But arguable robots.txt should not be a way to retroactively mark previously archived content as inaccessible.
Exactly. The policy where someone with no interest in a site (i.e. takeovers, lapsed domains, etc) can retroactive wipe all archives with just a couple lines in a config is flat-out wrong.
Ignoring robots.txt entirely, though, is a bad idea. Some sites use it to block archiving, sure, but some others use it to tell robots to avoid places where they'll never return from. There's a case for ignoring "Disallow:
Or rather do, but don't force me to buy a powered screw remover that needs charging after 20 minutes of use and can only be controlled via bluetooth from an iPhone. Old versions of software should be at least sold it is indefinitely, or placed in public domain if the maker no longer sees a profit from a particular version when the new one is available. It would not be crazy to provide security patches and basic usability updates so long as that is economically viable.
What is actually happening today is worse. A lot of times it is not possible to reinstall or even use an existing install of a software version you paid for, when the new version has removed functionality that was your reason for buying the product.
Constant volatility has in turn devalued software. If I am sure that a particular application will consistently serve my regular needs for 10 years like a screwdriver does, an $1000 investment does not seem crazy. But if your company could go out of business tomorrow and I will be left out in the cold, how can I justify spending anything at all?
I can definitely understand that sort of reaction for developers, especially if you're talking about small open source projects... those are projects which usually scratch the itch of the developer, so feature requests are definitely going to be an uphill battle if they aren't interesting to the developer (for some definition of "interesting" which might mean "actually useful", "fun to code/play with", "that code is shit and needs refactoring anyways", "suggestion in the form of a patch/pull request", etc).
I think users see software development effort as zero sum; if someone is working on a feature they aren't interested in, then someone isn't working on other stuff they think is important. It's a well-known phenomenon that often comes up when someone talks about the complexity of Microsoft Excel (in the form of the 90-10 rule)... users don't see the bigger picture and only care about their own workflow and how changes impact them.
The easy solution is to simply not give a crap about the opinions of other users of whatever software you use. They don't have your best interests in mind either.
Could be worse. Step 3 could be "get paid to write some pointless crap for Office 365 while a completely different team writes a shittier version of pointless App that doesn't do half the stuff that pointless App did in the first place."
Microsoft has shown an amazing ability lately to take the Golden Goose, kill it, throw it in the oven and then render it into a greasy pile of charcoal. Granted, they're no Yahoo! or Oracle, but they've got the touch.
How did so many people think this was a bright idea?
There's a lot of people out there who seem to think that the more money they spend on a "health product", the healthier they'll be.
I... honestly don't know how these people seem to have the disposable income to pay for this stuff. You'd think they'd have been fleeced and left in a cycle of poverty shortly after moving out of their parents home...
Only hours after the announcement, corporations all over America started hiring lawyers to find new loopholes in the law.
Given the "swamp draining" skills Trump's shown so far, I'm expecting that he's going to outsource the implementation and enforcement of the H1B program to an Indian corporation...
In Soviet Union calculators program YOU!
Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce