The changelog says:

" ABP users are informed both on the install and on the release notes pages, so they can easily disable the filterset if they whish to."

I saw no suck information on the install. I just removed and reinstalled NS, and while the subscription is added, I don't see where in the install the user is informed.

That's nice. Personally, I rather like my adblockers. I save bandwidth not downloading all those images, I save time in that it takes less time for a page to load, and everything is just...nicer. I disagree, though. I think it should be the user's choice as to whether they want to see ads or not, not yours, and not anyone else's.

He's asking about the long run, not a patch cable. Shouldn't this be terminated on a patch panel, or the like, on each end, with shorter patch cables going from the patch panel to the dmarc/whatever? Building infrastructure is generally like this, no? I say use pre-made patch cables to go from your patch panels to whatever they go to, and run the cable yourself and terminate it well on a patch panel.

I gave you my first mod. I agree. It's not good if it doesn't work, and if that's your experience, then it's a bad one. I do think you're in the minority, though. I've been fortunate never to have an issue on several machines, amd and intel, laptops and desktops. I do prefer fedora on my server, but for regular desktop needs I love this distro so far, and I haven't even felt itchy to switch, as was the case with with slackware, gentoo, fedora, freebsd, solaris 10, and of course XP and vista.

I'm upgrading now, online. I have nothing of value to add, but generally doesn't stop ^them^ so, you know what they say.

It took a while for the on-line upgrade process to do something. I killed it twice after being impatient. Once it told me it timed out waiting for the release notes. I tried again evoking it from bash as found from the process table, /usr/bin/python2.5 /usr/bin/update-manager, hoping to see some terminal output, but I didn't see much.

I guess that's okay because it showed me the release notes, let me click, and I have a nice little "distribution upgrade" box that gives me a status. It's cute.

I did the same from 8.04lts to 8.10, and it was smooth sailing. I think todays difficulties are obvious. I'd be interested to see their download status.

I hardly call free (as in beer) a lack of incentive.

Regarding it not being faster, I'd disagree there as well. I got a new laptop with vista pre-installed, and I even convinced myself that I just needed to get used to it before condemning it as I immediately did. After a week, I installed a Linux distro and couldn't be happier. In the time it took for the machine to just boot up and be usable under vista, I can start up, check my email, check a few websites, and shut down.

The comment about the linux community patenting software that that only runs on Linux speaks for itself.

I think the general public is more concerned with freedom as in beer than the freedom of the software. Most of the general public has heard the term 'open source' but doesn't know what that actually means.

Furthermore, there really isn't much incentive for people to use Linux when their computers all come with an OS installed already, and there is almost never any savings in getting a computer without a proprietary OS installed.

I think a more successful tactic would be to illustrate that MS and Apple are in it for the money, and the GNU/Linux/OSS community is in it because they love it.

Of course, none of this matters until device manufacturers release open drivers for their hardware. Jane and John Doe are going to use what works before they use what's free.

Sales tax when media or other tangible goods exchanged is acceptable. Taxing the sharing of the intangible is asinine. Why not tax for having ides, next?

Yes. If using ssl to secure whatever application is in question, they cannot see past the transport layer.

My only beef with this article is that in their final comparison chart as well as in their write up, they act like firefox doesn't have a privacy mode, so to speak. Since you can always clear it manually with tools>clear priate data now, or by setting it to do so automatically under edit>preferences>privacy>always clear my private data when I close firefox, I would argue that it does indeed have a privacy mode, even though it's not explicitly called that.

What makes php more inherently insecure compared to other scripting languages that a web app might use? There are plenty of functions to "sanitize" input and satisfy the other "major rules," so why is php scrutinized more than others?