Considering the people with access to the source are most likely paying for that access; they would actually get money from reporting on any GPL violations as they could join a suit for damages. Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

The grandparent rather obviously disagreeing with this statement,"And then you look at what most Fortune-500 companies actually run internally, and you find it is not Win10." The grandparent then provides a few counter examples to your argument and even gives a sample size for how relevant the grandparent's example is vs yours. Is English not your first language?

I'm going to disagree with this one, "Win10 is a very bad deal for everybody (including, funnily, MS),"

I work for MS, on Windows; we don't consider it a bad deal, and in fact wished more of the customers on legacy versions of Windows would move to it. It has its challenges mind you, but we do not consider it a bad deal at all.

I realize this is /. and it's "cool" to be anti-MS, but it's also cool to be right occasionally.

Not really.

Microsoft will 99 out of 100 leave Github alone. Like the Minecraft or LinkedIn acquisitions, Microsoft knows if they mess the community they will not get money out of it. Admittedly LinkedIn hasn't turned out super well, but that is LinkedIn's fault and not MS.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Github in fact spun off again in a few years as a non-profit. Microsoft is one of the biggest software development companies out there and VSTS just isn't working out. This means that Microsoft would want to move their source to a better option -> and that really boils down to Github or Gitlab. Once MS realizes they can trust it, they'll let it be. I realize this place is loaded with people that have solid reasons to not trust MS, but under Satya things are quite a bit different. It's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt while preparing a backup plan in the event it goes south.

I interacted with him a few times over the years; he was a great guy. I will miss him.

The point isn't for her to feel justice, or make money from this suit, it is for the lawyers representing her to get rich.

Remember, in most lawsuits, the lawyers come out on top. If she wasn't the one making the claims, I am sure that the law firm sponsoring this action would find someone else that would be willing to.

So, normally I would agree with you hands down, however, I think the issue is that many people are unaware that their computers are being used for malicious purposes.

Case in point: recently I visited a friend of mine to take a look at his computer. He was complaining it was running slow. A quick check showed multiple viruses on his machine. I asked him how long it had been that way, and his response was, "a few months".

The thing is, by far and large a significant portion of the population is more than likely unaware of what a botnet is, let alone possess the ability to diagnose when their computer has been infected. This is quite different then say, a harboring a bomb maker, as most people (hopefully) would be aware that the guy building bombs in their garage is bad news.

Further, this issue is complicated that the attacks may be motivated politically but carried out by private individuals. If a connection is found, say possibly even a direct link, how is a government supposed to react. Does this qualify as an act of war, espionage, or state sponsored terror attack?

It becomes a sticky issue whenever states are involved, simply due to the politics behind it. If it was soley an attack on a private enterprise, by some general criminal, I would simply recommend getting the cooperation of the government that is harboring / serving as a base of operations for the person / people behind the botnet and having it resolved that way. (Now, I do realize that there are many rogue nations or places that are willing to harbor these types of people, so in reality, a different solution is more than likely needed.)

While at the beginning Blizzard may not allow play without having connectivity to Battle.net, I am fairly sure that at some point in the future, functionality will be released that will either allow for multiplayer private servers or possibly LAN.

Remember, Blizzard did release a patch that allows you to play Starcraft 1 without having to insert the CD in. It's simply that eventually computer games reach end of life - and rather than have to continually support a base of players it is easier to simply let them play on their own. Blizzard knows this, it is simply a matter of time before they do it.

However, until then, I am fairly sure that someone will reverse engineer the software and figure out how to emulate a server on their own. Depending on the success or failure of that effort, Blizzard's stance on no LAN support may change. If the emulation / hax reaches critical mass, Blizzard may release a tool that does / has similar functionality simply to maintain that portion of the market.

I'd say at this time - it is far too early to tell though.

I'm going to respond to this with a tad more detail (since I have some).

The 747 and A380, while both are large jumbo's, are different classes of planes per international flying bodies (these classes are based on size, wheels, and other physical characteristics). The 747 is a whole class lower (a class V) while the A380 is a class (VI). What this means is that the A380 can land at far fewer airports that the 747 can (something like 300+ less). There are very few airports in the world (as far as I know of - only one airport in the USA that is specifically designed for class VI planes [Washington Dulles in the US]).

When an A380 lands at LAX, in order to accommodate it, a large portion of the taxi-way and surrounding area has to be cleared. This delays all other flights times by 10-15 minutes. Right now LAX can afford to accommodate 1-2 A380's a day, but more than that, and you have issues with all the smaller planes being delayed.

The 787 - the much delayed Boeing plane, is considerably smaller. It can land safely and be used at many more airports around the world. (And upgrading an airport to support a new class of plane, is in the millions of dollars - often as runways, terminals and other items will have to be moved and redone.)

Simply put, the A380 has a significantly smaller usage footprint (somewhere around 385 airfields worldwide can take one normally without interruptions), and as such will sell less, cause airlines are often not willing to pay for additional costs to accommodate the required upgrades to an airport.