In addition to the suggestions that you redirect to a new domain
You could keep control over DNS so that you just point yourdomain.com and www.yourdomain.com to the new guy's server, but keep MX pointed wherever you want.
Do those "updates" perform equally well (Cough, iPhone 3) and are all of the features available (cough, Siri) on all of the platforms? If the answer to either question is no, then what is an upgrade besides a change to the text in the version number and perhaps some alternate windowdressing?
You could make the same argument of Windows, Mac or other operating systems. You may not get every new feature because the vendor set a minimum requirement that is too high. But even so that's just one or two missing features out of a plethora of other changes.
And don't forget the importance of changed/new APIs that may will eventually be required to actually run the latest apps. So I argue that would be beneficial to update even if you got zero new user-facing features.
And this would be the point where the fact that the Firefox devs have been trying to do too much with a "browser" becomes beyond blatantly obvious.
Firefox is a great operating system, if only it included a decent browser
What happens if I want to hide my access point from Apple, Google and Skyhook at once? Should I name by AP as
LINKSYS_NOMAP_NOAPPLE_NOSKYHOOK
or will this be a global suffix?
From TFA:
Finally, because other location providers will also be able to observe these opt-outs, we hope that over time the “_nomap” string will be adopted universally. This would help benefit all users by providing everyone with a unified opt-out process regardless of location provider.
I value privacy as much as the next person but I don't see why this matters. Network names do not give away anything personal unless you *choose* to put something personal into the SSID. And if you do that you have "opted in" to broadcasting your personal information. Or am I missing something here?
Even if it's just for fun that's a heck of a lot of users to let down if you run into trouble. I'd be concerned that even if you get it set up and running, some day it will go down and it'll take several days to figure to while the community languishes. I'd host somewhere else until you are really comfortable and familiar with LAMP administration.
It probably has something to do with checksums being built in to protect against corrupt installers mucking things up. Though I'm sure something like that could be added to the standard compressed formats such as
in a year or two, it wouldn't be surprising if all software is made available as an ISO on a USB drive
Why have ISOs on a USB drive? If you need to boot to install something (such as an OS) you'd boot straight from the drive. For anything else I think "in a year or two" it'll look pretty much like it does today -- app stores and package managers. What will change is that less and less software will be sold in stores.
It depends on what they want to do with it, and whether they have any sort of IT support.
If they have somebody doing tech support already, just wipe the drive and give them the computer (with restore discs just in case they want to use the bundled OS.)
If they don't have support but have any sort of established standard OS, then install the same OS as they're already using.
If they have no support and no standards, it's pretty much just up to you. A Linux distro if they just want to surf the web and use a word processor. Windows if they want to be able to install software purchased in a big box store.
That's a good point. But... to be the devil's advocate, all that it's doing is pre-loading stuff into cache, right? If that's true, then it seems like it should only be able to do something if you actually click on that page. Is the end result really any different from a security standpoint?
"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_