's limitations than you will save by using it. If 2 and 3 aren't true, you'll spend more time learning how to use the framework than you'd save by using it.

Frameworks are good for getting low to moderately skilled developers to pump out cookie cutter type apps quickly (so long as those apps don't need to worry about little things like scale and performance). They're absolutely horrible if you want to do anything novel, you need performance, or you actually know sql and just want to write a simple god damn query.

Definitely after a few years experience the difference in degrees means nothing. I wouldn't think it matters even for the first job- I do interview for entry level positions and I wouldn't subtract any points for a math degree. I would interview them differently and expect them to have different strengths and weaknesses though (less knowledge of software engineering and CS concepts for a meth degree, but probably stronger algorithmic skills).

So you just graduated with no practical experience, and you have to apply to entry level jobs? And the problem with that is what exactly?

They'd sell a fraction of the copies and lose their monopoly (they might not even end up with a double digit install base). The only reason to use windows is the massive amount of pre-existing software. Take away that, and there's no reason not to use another solution, especially when those have a ton of software already written for it, and are cheap or free.

Also, your examples on hardware are just moronic. A good analogy would be dropping support for DOS and 16 bit windows apps. The OS doesn't care what type of memory it uses (that's a BIOS issue), the code to run the old style mouse/keyboard ports is minimal and not a cause of problems (I doubt it's even been touched in years other than reflect changes in interface to the rest of the OS), and I'd be willing to bet more people use the optical drive to play CDs than Blu-ray by an order of magnitude.

This is a potential disaster in my eyes. We're talking about destroying the commercial web here.

Actually, we're talking about destroying DNT. The whole point of DNT is that its opt-in for users. Honoring the DNT flag is voluntary, and no one is going to honor it if major browser vendors reverse the design to make it opt-out.

Google makes it money from tracking users and selling customized ads. Google would look bad if they didn't honor DNT. Microsoft is setting the standard that DNT should be on by default, which reduces the ability for Google to track you all over the web. MS is not an ad company, so they really won't feel this as much.

Well, they are (they do sell ads, including customized ones, and do collect and track user data), they just aren't as successful at it as Google is. They also don't currently honor DNT. So what have DNT on-by-default in IE10 means is that the mass of users you use IE with default settings will continue to be tracked by Microsoft, and not tracked by all the parties that honor DNT.

When you file a complaint with the EU or ITC to ban the importation of a product, you file a claim against that product's manufacturer. You act like Apple purposely went after HTC as a proxy to Google.

That's because Apple purposely went after HTC as a proxy to Google, to wit, they weren't just going after HTC, they were trying to increase the perceived cost to hardware vendors of making and selling Android devices and, by that means, of stopping -- or at least slowing -- Google's erosion of Apple's position as a supplier of mobile operating systems and all the things (app sales, online advertising, e-book sales) where Google and Apple compete where Apple's position is driven by the market position of its mobile OS.

Just because someone argues for something in a legal case (and just because it convinced Florian Mueller) doesn't mean it is credible.

I agree.

This is inconsistent with your characterization of the Apple vs. Google situation, where you presented Apple's characterization as fact, and even the remedy Apple was seeking as if it was predetermined.

However the same thing can be said about Google's claims against Microsoft and Nokia.

Well, not the part about being endorsed by paid Microsoft shill Florian Mueller, but yes, you shouldn't accept Google's claims as fact just because Google claimed them. Were someone doing that, it might be relevant to point that out in response to to that person. But...that's not what you did.

In both cases, a claim is being made to the EU

Well, no, the United States International Trade Commission (where the HTC complaint against Apple is being made) is not an organ of the European Union.

and in both cases a finding has not been made.

Original complaints to regulators and decisions by regulators on complaints aren't the only source of information in the world.

So how is this case different from Apple's?

That's not the issue. You've made the "glass houses" charge, which isn't supported by merely observing that the complaint the target of the charge has made against others has also been made against the complainant. To support the position you have staked out against Google, you need to show evidence that they have actually done what they accuse others of doing, not that they have merely been accused of of the same thing they accuse others of doing.

You're misunderstanding the licensing issue with GPLed libraries. The licensing issue is that by linking against the GPLed library, you are using the actual GPLed code as part of your product, not just the headers, thus making your code a derivative work of that GPLed code because it depends on that code for correct operation.

The FSF asserts that accepting the GPL is required for code that links either dynamically or statically to GPL code, but in the former case the GPL code (other than the headers) is not incorporated into the distributed work, only the headers (which simply state the API, which, under this decision, is functional and, as such, not subject to copyright) are. There is a functional dependency on some code that implements the API defined by the header, but there is no requirement that it be the actual GPL code (except for the API, which under the decision here, again, is not subject to copyright.)

One might argue that a combined work is created that incorporates the GPL code when the GPLed versions of the libraries are actually linked on the end-user system, but if any person is creating that work it is the end user, and they aren't distributing it. They may need to accept the GPL with respect to that work to create it (as a derivative work of the GPL-protected work), but since they never do anything with it other than use it, none of the substantive obligations of the GPL would ever apply.

The FSF has always relied on a fairly maximal view of the scope of copyright protection in its assertions as to when accepting and abiding by the GPL is required. This is unsurprising, because the purpose of the GPL is to compel behavior, and you can only do that when people have to abide by the license. Anything that increases the scope of freedom under copyright law reduces the compulsory power of the GPL.

Particularly, the decision in this case would seem to be fatal to the FSF's position that the GPL is required for code that links dynamically to GPL libraries.

Does this mean Google is off-the-hook?

Presuming it holds up on the inevitable appeal, mostly.

Or will Google have to make changes to Android in order to satisfy the end result of all these court rulings?

The end result of the Oracle v. Google trial has still not been reached, but the only infringement that was found was the rangeCheck method and 8 test suite files that were never distributed as part of Android. There will be some statutory damages awarded to Oracle for that infringement (which Google will hardly notice), but Google isn't going to have to make substantive changes to Android.