Now everyone uses Windows, hence Linux and OS X users aren't exactly in a position to switch to IE, regardless of its technical merits. This is no longer a Windows-only world, even if it's still the majority.

Besides, IE lacks the useful extensions I rely on in Firefox. Don't tell me said extensions are pointless or useless - I find use in them, so clearly they have worth. Going to IE would mean giving up said extensions or having to do things in a less smooth or capable fashion. Firefox is still the best browser for the power user who wants as much functionality and flexibility as possible. IE is for the conservative user who wants something fast and integrated well with the OS and doesn't have any particular needs or wants outside of what the browser itself supports.

Sure, Firefox has its deficient (the inability of Mozilla to use multiple cores for separate tabs is still worrying), but you take the good with the bad. There is no one good browser.

Impressive. It would take me just under 24 hours of constant, full-speed downloading before I'd manage to get 35GB.

Fuck you and your post internet connections! I say this in the nicest way possible of course, but it surprises me how much people under-appreciate what they have in terms of bandwidth.

Delays just mean they're working on perfecting and producing the best of what they're trying to develop, and that once released it'll be a crowning moment of awesome as a consequence of the delays. Just like Duke Nukem Forever.

Heh. I suspect just I keep falling for the fallacy that since there's so many Linux users around here, and using Linux is supposed to mean a higher level of intelligence and hence a higher aptitude for reason and logic, that logic would be more evident.

I guess everyone's susceptible to thinking from the heart rather than the head though.

Funny how Linux users and distros a few years back were hyped up about the push towards faster and faster boot times and made a habit of announcing improvements towards it. When someone makes a point of how the new Windows version is faster than the old... you call the a shill? Do you realize how pathetic you look?

Fucking Linux users, negative as always.

Huh, you're right, I just checked. I could have sworn I read how it cost (or would cost, once out of beta) a couple of bucks, but it's possible that was misreported somewhere or my mind got scrambled. I apologize for that.

I wonder what the various national courts around the world will make of this... giving your own OS away for free while running an extortion racket for protection money from your competitors?

I used to think the same, but I've mellowed a bit after detaching my emotions and looking at it logically. Presumably Microsoft gets money from Samsung per Android phone sold. I'm pretty sure Samsung wouldn't just pay Microsoft without at least first checking to see if there's any validity in the patent claims. The fact they haven't tried taking Microsoft to court suggests to me that Microsoft might have some basis for their claims, even if they haven't been made public. It's not as if Samsung doesn't have the cash to challenge them if they really though Microsoft's claims were ludicrous.

So, with the situation of basically no-one challenging Microsoft regarding these Android patents in court despite the big guys being able to afford it if necessary, I ask you, what conclusion would you draw?

The purpose of this app is to provide capable media playback on Metro-focused devices - specifically, tablets. Except for the Microsoft fanboys on Neowin.net, most people who want to use VLC on a desktop/laptop will continue doing so with the main VLC program, particularly since it's free compared to the Metro version. It's also interesting that the RT version is non-existent, considering Windows RT is tablet exclusive and if you'd want a Metro-built media player for anything, it'd be Windows RT. One more nail in the coffin I suppose.

As someone else has already mentioned, this has been denied by Malaysian officials. Just like China has now said that those satellite images which were supposed to show plane debris did in fact not show debris, but indeed, said satellite images were "released by mistake". Just like that admiral of the Vietnamese Navy saying they had lost radar contact with the plain just over the Gulf of Thailand, but apparently it was just incorrect information (another mistake).

It seems clear that no-one knows where the fuck that plane is, but due to the pressure to find something, ANYTHING to satisfy the media as well as political pressure (not to mention relatives of those missing), anything that could be seen as a clue is pushed out as something important before it's even checked or verified.

At least it can be assumed that those on the flight must be well and truly dead by now, if only because the alternative would be more horrifying...

I disagree. OLPC's purpose was to get their particular brand of cheap computers into the hands of children in developing nations. This was achieved on a limited scale, but seems to have faltered when cheap phones and tablets came around.

