Why is a CD's capacity the deciding factor for a component with such broad repercussions throughout the OS? It's 2012, folks. How many new installations are really made or broken on what works from a 700MB CD when a 4.7GB DVD is an incredibly common substitute?
I'm not ridiculing this decision, despite my surprised tone. I'm actually interested in learning more about the reasoning behind it, if anyone has some more background.
Not quite that GPL and Apple TOS are incompatible- otherwise Apple wouldn't permit other popular GPL-developed apps like the iOS WordPress client. VLC doesn't hold the copyright to contributed code, and one of the VLC contributors (who holds copyright to part of VLC) decided to make a stink about it for everyone. That person may have thought the GPL to be at odds with Apple TOS, but he's not the one calling the shots. As far as Apple was concerned, the complaint was that the developer publishing an iOS VLC port didn't have the rights to do so.
Someone's sarcasm detector broke...
Idealist pissed that not everyone subscribes completely to each tenet of his philosophy. News at 11.
You've been talking to Michael Dell, haven't you?
Because the other 2% of the market will have no problem creating its own support for a pretty straightforward USB I/O device?
I guess this post should have been from the checking-it-thrice dept.
so could you Americans learn to realise that you speak ENGLISH and remember that you are a minority of the English speaking world, especially of the English speaking GEEK world
Yes. This is why England is the source of all the technology innovation happening these days. Take the imperial stick out of your arse and realize that dialects evolve regionally, and you have no right to be offended by our cultures and dialects not being subject to your imposition.
Perhaps I don't understand this fully, but I don't see how this works out to be competition from a "dollars and cents" perspective. Google keeps talking about Chrome being a way to "improve the web," and I see them doing that by promoting a browser that's leaps and bounds above the status quo (being IE). Having an officially "Google" product, instead of just a Google-sponsored one like Firefox, allows them to leverage their reputation in a way that hopefully gets people using modern browsers. There are good technical reasons to use both, and aren't crowding the market.
Until Google starts tightly coupling their web services with Chrome-exclusive features (and I don't mean just bookmark sync), Firefox and Chrome will both benefit Google economically by giving them a broader base of browsers capable of running their monetized products - rich web applications.
Firefox will not be an economic competitor to Google until (1) Firefox changes its search defaults or (2) Google elects to make Chrome-exclusive products or features.
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir
