Web apps will always be second class to local applications and data. In terms of access control they can't be beat.
Actually applications break on osx updates and major releases quite a bit. This is usually due to libraries being removed or changed in the background. Apple's 'successful' solution is to tell users 'sorry your shit doesn't work on the new os.' Beign the apple fanboys they usually are, they swallow their pride and rebuy their applications. If they're lucky the application vendor will release a patched version for free.
Userland is not the kernel. In fact, linus has made it very clear that it is not allowed for kernel devs to break userspace ABI. Beyond that, it's up to others to decide what to do with userspace. The fact is, you CAN run old linux 2.0/libc6 binaries on modern linux for a given platform. You just need copies of libraries that haven't broken ABI with the ones it was linked against.
If you want to blame someone for their laziness in supporting your desire to keep your code closed, then blame the distros who aren't shipping the ancient libraries you linked against 5 years ago in their current releases and/or blame the authors of the libraries who broke their ABI.
Actually, the notable exceptions are the gpu vendors, and a smattering of printer models... Most devices 'just work' under linux as they're just generic hardware anyway. People shouldn't be hiding their secret bits in binary blobs anyway.. It is NOT secure.
They don't have to give anyone source, but then they don't get to take advantage of having their driver maintained in-tree as kernel internals change over time and as it is ported to new systems. The kernel devs also don't have to deal with users complaining about crashes when those drivers are loaded. If the user's kernel oops message says 'tainted', the devs will tell him "go talk to your vendor for support." Why should the devs have to debug systems with source they can't access? Linux is supposed to be open source, not half-open/closed.
Most raid controllers work under linux, even the shitty software ones do now.
Those don't run in the kernel...and the stubs that load into the kernel are non-gpl, so any crashes posted will show as tainted and will not be addressed by the kernel devs.
Help who exactly? There are good reasons why non gpl modules get limited api access, and why the kernel has a tainted/not tainted flag displayed in every oops. The devs don't accept bug reports from kernels that have closed/non gpl code running at the time of crash. Why? Because they can't look at the source or build debug versions. The kernel devs don't want to deal with floods of users posting such kernel dumps and demanding answers the devs cannot give. A linux ecosystem like this would be no better than windows' (or any other closed platform, really).
The net result is that the vendors who take linux seriously submit working source for their hardware under gpl2, which is then folded into the main release via git pull requests. If the vendor then abandons the hardware and driver at some point, at least the code is available and can be maintained as kernel internals change and as it is ported to new hardware.
The ones who don't release source, don't get to take advantage of this 'automatic' maintenance and must do it all themselves, nor do their blobs interfere with the kernel devs or users running more recent kernels that won't load them. This effectively keeps these vendors accountable for the entire ecosystem needed to support their blobs, which is good since they're the only ones with complete source. The users stuck on the older kernel releases in order to retain needed functionality are rightly dependent on the vendor for fixe instead of the kernel devs.
Police routinely abuse laws as shields to prevent people from recording public police behavior they'd rather no one know about. It's pretty obvious that officers are being trained to respond this way. Most agents from three letter agencies pull this shit now too.
Sorry, my hardware is my hardware.. remote bricking is just ripe for abuse. I'd rather retain control over it and accept the slight risk of it being stolen than have it remote bricked by power tripping assholes.
I don't understand why people would ever want to be so distant from one another -- we've a social species. We don't need distant farms at this point.
Generalizations like this don't justify forcing people to conform, which many here advocate. There are plenty of anecdotes showing how many of the most successful people were loners, or at least, did their best work while alone. The cultural noise floor in cities is way too high. As far as farm work goes, modern 'careers' are becoming so toxic with the expected hours/week load, unhealthy sedentary configurations, and passive aggressive social laws/dynamics, that rural work on the farm is starting to become more attractive. To me, this is a sign that we're doing it very very wrong, and cities amplify these effects.
All music is made by humans, 'live' or recorded, whether they're plucking strings, blowing air through reeds and metal pipes, singing, or using a computer to generate waveforms. To me, 'live' music is usually distracting and, most of the time, badly played and/or the acoustics are terrible.
No they're not. Cities are blights that pump out tons of carbon, pollution, and heat. The population density pollutes and contaminates the environment around it far more rapidly than nature can recover. The 'chain store hell' is basically a city scape without the sky scrapers. I don't see how anyone could like either. The real issue here is population density, not population configuration.
There's plenty of idiocy in cities. I realize so-called 'progressives' love the sardine can lifestyle (and think everyone should), and think that only white, straight people can be bigots, but reality doesn't work that way. There's also the flipside to bigots: the prideful fools who think they should be celebrated and catered to by society because of some arbitrary attribute. There are tons more of those living in cities per capita it seems. Perhaps you're one of those idiots then? See? I can stereotype too. I guess we have something in common after all.
This trend of labeling those who want their space as 'anti-social' reeks of the same intolerance they claim is so horrible. Keep your lifestyle away from me, thanks, and don't expect me to pay for it.
Well why not? The commu...err I mean 'humanists' have already shown up with theirs. People who call themselves 'humanists' usually mean 'marxist humanism', and they support culturally marxist views.
You know what should be illegal? Forcing others to live the way you expect.
How about just building these things out in the deserts?
It also lacks the self and situational awareness of humans.
10Mph is still an arbitrary assumption, just like legal limit. Correct speed varies far too much for such a static definition. There was an article (with video) on slashdot awhile back that explained how their heuristics work, and it said the whole stack was basically built from prefabricated scenarios, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Actually, in free countries, people should be free to like or dislike whoever they want for any reason they want, and form their associations accordingly. The reason gays, feminists and other left wing activists get so much shit is because their 'tolerance' only goes in one direction. They want to dictate what others can do to/say about them, but they want it no holds barred when they're the ones spewing vitriol. Get a gay person fired because he's gay? Instant condemnation and legal action. Get a brand new CEO fired for donating private funds to an anti gay marriage effort years before? That's apparently a-OK. So much for tolerance, right?
Those LGBT activists use the same flawed reasoning for their positions as SPLC does for race issues. They're all a part of the same political spectrum. They argue from perpetual victimhood to justify privilege for themselves or their target demographic at everyone else's expense, be it finances or liberty. If they just wanted the freedom to marry, they'd lobby to get the state out of marriage altogether, but it's obvious they would rather use the state to force organizations who don't agree with their lifestyle to conform.