Maybe, but handing over documents of 500 accounts has somewhat more impact than just 1. The company might have been inclined to see this as a glitch and continue with business as usual. After all, if they were stupid enough to create this gaping security hole, they're probably stupid enough to leave it this way unless (nearly) forced to fix it.
I didn't mean for browsers specifically, but for (open source) software in general. ESR said "Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers". The latter is probably the most important for Mozilla now.
Is the internet full of botnets because of insecure OSS? I doubt it. Even so, the Debian stable distro is/was also the most unpopular. Users do want the latest and greatest at the cost of security.
Having said that, I agree it would be nice to have bug- and security fixes separately released from the next feature-laden release. But ultimately, I think the users would go for the features. And IMO this hatred against the version numbering scheme is just groupthink, or something.
It does check compatibility, but after you've applied the update. If you then discover your addons aren't compatible, it's already too late.
Oh, and maybe addon developers should be notified some time before a new release, to verify compatibility. But maybe they're doing this already, I don't know.
Well, I was giving praise where praise was due, namely to the KDE people that started WebKit. You completely ignored to mention them, making it look like Apple contributed WebKit, instead of them contributing to WebKit. No small contribution, I know, but I still feel KDE has to be mentioned.
Secondly, I don't hate Apple at all. I just don't think they are a company that values FOSS and openness, but you seem to disagree, and that's fine.
Between Google and Apple; I think neither company values FOSS more than making money. And that's fine too. FOSS may not be the fittest competing business model. I love FOSS, but I think it's just the truth.
What if Firefox would check addons before updating to a new version. If the addon is incompatible with the release and there is no compatible update available, the user is informed about this and given the option to proceed or abort the upgrade.
This way sudden and unexpected breakage of addons is prevented. And addons are really what makes firefox so popular.
Other than the addon 'problem', I really don't see what people are complaining about. Fast release cycles is what we want, right? And version numbers are just numbers...
WebKit was started by KDE under the GPL license. I highly doubt apple would have given anything back if they didn't have to (with, say, an Apache or Mozilla style license).
Hmm, yeah, the first part was clearly a joke, as could be seen by the smiley. The second part (after OTOH) clearly does not support the initial statement and wasn't intended to be supporting evidence as such.
It's the other way around. My wife and I had an autistic child (asperger) first, and then thought a cat would fit in nicely;)
OTOH both my family and my wife's family had dogs when we were children...
The photographer, David Slate, was there with his camera to photograph the monkeys. That's your intentionality right there. It doesn't matter if he shot the photos themselves, used a tripod and a random interval for taking pictures, or used monkeys. I know I'm stretching the glorified tripod analogy, but still...
When I ask a passer-by to take a picture of me (and my family), who owns the copyright? I really don't know.
Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here, but what difference does it make, from the perspective of the game publisher, whether I play the game for 2 years, using the services provided, or I play the game for 1 year and someone else plays the game for another extra year? The game has been payed for, and that includes the 'right' to the services for however long I wish (and whichever corporeal body I reside in).
PDF is useful when you want to save the document on disk, on a rare occasion. I like the way Gmail handles this, by presenting a view link and a download link. With PDF.js other web applications can do this too, without the need for a server-side converter.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The HUGE amount of money already spent fighting the current (DRM, lobbying for laws, all sorts of shenanigans) could *easily* have been used to take the time to come up with a business model that is actually in the best interest of the public, the artists *and* the companies. The only reason I can think of why this is not the case reeks of conspiracy theorism...
Re:Fuck that, I've created Upsilon!
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
Yes, dammit, I can't even type anymore! Thanks for the correction.
Re:Fuck that, I've created Upsilon!
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
Wow. Thank you for making me a convert!
Re:Fuck that, I've created Upsilon!
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
That's true, and I'm not a Linux distro, but I think it might complicate deciding which version(s) of firefox is supported in a distribution. Normally, this is something like version X.Y + bug fixes. But now there will be no bug fixes for X.Y but they will instead be rolled into X+1 every time, including new features which have new bugs... Having bug fix releases without new features is really important, especially for security.
I agree with you, on the whole. I thought the slashdot crowd consisted of individuals, not sheeple. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. Or there is a true reason for it, but I don't see that (not enough to suddenly start hating FF).
This decision, however, is a truly bad one. Linux distributions that offer long term support won't be able to have security issue fixed upstream, meaning they will all have to fix the same issues for themselves. Or share patches another way. A fork of each maintained version maybe?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but handing over documents of 500 accounts has somewhat more impact than just 1. The company might have been inclined to see this as a glitch and continue with business as usual. After all, if they were stupid enough to create this gaping security hole, they're probably stupid enough to leave it this way unless (nearly) forced to fix it.
