How compliant do they have to be with which standards? I don't think there's a single browser that is 100% compliant with any of the current standards, CSS2 comes to mind. Portions of all of the standards are implemented, but no browser is wholly standards compliant. Most just aren't as badly incompliant as IE.
Yeah, I don't think we'd ever see that either, for more reasons than one. I feel like any browser for the iPhone/iPod that attempted to include its own rendering engine would probably just be a beast of a download, the benefit of making other apps use safari on the backend is all browsers on the device can use a single shared library that is already preinstalled. Ultimately, I don't see much need for another browser on the iPhone. Safari is plenty good enough for most uses that aren't webapps and games, and webapp authors that want their users to have iPhone support can develop an app that hooks into their webservice, like Amazon and Evernote have done.
I've seen a lot of apps get approved that were originally denied after a name change and some basic tweaks, I think it's a shame that developers get rejected and just give up. We'd probably be seeing some pretty cool apps if the devs would just go through the process.
Personally I love the app store, I'm not maligning it, just apparently slightly misinformed. I've heard of apps that have differentiated that got blocked by apple due to claims that they "duplicate functionality" (a certain email program comes to mind that I can't seem to remember the name of), so I just assumed that all the parrot talk was true, that even if there was differentiation it could get blocked. For all the reasons you mentioned, firefox won't get approved, but I doubt we'll ever see them approve a browser that doesn't use safari on the backend, whether it differentiates in features or not.
On the first point, if any version of firefox were to be ported to iPhone it would be Fennec, and I haven't seen if they plan to release extensions for it or not, even if they do, it shouldn't be difficult to disable extensions for that specific port of the browser.
You're right on the second point, I forgot about that, but in any case, apple has still said multiple times that applications which duplicate functionality included with the iPhone will not be allowed on the app store: that means any browser that doesn't just embed Safari's rendering engine, any media player replacement for iTunes, etc. Although if Apple changed its mind about that restriction, yours would still stand.
Which is why a PC and a phone are two different things. If Apple had to approve every application that you could run on your macbook people would be up in arms too.
Firefox won't be authorized because they don't want apps on the phone that duplicate functionality. Not that I think this is necessarily a bad thing, choice is good, but you can always choose a phone that will allow Firefox (fennec?) over the iPhone. If you get an iPhone, you know what you're in for: a closed platform with apps selected by Apple for their reliability. If you want to run unauthorized software you can jailbreak, of course, but the main point is this: Apple has chosen a business model that works for them and their target market. A closed platform with a carefully selected slew of applications to ensure that the device retains its simplicity and reliability. Anything that compromises either is bad for Apple's target market.
That's the current roadmap. I went to mozilla.org, clicked "Developers" and then clicked "Roadmap" in the left-hand navigation bar. How long did you spend looking? I didn't think it was that hidden.
Studies have shown that driving with a hands-free devices is almost, if not equally, as distracting as driving with the phone in your hand. The law that banned driving without a hands-free device was just another one that assuaged a fear without actually addressing the problem at hand. An idiot jabbering away on their hands-free phone and not paying attention to the road is just as likely to run into you and severely injure or kill you as they always were, now you just have another law on the books
And if they do, one of the ports of chromium will remove the third-party-plugin killswitch and chrome will die a slow, painful death, because all the people considering switching to it will use the port that lets them block ads.
Strange, because when I installed Windows, my internet worked without any configuration whatsoever.
And on windows, mine never has. There are very popular network cards with no built-in drivers on windows. I've found hardware detection on linux, with everything but video cards and printers, to be much better on Linux than Windows, but obviously your mileage will vary.
You're right, the average users definitely has a need to work on CAT 6XXX switches. In fact, I would like to be doing that right now if not for the lack of ports on my macbook. DAMN YOU APPLE!
Windows Vista UI Guidelines relating to the start menu. They'd prefer you didn't do the whole "Vendor Name" scheme, but Adobe or the likes can get away with it because they have a lot of software that would make a mess if you just threw icons for each into the top level. (unfortunately I'm pretty sure that they do that instead of grouping them together the way MS recommends). Office does the same thing, if I'm not mistaken. It includes links inside the folders to a lot of useless stuff but clutters your start menu by adding 6 or 7 icons to the bottom of your list. So MS should really follow their own guidelines...
Even that can be rather frustrating and annoying, since some apps throw themselves into the "All Users" portion of the start menu, some only install on your user account. If you're sorting into pre-dreamed-up categories, you need to create duplicate category folders in both your personal start menu and the all-users start menu, and if your new app creates shortcuts in both for some inane reason, drag them around separately OR figure out the magic perfect location that gets Windows to let you drag a new folder into position on the Start Menu rather than dropping it off into a new subfolder.
All of this because it doesn't have a sane way to install software and populate the start menu. The XP start menu is much better in that at least for your most often used software it's all easily available. The Vista start menu has that little search bar (which is nearly useless, launchy handles things much better, but it's a step in the right direction), but once you go into the jungle that is "All Programs" the menu is pretty much completely useless.
