Worse yet, Opera and Mozilla and Apple aren't saying, "Goddamn this stuff is just already too complicated. Let's just freeze what we've got and really consider it a standard, so we can just fix all the damn bugs and work on interactivity." Instead, it seems they've bought whole hog into W3C's "what's good for the web is constant generation of new standards", and they're happily generating more and more! Yay!

(That it WORKS, not that people try it.)

If you want to offer a contradictory viewpoint from a less-biased observer, that's fine. But if you go straight to the maximally biased source, it's suggestive that there isn't an unbiased source with that perspective in the first place. Maybe there is, but if so, use them. If not, don't bother with "balance".

Why would I want my code to be "free and open"? I want my code to contribute as much to society as possible.

In my evaluation, for the free libraries I write, I find this is best achieved by giving it away without restriction, allowing proprietary companies to incorporate it into their codebases without being obligated to give anything back. There are some companies whose companies won't let them touch GPL code. They can use my code and not give anything back (some give back anyway, even though there is no legal obligation). I think this is a net improvement for overal benefit measured over the entire world than if they couldn't.

I go further than most people at that point; I don't use MIT or BSD or any such licenses, most of which just require keeping authorship information in the code, or in the code and docs. There are some companies whose companies won't let them touch any open source code, and those companies (that I've talked to so far) are ok with public domain code (although I've heard some lawyers are scared of it, given the legal ambiguity in the US). The main practical difference between the non-viral open-source licenses and public domain is the former have legal obligation for attribution, and I just don't see the point in bringing the legal system into play just so some source code locked away in a company's safe somewhere still has my name on it.

So, personally, I believe public domain is a reasonable choice for people to make if they're trying to optimize for "maximum utility" of their code. I believe non-viral open-source licenses are reasonable if you want as much utility as you can get while still guaranteeing you receive "credit" (of some minimal kind) for your work. I believe GPL is the most reasonable choice for people who want to try to change the world to make sure that any printer they buy has drivers they can recompile (which is a rather programmer-centric view of the world, although after 30 years we've only seen mixed results).

(I don't mean "viral" in a negative way, I just like to have a simple word to distinguish that class of license.)

I don't blame the guy for saying it...

...I blame Slashdot for running the article about him saying it.

What reason do we have to think that's how Microsoft competed/won?

Between AARD code (for which DRDOS owner earned $280M settlement from MS--long after DRDOS had disappeared from the market) and issues like their manipulation of the retail channel to prevent alternative OSes from being sold (which contributed to a major lawsuit you may have heard of), there's enough wonkiness here that we know about that there's absolutely no reason to believe those alternatives were on a level playing field.

Asserting the opposite doesn't make it true.

Also I don't see that text on their site (and google can't find it). They do have an "opt out" button, but it's implemented client-side using cookies, which isn't a particularly great solution either.

Yep, I've been thinking that the lawyers are the real problem for a decade.

"The software programming community seems largely against patents. When the only people defending software patents are patent holders who make money from licensing, patent lawyers who make money from patent applications and patent litigation, and the Patent and Trademark Office who make money from granting patents, is there any reason to believe patents are in the public interest?" -- me, in 1999 (slightly edited for clarity)

Serious part

They "lost" 24K files? You mean the attackers deleted and them and they didn't have backups?

Not-really-serious part (but wait, or is it?)

"Theft"? So the attacker has the files and the owners of the files don't have them anymore? Because that's what it means to steal a car or a diamond or cash.

Really, since they didn't do any of these things, shouldn't we say that these attackers "illegally copied" the documents and/or the information?

And are they really "intruders" or "attackers"? Maybe they're just "pirates".

An operating system is not like other software; it hosts other software. I shouldn't be forced to reinstall all my software every ten years, or five years, or two years. I shouldn't be forced to switch to a new version of the software that controls my access to all my other software if that new version has a different UI that forces me to relearn all sorts of new UI shortcuts, to abandon helpful utilities and add-ons that I've acquired or developed, etc. etc.

Of course it's not just Microsoft; Firefox has fucking up that last one with nearly ever major release.

I dunno, maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy or something, but after eighteen years of regular OS "must have" upgrades every couple years, yeah, I'm comfortable saying it's a huge fucking waste of my time, and it is stupid, and yes they should support the old versions.

If upgrading to new versions didn't involve changing the user experience and didn't require reinstalling everything, then it would be no different than a patch or service pack, except it would cost money and have a new version number... and that would be fine with me. (It's still lame to have to pay 50-200 dollars every couple years, but I could live with that at least. But that's not what's on the table.)

I remember what felt like 10 years ago we were griping about Google keeping search logs. At the time they didn't have a use for them, they just wanted to keep them around just in case.

So I never log in to google because I want to minimize how much they know about me. Of course they can still see my IP so who knows how effective this is, but at least I can try.

Except, wait! Then they bought youtube, and eventually merged the youtube and google login systems, so not only did you use the same account to log into both, but being logged into one meant you were logged into the other.

Now, youtube I was never that paranoid about the privacy of -- about them tracking what videos I watched. They could, but I didn't care much. So I had an account and I kept it logged in all the time, so I could see what my "subscriptions" had added recently and a few other useful things from being logged in.

But no, because google is so dedicated to privacy, if I wanted to stay logged in to youtube, I had to let google log every search I did under my own username. So to preserve my minimal privacy with google search, I had to stop logging in to youtube.

Those are the only two google services I use, but I bet there are similar stories for the rest of them.

So yeah. Google marketing a service based on "privacy"? No thanks.

This poll always totally broken, because the curators seemed to appear to totally fail to understand video games.

The poll was absurdly ambiguous about whether it was "the visual art found in videogames" or "videogames themselves as Art". You could see this ambiguity throughout the poll, from the language used talking casually about "art of games" and the choice of credits they provided for each games (typically artists and designers, almost as if they didn't understand what "designer" meant for games).

Now the results starts off with "explore the forty-year evolution of video games as an artistic medium" which is unambiguous (but makes the credits choice inexplicable), but the poll had nothing like that. So who knows what the voters took it to be.