I didn't mean for browsers specifically, but for (open source) software in general. ESR said "Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers". The latter is probably the most important for Mozilla now.
Is the internet full of botnets because of insecure OSS? I doubt it. Even so, the Debian stable distro is/was also the most unpopular. Users do want the latest and greatest at the cost of security.
Having said that, I agree it would be nice to have bug- and security fixes separately released from the next feature-laden release. But ultimately, I think the users would go for the features. And IMO this hatred against the version numbering scheme is just groupthink, or something.
It does check compatibility, but after you've applied the update. If you then discover your addons aren't compatible, it's already too late.
Oh, and maybe addon developers should be notified some time before a new release, to verify compatibility. But maybe they're doing this already, I don't know.
Well, I was giving praise where praise was due, namely to the KDE people that started WebKit. You completely ignored to mention them, making it look like Apple contributed WebKit, instead of them contributing to WebKit. No small contribution, I know, but I still feel KDE has to be mentioned.
Secondly, I don't hate Apple at all. I just don't think they are a company that values FOSS and openness, but you seem to disagree, and that's fine.
Between Google and Apple; I think neither company values FOSS more than making money. And that's fine too. FOSS may not be the fittest competing business model. I love FOSS, but I think it's just the truth.
What if Firefox would check addons before updating to a new version. If the addon is incompatible with the release and there is no compatible update available, the user is informed about this and given the option to proceed or abort the upgrade.
This way sudden and unexpected breakage of addons is prevented. And addons are really what makes firefox so popular.
Other than the addon 'problem', I really don't see what people are complaining about. Fast release cycles is what we want, right? And version numbers are just numbers...
WebKit was started by KDE under the GPL license. I highly doubt apple would have given anything back if they didn't have to (with, say, an Apache or Mozilla style license).
OTOH poverty and the likes probably encourages government corruption. It might be a tough circle to break.
Siberian Rabids? Siberian Rapists? Siberian Raptors?
Hmm, yeah, the first part was clearly a joke, as could be seen by the smiley. The second part (after OTOH) clearly does not support the initial statement and wasn't intended to be supporting evidence as such.
Who said anything about evidence? Anecdote, yes (that's what comments are for). Evidence, no (I'd have written a paper).
It's the other way around. My wife and I had an autistic child (asperger) first, and then thought a cat would fit in nicely ;)
OTOH both my family and my wife's family had dogs when we were children...
Well, how many people really want to unleash their inner DJ?
Super Greg!
Too late, I've already patented it!
Actually, since the monkey used both his arms to make the photograph, it would be a bipod.
The photographer, David Slate, was there with his camera to photograph the monkeys. That's your intentionality right there. It doesn't matter if he shot the photos themselves, used a tripod and a random interval for taking pictures, or used monkeys. I know I'm stretching the glorified tripod analogy, but still...
When I ask a passer-by to take a picture of me (and my family), who owns the copyright? I really don't know.
Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here, but what difference does it make, from the perspective of the game publisher, whether I play the game for 2 years, using the services provided, or I play the game for 1 year and someone else plays the game for another extra year? The game has been payed for, and that includes the 'right' to the services for however long I wish (and whichever corporeal body I reside in).
PDF is useful when you want to save the document on disk, on a rare occasion. I like the way Gmail handles this, by presenting a view link and a download link. With PDF.js other web applications can do this too, without the need for a server-side converter.
And, of course, the lawyers are better served with more lawsuits. A simpler, more effective business model doesn't do them any good.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The HUGE amount of money already spent fighting the current (DRM, lobbying for laws, all sorts of shenanigans) could *easily* have been used to take the time to come up with a business model that is actually in the best interest of the public, the artists *and* the companies. The only reason I can think of why this is not the case reeks of conspiracy theorism...
Yes, dammit, I can't even type anymore! Thanks for the correction.
Wow. Thank you for making me a convert!
Ehrm, 2/3 * pi * r^3, duh.
That's true, and I'm not a Linux distro, but I think it might complicate deciding which version(s) of firefox is supported in a distribution. Normally, this is something like version X.Y + bug fixes. But now there will be no bug fixes for X.Y but they will instead be rolled into X+1 every time, including new features which have new bugs... Having bug fix releases without new features is really important, especially for security.
I agree with you, on the whole. I thought the slashdot crowd consisted of individuals, not sheeple. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. Or there is a true reason for it, but I don't see that (not enough to suddenly start hating FF).
This decision, however, is a truly bad one. Linux distributions that offer long term support won't be able to have security issue fixed upstream, meaning they will all have to fix the same issues for themselves. Or share patches another way. A fork of each maintained version maybe?
In Soviet Russia, Reality Augments you! (sigh...)