I wouldn't say it's "overly restrictive" (and I'm a fan of BSD over GPL in a lot of scenarios). The big difference is that the GPL wants to ensure that the end-user can always access the code and do want they want with it. No matter where your project gets used, it ensures that the user at the other end can get the source code and play with it if he wants to make it better.
With the BSD license, it lets the developer do whatever the fuck he wants with your source code. He can use it as a tiny portion of a larger portion of closed-source software, credit you, and that's the end of it. The end-user, of course, can always come to you and get your piece, but the freedoms aren't guaranteed for the end user, and the end user can't tinker with the larger piece of software. The GPL makes sure that never happens, at the expense of the developer's ability to do what he wants with your code.
Really it just depends on who you want to give the freedom to. You can make sure the users always have the freedom to use your project and do what they want with it, or you can make sure that the developers have the freedom to use your project and do what they want with it. It's up to you to decide which is more important. For the FSF, it's the end-user. For the BSD folks, it's the developer. Both are valid.
Why should they be able to sell the rights to another entity?
It seems to me like a lot of our problems with IP right now are because those rights can be transferred away from the creators. The artists get screwed across the board, companies buy up patents and then sit on them just so that nobody can do anything with them and compete. I don't really see much utility in selling or otherwise transferring your copyright. Just license distribution rights.
Continuing the BadAnalogyGuy-inspired analogy, the BSD picture says you can't remove the photographer's signature when you display it in your house.
I'd say "displaying it in your house" is analogous to using the software, not distributing it so to correct your analogy:
The BSD picture says you can't remove the signature when you use it in another piece of work (the collage). The GPL picture says that if you include their picture in the collage, you must allow everyone else to use your pictures in their collages... but enough with the bad analogies...we're kinda running off topic.
To your picture analogy, the BSD license is more like your signature in the bottom right hand corner, and you tell the person you gave the picture to that they can't crop it out, but if they want to use it in a collage and sell it, it's fine with you, so long as your signature stays on it.
The problem with the frame portion of the analogy is that "changing the frame" doesn't substantively change the character of the work, but using code from a BSD project often (usually?) does.
Slashdot Mirror
How compliant do they have to be with which standards? I don't think there's a single browser that is 100% compliant with any of the current standards, CSS2 comes to mind. Portions of all of the standards are implemented, but no browser is wholly standards compliant. Most just aren't as badly incompliant as IE.
Yeah, I don't think we'd ever see that either, for more reasons than one. I feel like any browser for the iPhone/iPod that attempted to include its own rendering engine would probably just be a beast of a download, the benefit of making other apps use safari on the backend is all browsers on the device can use a single shared library that is already preinstalled. Ultimately, I don't see much need for another browser on the iPhone. Safari is plenty good enough for most uses that aren't webapps and games, and webapp authors that want their users to have iPhone support can develop an app that hooks into their webservice, like Amazon and Evernote have done.
I've seen a lot of apps get approved that were originally denied after a name change and some basic tweaks, I think it's a shame that developers get rejected and just give up. We'd probably be seeing some pretty cool apps if the devs would just go through the process.
Personally I love the app store, I'm not maligning it, just apparently slightly misinformed. I've heard of apps that have differentiated that got blocked by apple due to claims that they "duplicate functionality" (a certain email program comes to mind that I can't seem to remember the name of), so I just assumed that all the parrot talk was true, that even if there was differentiation it could get blocked. For all the reasons you mentioned, firefox won't get approved, but I doubt we'll ever see them approve a browser that doesn't use safari on the backend, whether it differentiates in features or not.
On the first point, if any version of firefox were to be ported to iPhone it would be Fennec, and I haven't seen if they plan to release extensions for it or not, even if they do, it shouldn't be difficult to disable extensions for that specific port of the browser.
You're right on the second point, I forgot about that, but in any case, apple has still said multiple times that applications which duplicate functionality included with the iPhone will not be allowed on the app store: that means any browser that doesn't just embed Safari's rendering engine, any media player replacement for iTunes, etc. Although if Apple changed its mind about that restriction, yours would still stand.
Which is why a PC and a phone are two different things. If Apple had to approve every application that you could run on your macbook people would be up in arms too.
and if nobody accidentally messed with the "normal" template.
Firefox won't be authorized because they don't want apps on the phone that duplicate functionality. Not that I think this is necessarily a bad thing, choice is good, but you can always choose a phone that will allow Firefox (fennec?) over the iPhone. If you get an iPhone, you know what you're in for: a closed platform with apps selected by Apple for their reliability. If you want to run unauthorized software you can jailbreak, of course, but the main point is this: Apple has chosen a business model that works for them and their target market. A closed platform with a carefully selected slew of applications to ensure that the device retains its simplicity and reliability. Anything that compromises either is bad for Apple's target market.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Roadmap_Scratchpad
That's the current roadmap. I went to mozilla.org, clicked "Developers" and then clicked "Roadmap" in the left-hand navigation bar. How long did you spend looking? I didn't think it was that hidden.
