You mean anonymously.
Amen to that. If only it had more ram+storage, I'd still use it today.
Oh wait... I *do* still use today!
steve balmer chair throwing is still there.
I know that's supposed to be a joke but, just in case, it should be pointed out that the ruling only applies to queries consisting solely of the person's name -- adding keywords is fair game.
Had a friend ask me this once. I honestly couldn't come up with an answer. You look at the nuts and bolts of O/S's both realtime and non realtime, and it's basically all the same stuff, with more emphasis given to lower transaction times. Is it just a buzzword? Not trying to troll, but if someone has a definitive answer I'd love to hear it.
Realtime simply means that certain operations are guaranteed to complete in a given timeframe. This is harder than it appears.
No need to get so upset. Surely not upset enough to defend Apple and only eat two lunches today! If you read my post closely, you'll notice I'm not attacking Apple. All I'm saying is that 1) it isn't factually impossible like GP stated; and 2) The fact that Apple had to stop using gcc without copylefting Xcode is considered a feature, not a bug, according to FSF holy scriptures. That's just a fact; I'm not stating whether it's right or wrong. I certainly understant Apple's point of view which you defended, but I also understand FSF's pov which needed to be reminded.
And no, I'm not going to repeat FSF's goals and Apple's stance on closed systems for the umpteenth time on slashdot. It really is left as an exercise to the reader if anyone needs it. Sorry about that.
TL;DR: Chill, dude.
LLVM/Clang has existed for a while now, and one of the primary motivations behind it was the license, particularly w/ GCC going GPLv3. Suddenly, RMS one day wakes up and realizes that it's not copyleft? That's the very idea!
Actually RMS didn't just wake up and realized that. He was indirectly replying to a flame started by the usual open source master troll, Eric S. Raymond. A pity the summary doesn't mention ESR at all and phoronix misses the real start of the discussion.
They want a compiler that's good for their platform and lets them package it into Xcode. GCC would make this impossible.
Surely not impossible. Apple could simply copyleft Xcode. Why Apple doesn't want to do that and rather prefers to fund a non-free alternative, and how this relates to FSF's goals, are left as an exercise to the reader.
I must disagree with this. The hacker did a very useful service, and not because he hacked a public network, but because he proved that members of the Parliament were not taking the necessary precautions in dealing with very sensitive information, such as emails and their own passwords. The real story is not a guy setting up a fake access point, anyone can do that; it's government data being trivially snooped because of weak security policy. I see this all the time in eduroam (an international wireless roaming service for students), which despite being WPA2-Enterprise (802.1x), most people don't bother setting up the security certificate and/or prefer connecting to hassle-free open wifi networks. It's bad enough that students do this, but utterly unacceptable for politicians.
The fact that the hacker exposed this to IT services (and it was the IT services who went public) instead of selling intelligence to foreign powers, makes him a whitehat.
There's a difference between doing it and telling the world which is attention whoring, and just letting their IT team know, and if they don't fix it, escalating it to parliamentarians themselves.
I think you have misunderstood the summary. The second link implies the whitehat didn't go public because it was the IT services who made it public.