I would have chosen the uppermost answer except that because I've not upgraded my laptop for three years or so, I ended up right in-between the 1st and second highest answers... Kind of funny that you can start out with a computer that has 16kb and not quite make the top of that list just by putting off an upgrade.

Wacom digitizer and OneNote.

iOS has OneNote now also.

As for the digitizer - iOS doesn't have a Wacom pen but there are some pressure sensitive styluses now that a number of art programs support. Not as precise as the WaCom but close enough for a lot of people.

to the clacky sound of attaching a bluetooth keyboard to a tablet

*Begin Comic Book Guy Voice*

Technically, the Surface keyboards use connectors that attach when you click and not bluetooth at all, which is why they made clicking such a big deal in the ads.

*End Comic Book Guy Voice*

Once you release code as GPL, you can't go back and tell people not to redistribute it.

Yes, you can, you are the copyright holder.

They can argue that because of the GPL, they do not have to. But that does not mean the original copyright holder has no leg to stand on.

Everyone that got a copy has no legal obligations to you other than those in the GPL

The GPL means nothing without copyright under it, therefore copyright is still with the original owner.

The reason why VLC is not in the app store is because the terms that users agree to when they use the App Store are incompatible with the requirements for redistribution in the GPL.M

False, we know that's false because there are many GPL based apps in the App Store today. VLC was removed ONLY because one of the original copyright holders, a developer on VLC, complained to Apple.

You have permission as long as you follow the terms stipulated in the GPL.

Technically according to the contract, yes you do.

However all Apple sees is an original copyright holder issuing a complaint. It's not Apple's job to interpret a contract, it's Apple's job to take down something if a valid copyright holder asks them to.

That is not an issue in this case, as it merely means they have to provide the source for the VLC app (which they are). The system dynamically loads the application and does not statically link to it, so the actual iOS system being closed does not matter.

Why are you so ashamed of your thinking that you post AC? You actually had a pretty good post there.

Your understanding of the GPL is roughly correct. Your understanding of what I said is utterly wrong.

Yes the GPL is a contract, but like any contract the actual enforcement is up to the courts. It does not mean the original copyright holder cannot sue someone for using source code that was distributed under the GPL, or make complaints to others that as the copyright holder (for instance) they wish to have something removed from the app store. That's exactly what happened. Apple complied because the person who complained was the copyright holder - end of story.

As you say actual compliance with the GPL is spotty but it doesn't matter as long as no-one takes action. The VLC app would have stayed on the app store until the end of time if one of the copyright holders did not complain.

anyone who have contributed to them that cares can request that they are pulled since they are distributed against the conditions stipulated in the GPL.

The reason Apple listens is not complaints about the GPL, but because they are partly the copyright holder. Apple doesn't care about the GPL; they do care about copyrighted work being distributed without permission.

You can't take it back once you have given someone code licensed under GPL. They are entitled to distributing it.

That is not true. As the copyright holder you in the end have full control over what anyone can do with the source. The GPL is just a promise of what you will NOT do - even though you could.

Otherwise the code would be public domain, which is exactly the opposite of what the GPL does. The GPL leaves all copyrights firmly in the hands of the original owner.

You can distribute GPL or other open-souce software on the App Store, because it's easy to also distribute source somewhere else.

As a copyright holder you can only request that the app is removed if distributing it violates the license under which you contributed.

False, as the copyright holder you can stop someone from distributing your copyrighted work for any reason. That's the reason GPL even works, because it is based on copyright. They had every right to stop VLC from being distributed on iOS - it's just that it also broke the implicit promise they made by letting people use the code under an open-source license. As long as you could get code for the application itself (which you can) then it does not violate the GPL license under which it's being used.

Is it reasonable to be upset when you open your code to let someone else use it and then they do?

The developer canceling the original VLC is just exhibiting petty Apple-hatred, not helping open source (or the people who use it) in any way.

The information shown on the screen is not tied to what you see in front of you (nor can it be since the screen is so small).

The best term I have seen used to describe this in a talk on VR I attended was "annotated reality" - far more fitting, it describes a virtual "sticky note" over reality that you can always see.

It's better to be clear rather than have people think Glass and other devices like it are something they are not.

False. The number 1 infection vector to any OS is the user and in that regard OSX is just as vulnerable to malware as any other system.

That is false, in a few ways.

1) The user is simply not able to infect the system as deeply because most Mac users do not run as Admin, unlike WIndows.

2) Mac updates are easy and generally don't break things, which means people actually run them - thereby closing off vectors of attack.

3) Because the Mac App Store is so popular, fewer people get applications from other sources now, thereby decreasing the risk of infection (which Windows 8 does also).

The pervasiveness of malware has nothing to do with vulnerability.

It is an indicator of how effectively vulnerable a system is - the easier it is to have malware work, the more you will find on a system. Conversely, if writing malware gives you little return because it doesn't get any traction, fewer people will write malware for that system See: Android/iOS.

The simple truth remains that you can give an OSX system to someone and not require them to run a virus scanner with any regularity, while in traditional Windows systems that would be madness.