Now, if you want to move the goalposts and suggest that the overall purpose was simply to get computers, any computers, into the hands of children in developing nations, then it succeeded but not because of anything the OLPC project did. Android did that, coupled with the process of technology becoming cheaper and cheaper. OLPC can't get any real credit for that since they never competed with regular laptop markets to force the price of tech lower (you couldn't easily buy an OLPC as opposed to a laptop in the domestic market, hence there's no competition to reduce prices of other devices apart from natural reduction of tech costs).

OLPC failed on its own. If kids in developing nations are able to have cheap computing power in their hands now, it's probably happened despite the OLPC project, not because of them.

Indeed. Google Earth, qBittorrent, VirtualBox in addition to those you mentioned...

Anyone who things Qt isn't incredibly popular with rich applications is fucking blind or biased.

For a lot of people in first-world countries, I doubt they see their phone as much of a status symbol anymore (perhaps a few years ago this was the case, but now when everyone has an iPhone or decent smartphone, the allure of exclusivity kinda disappears) and hence they just use their phone like any other device and don't think too much about it. However in a place like Colombia, a tourist used to having their phone our or easily visible/accessible isn't necessarily aware of how damn poor the environment they've entered is, at least compared to their regular lives. So by acting as they normally would, you think they're just flashing their gear as a means of using it as a status symbol. I assure you they're not - they just have the privilege of living in a place that has a better standard of living and behave in a manner that's normal for them, but not normal for the residents of that area. So they become attractive targets for theft due to their inability to blend into their environment.

I really hate visiting countries with high levels of thief. I suppose I'd rather have my gear lifted without my knowledge than violently mugged for it, but I'd also rather not have to worry about it in the first place. I visited Rome on a tour and was warned about the considerable level of pickpocketing - in the end I spent more time paying attention to strangers and keeping my stuff hidden on me than enjoying myself. Thiefs are total pricks.

How does Cerberus compare to say, Prey (http://preyproject.com/)? One thing I like about Prey is that I can use it on my mobile, tablet as well as laptop (since it started as a anti-theft tool for computers and then branched out to mobiles/tablets), and have all devices available for manipulation with the same account using the same software. It's a bit unfortunate that I see Cerberus talked about all the time but Prey is barely mentioned. It seems like Cerberus can do a bit more I'll admit, but options are worth expressing.

Fair point. The "many eyes" argument might not hold well in practice, but from a personal perspective I feel more comfortable when important code at least has the opportunity to be analyzed by anyone due to it being open, as opposed to being under lock and key with only one vendor having access. At least the bug was fixed quickly.

One thing I found interesting about the comments on Ars Technica about this article is that all comments regarding the (apparent) fallacy of open source allowing quick detection and turnaround of bugs tends to get very highly positively moderated, whereas the ones that argue that closed source software tends to limit the detection of such bugs and encourages sweeping detected bugs under the rug as much as possible get negatively modded or labelled "controversial".

One person even said this:

I would argue that closed source like Microsoft and Apple products might be more secure for two primary reasons: the software is so ubiquitous, it's exposed to orders of magnitude more users. By extension, more security experts are interested, so closed source doesn't stand in the way of people discovering vulnerabilities. And secondly, closed source software companies have a financial interest in their products that's harmed if they are insecure. No comment about Apple, but I know that Microsoft has put massive resources into making its products more secure.

Said comment was modded quite well. Yes, things like this get a lot of attention and look bad for the open-source movement, but keep in mind that open-source/free software is fully transparent. No-one can hide the details with FOSS, something that is far easier to do with closed source software. That level of transparency make it appear as though open-source has more bugs for longer. No-one outside of Microsoft and very select partners are able to audit Windows or Office. And yet the closed-source software is more secure?

It boggles the mind a tech site like Ars Technica can be so pro-closed source and anti-open source despite what I'd assume to be populated with geeks who should know better.