Can you show at least one example of a special requirement a program had that could be satisfied with init and not with systemd?
Indeed: The fact that it no longer follows the unix design or philosophy is a huge change. The fact than one piece of software has eaten up the funcionality of dozens of very-used programas is also a big change.
Linux client: Still propietary, something many *nix users actually care about.
Follows symlinks: So does almost any application out there. That's not a good thing, it's just a lack of a bug.
Automatic full resolution photo uploading from mobile: "full resolution photo" is another way of saying "large files". How does the content of a file make a difference?
Spideroak refuses to release the source for their client (though they claim they will, some day). As it is, it's just an unproven claim that it's encrypted and secure. For all we know there might be a huge security hole making it all worthless (possible an accidental one, btw).
If the graphics subsystem fails, or I have to go to single-user mode, I have nano.
If you had access to that machine and got a chance to manually install it before the graphics subsystem failed. What happes if you didn't?
Which are the other two new companies?
"+" or plenty of other special characters. Stuff like quotes can even be valid if used properly, while we still have some website that won't even accept a dash/underscore.
Putting aside the whole whitespace debate(*), I'm pretty sure that python has its own list of issues. Maybe not to the same extent as PHP, but they exist.
* For which I personally do have trouble with python - I want the computer to bend to my will, not the other way around.
The same can be said about C: if forces you to declare variables, and bend to the computers will (and not the other way around). This is true for any language. You merely chose to critize one about that, and let it slide for the rest.
Actually, you're right...up to the point where the police might get involved. Also, the power that flight attendants and gate agents have (which is backed by the FAA, whereby refusal to comply with their orders is a felony...I kid you not) also crosses the line between private entity/government. Since Kimberly *cough* fucking cunt *cough* had that power backing her up, I would say this does indeed become a First Amendment situation.
It might be a felony to refuse to comply on a plane, but, outside of the plane, and forcing you to alter content on you publish? That's not gonna stand up anywhere. What's next: the flight attendant forcing you to give them a BJ?
and threatened to have him arrested? you think that's fully legal?
I honestly don't get why the man gave into the threat. He could have just said "Ok, call the police.". There was really no reason to arrest him.
If you're not doing anything ilegal, and somebody threatens to call the police, just let them do it.
No, you don't need to explain why it's pejorative; what I asked is for you to explain why it's laughable, something competely different.
I quote by-piece, because you make different statements, and I reply to each one individually. Replying inline has been proper etiquette for several decades now.
Finally, no, none of my statements were replied above. But since this is your second reply attempting to divert attention from the subject at hand, I'm guessing your merely using a Red Hering to disguise your lack of proper argument.
I honestly don't think they have any duty to give back any more than they're doing now.
Nor do I. They have no obligations. Nobody implied that. We just said not doing so made them freeloaders.
Do you donate 100$ everytime you install linux on a computer? Cause that's what it would have cost you otherwise.
I do not. I do collaborate by open sourcing most of me development, and contribute into various proyecto thourgh various means. Also, I'm not saving $100 by using linux in my computer because I have not migrated from something propietary.
I know for sure that almost no one does.
It's nice if they decide to give back but they have no responsability to do so. The whole concept of "freeloaders" is laughable to be honest. I thought one of the primary visions behind FLOSS was that information should be free? I guess if you view open source as merely a means to an end, you might think such a thing as a freeloader could exist, but I completely disagree with that vision.
No, they have no responsability to give anything back. Nor I, nor GP stated that this was the case.
Can you please describe why the concept is laughable?
Making it available doesn't mean they're giving back any of those 36M though. It's pretty cheap to make it available once comparted to creating it.
The real question is: how mucho of those 36M will be reinvested into FLOSS development.
Just be thankful that today's headline doesn't have typos in it!
I fail to see the correlation between dropping XMPP support and standalone clients being more efficient. There's plenty of standalone clients for XMPP, and there have been for many years.