Studies have shown that driving with a hands-free devices is almost, if not equally, as distracting as driving with the phone in your hand. The law that banned driving without a hands-free device was just another one that assuaged a fear without actually addressing the problem at hand. An idiot jabbering away on their hands-free phone and not paying attention to the road is just as likely to run into you and severely injure or kill you as they always were, now you just have another law on the books
This has been the case for AGES
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1871173.ece
Or at least for about a year and a half, I think slashdot reported on it then, too.
And if they do, one of the ports of chromium will remove the third-party-plugin killswitch and chrome will die a slow, painful death, because all the people considering switching to it will use the port that lets them block ads.
Strange, because when I installed Windows, my internet worked without any configuration whatsoever.
And on windows, mine never has. There are very popular network cards with no built-in drivers on windows. I've found hardware detection on linux, with everything but video cards and printers, to be much better on Linux than Windows, but obviously your mileage will vary.
You're right, the average users definitely has a need to work on CAT 6XXX switches. In fact, I would like to be doing that right now if not for the lack of ports on my macbook. DAMN YOU APPLE!
Yeah, your browsing history. The one stored locally on your own machine that you can purge at any time.
It was obvious, don't worry. Some people are just really oblivious.
Actually, black men could vote before women. See the 15th and 19th amendments to the US constitution for details.
You aren't getting any either?
Microsoft failed to set standards for their other products or give some guideline to third parties.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511447.aspx
Windows Vista UI Guidelines relating to the start menu. They'd prefer you didn't do the whole "Vendor Name" scheme, but Adobe or the likes can get away with it because they have a lot of software that would make a mess if you just threw icons for each into the top level. (unfortunately I'm pretty sure that they do that instead of grouping them together the way MS recommends). Office does the same thing, if I'm not mistaken. It includes links inside the folders to a lot of useless stuff but clutters your start menu by adding 6 or 7 icons to the bottom of your list. So MS should really follow their own guidelines...
Even that can be rather frustrating and annoying, since some apps throw themselves into the "All Users" portion of the start menu, some only install on your user account. If you're sorting into pre-dreamed-up categories, you need to create duplicate category folders in both your personal start menu and the all-users start menu, and if your new app creates shortcuts in both for some inane reason, drag them around separately OR figure out the magic perfect location that gets Windows to let you drag a new folder into position on the Start Menu rather than dropping it off into a new subfolder.
All of this because it doesn't have a sane way to install software and populate the start menu. The XP start menu is much better in that at least for your most often used software it's all easily available. The Vista start menu has that little search bar (which is nearly useless, launchy handles things much better, but it's a step in the right direction), but once you go into the jungle that is "All Programs" the menu is pretty much completely useless.
Just nuke the fridge.
I wouldn't say it's "overly restrictive" (and I'm a fan of BSD over GPL in a lot of scenarios). The big difference is that the GPL wants to ensure that the end-user can always access the code and do want they want with it. No matter where your project gets used, it ensures that the user at the other end can get the source code and play with it if he wants to make it better.
With the BSD license, it lets the developer do whatever the fuck he wants with your source code. He can use it as a tiny portion of a larger portion of closed-source software, credit you, and that's the end of it. The end-user, of course, can always come to you and get your piece, but the freedoms aren't guaranteed for the end user, and the end user can't tinker with the larger piece of software. The GPL makes sure that never happens, at the expense of the developer's ability to do what he wants with your code.
Really it just depends on who you want to give the freedom to. You can make sure the users always have the freedom to use your project and do what they want with it, or you can make sure that the developers have the freedom to use your project and do what they want with it. It's up to you to decide which is more important. For the FSF, it's the end-user. For the BSD folks, it's the developer. Both are valid.
Why should they be able to sell the rights to another entity?
It seems to me like a lot of our problems with IP right now are because those rights can be transferred away from the creators. The artists get screwed across the board, companies buy up patents and then sit on them just so that nobody can do anything with them and compete. I don't really see much utility in selling or otherwise transferring your copyright. Just license distribution rights.
Continuing the BadAnalogyGuy-inspired analogy, the BSD picture says you can't remove the photographer's signature when you display it in your house.
I'd say "displaying it in your house" is analogous to using the software, not distributing it so to correct your analogy:
The BSD picture says you can't remove the signature when you use it in another piece of work (the collage). The GPL picture says that if you include their picture in the collage, you must allow everyone else to use your pictures in their collages... but enough with the bad analogies...we're kinda running off topic.
It's been done.
To your picture analogy, the BSD license is more like your signature in the bottom right hand corner, and you tell the person you gave the picture to that they can't crop it out, but if they want to use it in a collage and sell it, it's fine with you, so long as your signature stays on it.
The problem with the frame portion of the analogy is that "changing the frame" doesn't substantively change the character of the work, but using code from a BSD project often (usually?) does.