Comment Re:Pale Moon Rocks! (Score 0) 365
Optimized Windows is definitely not what slashdot keeps complaining about, sorry, wrong crowd.
Optimized Windows is definitely not what slashdot keeps complaining about, sorry, wrong crowd.
It's not even a generic "share" button for which plugins are available, it's a FACEBOOK share button, period.
The video on the TFA can't been seen with firefox, ironically, on blog.mozilla.org.
Nobody is forcing you to partake. Firefox is simply catering to people who want it. This is like complaining about Firefox adding support for any new feature you don't care about. They're not just here for you, you know.
Why not praise them for their amazing work on bringing the core Gecko engine into the new decade? Or in further reducing the memory footprint of the browser?
All those "social integration" features end up increasing the footprint of the browser, even if you don't use them.
Or any number of other features that aren't just buzzword compliance issues?
Hell, even their work on Firefox OS has helped resurrect their Electrolysis efforts. It's not like Mozilla's just been working on social media buttons, removing features, and shitty Chrome-like UIs. But here on Slashdot, that's all I ever hear about. Some nerds we turned out to be.
Sure, Electrolysis is cool, but it could have been ready MONTHS ago if resources hadn't been shoved into useless stuff that actually belongs in a plugin.
So... what should I use now if I want a browser targeting to those looking to browse the internet?
Let me describe for you most people's experience with QR codes:
1) Launch a special app because QR doesn't seem to be a built in feature of any phone.
No phones implement the described standard either. The point was why we should adopt one over the other.
2) Hold the phone in the right way ensuring there is enough light on the QR code, or to ensure the LED doesn't wash the QR code completely white. Wait for the image to stabilize and focus because phone cameras suck at close range.
Modern phones have autofocus. It's never taken me over a second to scan a QR code. And it doesn't matter if I rotate my phone 45 (or any amount, for that matter).
3) Hit a button to scan, watch a green or red line move across the QR code.
Modern phones have autofocus. I don't press anything on my almost two year old Nokia N9. Just open the app (two touches at most), and point the phone. No rotation, no button-pressing.
4) Watch the phone fail to register the QR code
Can't reproduce that, sorry. Get something from 2011 or later.
You experience sound pretty much like what I remember QR codes being like in 2009. Hardware has evoled, times have changed. The only valid point you make, is the lack of built-in app. (though Nokia provides an official one through their download centre, in my case).
If you're already using Android,it's unlikely thay you're giving access to more private information by using this.
What else would you ask for? You can send a validation SMS, and most Android users use gmail, so a token via email is useless too.
So we both agree that the GPL puts the software and developer second, and the user first.
Again, I'm not arguing if that's a good thing or a bad thing, my point was just that.
Most modern smartphoen cost about that, unless you sign some two year contract, where you end up paying it gradually over two years.
Why didn't you try with an image viewer instead of a browser? The results are usually WAY better.
So how do you email a contact that you have on your phone with your laptop? Do you turn to your iPhone and type the email there?
I'm pretty sure the TOS you agreed to pretty much covers that.
No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.
Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software.
In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.
Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.
1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software
However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.
"Weeks to buy a house"? Those contracts are usually 3 to 4 pages long, and might quote 2 laws which are less than a single page each. No more than 30 minutes.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
