git is a tiny fraction of what's needed to replace OneDrive - unsurprising given it's a source code version control/management system. If you were to start from scratch creating a OneDrive alternative, you'd probably start with Apache, not git. Add versioning and more advanced permissions to Apache's WebDAV implementation, a web interface to the same directory (preferably linked to something capable of at least viewing Word etc documents online), and client tools to sync with Apache, and you're pretty close to being there.
This is about Microsoft's non-subscription version of Office being able to access the corporate version of OneDrive, so LibreOffice won't help here.
It'd be interesting to see the FOSS community come up with an equivalent to OneDrive (if we could somehow do it without needing a central server, that'd be a major step forward) but a FOSS office suite isn't going to help.
Those will still work with the business version of OneDrive after 2020? Or did you misunderstand the summary and think Microsoft is deactivating Office 2016 in 2020 completely?
What Microsoft is announcing is relatively obscure and probably won't affect many people at all. Home users will be completely unaffected. Businesses are largely moving over to Office 365 anyway, the combination of "Corporate OneDrive + non-subscription Office" is pretty unusual.
Switching over to the Mac (or, more easily, to LibreOffice/OpenOffice) won't help in the slightest.
Somewhat dubious - most allegations turn out to be dubious extrapolations, quotes out of context, and things all parties do, but in any case, it's not the Democrats that are proposing prosecuting Assange. It's the guy he ultimately helped.
Note that $400 is the price to consumers, of which I suspect there aren't many. The real value of the machine is in hotels and other hospitality businesses (they like it because it's easy to clean and maintain, and everything arrives ready chopped), and that's where they're selling. To businesses, the machine costs a cool $1200. The articles I've read suggests that there's no difference between the commercial and personal versions of the machine.
So yeah, I think they're making a huge profit out of the press.
Volunteered makes it sound like he had a simple choice. In reality, the choice is "Do you want to buy this house? If so, you must submit to the HOA", and even that isn't much of a choice when virtually every home in a particular area is governed by more or less identical HOAs.
What makes it worse is that usually the justification is along the lines of "Well, it's not as bad as a city, because cities can make new laws whenever most people living in the city wants those laws, whereas HOAs can't create new laws after you join" - OK, yet somehow cities have relatively few overbearing laws, whereas HOAs are packed with them. HOAs already have all of the absurd, overly restrictive, overbearing by-laws that you're afraid a democratic government would pass, and you can't even get rid of them (whereas you can get rid of local government commissioners who pass ridiculous laws, and vote in people who'll get rid of them.)
The entire concept of HOAs needs to be outlawed.
Network transparency. X11 has it. Wayland doesn't. Wayland's devs tend to handwave the problem, either claiming it will somehow be implemented once they work on the other laundry list of things they want first, or claiming it's a niche requirement nobody wants or uses.
On top of that they're doing the #1 thing you're not supposed to do in development: completely rewriting a working system.
X11's main flaw is that it's supposed to be inefficient. It might be, but I've never noticed any significant difference between user interface performance on Ubuntu vs Windows or Mac. I think much of it is "This sub-nanosecond operation that is only called once or twice every frame takes THREE TIMES AS LONG under X11 as it should!" type purism.
I'm not happy about this.
No, I didn't read the TFA. I read the summary, which I'm saying makes no sense. The summary doesn't mention an app. And even your summary of the article doesn't actually explain the relationship between the wireless headphones and the lawsuit, beyond a vague handwaving "headphones connect to the app" comment that doesn't address any of the issues I raised.
The person here is proposing boycotting Bose on the basis of an allegation that Bose's wireless headphones send data on listening habits to Bose, who then sells the data to third parties. Unless those wireless headphones only work with specific hardware, effectively crippling their use, or they contain a wireless GSM/etc modem, that allegation appears to be technically impossible.
If it's Bose's app that does it, then unless those headphones are designed to work with specific hardware, with the app made effectively mandatory, then the entire summary is wrong and needs to be completely rewritten.
Perhaps we should wait until the story is confirmed before launching the boycott because right now it sounds like utter bullshit.
How, exactly, are these wireless headphones sending this information back to Bose? Do they have a built in GSM modem to send back the data? Wouldn't that be a bit expensive and obvious the moment anyone takes them apart?
Alternatively, do these headphones need some kind of special driver to work? If so, does that mean they only work with certain devices, you can't, for example, use generic Bluetooth or plug some kind of linked transmitter in to an arbitrary MP3 player or TV or sound system? The headphones can only be used with a supported, Internet connected. Android or Apple device, or PC?
Because that seems... a little unlikely. I mean, imagine buying a set of headphones and finding you can only use them with certain devices. That'd piss me off.
The article quite possibly says something else, that it's an optional Bose MP3 player app or something that's sending the data. But the summary is, well, it may be right, in which case the filers of the lawsuit are about to get their ass handed to them, or it's false, in which case... it's false.
Either way, I wouldn't start a boycott yet.
Why do people who, if you asked them, would say that things like the above shouldn't be stigmatized, then go out of their way to stigmatize them with an implication that content in those categories should be subject to some sort of special expectation of privacy?
Your logic doesn't follow. The issue is that they're already subject to stigma. Therefore (1) we need to remove that, (2) until we do, we need to ensure people who are LGBT or people with minority religious beliefs aren't targeted for that.
The second part of your claim doesn't even make sense. You're not making something subject to stigma by hiding the fact you're doing it, you're hiding it because it's stigmatized.
the second two so go against the grain that I don't think they'll be able to take that plunge
The last one, maybe. The second on your list, however, a web accessible Office compatible app, has been available for a long time now. It does have a few limitations (rendering of tables in Word seems screwed up for some reason) but it works, and even works on non-Microsoft platforms.
Yes, they want you to buy Word, but their model is starting to veer towards a freemium (basics for free, extras require a subscription or purchase) away from requiring that you spend money.
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama