Flash works great on Linux. And it works out-of-the-box on a lot of Linux distributions (like Mandriva).
Of course, because Ubuntu wants to be "pure" about open source or whatever BS, they won't include flash by default. But that's a deliberate choice they do, not some technical limitation or anything to be blamed on Adobe.
If you really can't afford to save anything, you have absolutely no luxury you can cut, then you have a revenue problem. I think it's time to think about your career, maybe switch to a better paid job or go back to school if you need a degree for that.
If you don't, then the time you lose your job and/or have some serious medical problem you'll be in a real trouble.
There is a huge difference between a game and all the software you're talking about: you can use a text editor, compiler, kernel for 30 years and still need it, while for a game you may get bored.
Additionally, there is the story/discovery aspect that make it harder for a game to keep people involved from the version 0.1 to post-1.0. Being involved early spoils your experience of the finished product, and after 1.0 there is few incentive to continue development.
Some games don't have a story or can be fun even in a pre-version (like a tetris) but the risk of getting bored is still much higher than for a text editor or a web browser you will be using every day no matter what.
That makes games much harder to develop as open source projects than other kind of software.
Maybe you got stuck in the 90's, if you didn't see how the web is taking over the desktop. Close your Windows 95 machine and come with us to the futuristic world of the 21th century!
Well, I guess it depends what you're most used to. I personally think that the GUI you get on Linux (Gnome in my case, but others too) are far superior to Windows (and OSX too, BTW):
* Magnetic borders for window management
* Focus follow the mouse (window management again)
* Virtual desktop (yes, OSX has it and some third party tools on Windows, but they're not as good as X's virtual desktops)
Each time I have to use a Windows machine, I suffer because of the usability of the GUI. (And the command line too, but I can't really blame Windows or OSX for having a command line that sucks - it's not important for their target demographic).
1) They can't, because they're bound to Mozilla by a contract
2) They're not paying Mozilla "to be nice", but because Mozilla is bringing them visitors. It's a simple business contract, in which both parties are benefiting.
Now, if Google decided not to renew the contract after it expire, Mozilla may be able to find an other partner. It may hurt them or not to work with a service different from Google.
FF3 already have the blue (connection is secure) and green (connection is secure *and* the other party is identified). What is kind of weird is that both are delivered by Verisign and friends, you just have to pay more to get a green. CACert could get the blue but not the green, what's wrong with that?
The problem with the current situation is that some website will just have to give up on https because they can't pay for a certification.
It was, until the version 7.
Netscape 8 is based on Firefox 1, and Netscape 9 is based on Firefox 2. So it really makes more sense to send users to Firefox (the base for Netscape) or Flock (a Firefox-based browser, just like Netscape).
Yahoo! in Japan is not Yahoo!. It's Softbank paying royalties to Yahoo! to use their brand, logo, and some of their technologies (like IM). That's why they have so many services that Yahoo US doesn't have (ISP, a leading auctions website...) Softbank bought the Japanese branch of Vodaphone (formely J-Phone, before Vodaphone bought it and screw it up). It's not a suprise that Softbank phone have a Y! button: it's the same company!
Also, that's why there is no Japanese version of Flickr: because of their contract with Softbank, Yahoo! isn't allowed to release any product in Japanese.
Google is huge for search (and ads), but that's pretty much it. Their other services are great but don't have that much market share. Gmail, Picasa Web, GReader, Blogger... All great services with a small market share. For example, Yahoo Mail has about 5 times as many customers as GMail.
Yahoo isn't as "cool" as Google, but they have a good position in a lot of markets. A common joke is that they are 2nd at everything they do. Photo sharing (Flickr) may be the only market where they are leading. But, hey, being second in so many markets isn't such a bad position.
You're comparing Firefox 3 (not released) with Epiphany based on a Gecko 1.8.
Wait for Firefox 3 to be released and Epiphany/Gecko to switch to a 1.9 base to compare.
If it's like in Europe, the patent office gets money from patents; so they accept them quite easily. But being accepted by the PO doesn't mean it's valid. The court can decide whether it's valid or not by looking at evidence produced.
With Microsoft, you run the software and you store your data. With Google, they run the software and they store your data.
Agreed. Now, where is the source for Google Talk? (the windows client)
Where is the source for Picasa? (the photo management software)
Where is the source for Google Desktop?
Where is the source for the Google toolbar? (Firefox extension)
If it's true that they recently started to release Open Source software (Google Gears, Android, and a few helpers/libraries related to OpenSocial) the big bulk of product is just plain old Windows proprietary software.
No - the Apple Remote is a good example of oversimplifying for the sake of saying: "hey! look how Apple products are simple!" OK, 52 buttons is too much, but 6 buttons is not enoug.
Example: I'm listening to a song in Front Row, and now I want to go back to my desktop: menu; menu; menu; menu...
PLUS it/looks/ like an iPod but doesn't/behave/ like an iPod (buttons are placed differently). So if you're an Apple fan and have both you can be sure you will make mistakes.
What's the point of having a week for something you get with no delay at home?
One week make sense for rental of DVD because you may not know when you're going to have time to watch the movie. But with on-demand, if you just "rent" the movie at the time you want to see it, what's the problem? Do you often watch movies in two or more sessions?
Slashdot Mirror
Flash works great on Linux. And it works out-of-the-box on a lot of Linux distributions (like Mandriva). Of course, because Ubuntu wants to be "pure" about open source or whatever BS, they won't include flash by default. But that's a deliberate choice they do, not some technical limitation or anything to be blamed on Adobe.
You should give your idea to Nintendo, I'm sure they will love it. Unless they already had the same idea...
If you really can't afford to save anything, you have absolutely no luxury you can cut, then you have a revenue problem. I think it's time to think about your career, maybe switch to a better paid job or go back to school if you need a degree for that.
If you don't, then the time you lose your job and/or have some serious medical problem you'll be in a real trouble.
There is a huge difference between a game and all the software you're talking about: you can use a text editor, compiler, kernel for 30 years and still need it, while for a game you may get bored. Additionally, there is the story/discovery aspect that make it harder for a game to keep people involved from the version 0.1 to post-1.0. Being involved early spoils your experience of the finished product, and after 1.0 there is few incentive to continue development. Some games don't have a story or can be fun even in a pre-version (like a tetris) but the risk of getting bored is still much higher than for a text editor or a web browser you will be using every day no matter what. That makes games much harder to develop as open source projects than other kind of software.
Maybe you got stuck in the 90's, if you didn't see how the web is taking over the desktop. Close your Windows 95 machine and come with us to the futuristic world of the 21th century!
Well, I guess it depends what you're most used to. I personally think that the GUI you get on Linux (Gnome in my case, but others too) are far superior to Windows (and OSX too, BTW):
* Magnetic borders for window management
* Focus follow the mouse (window management again)
* Virtual desktop (yes, OSX has it and some third party tools on Windows, but they're not as good as X's virtual desktops)
Each time I have to use a Windows machine, I suffer because of the usability of the GUI. (And the command line too, but I can't really blame Windows or OSX for having a command line that sucks - it's not important for their target demographic).
1) They can't, because they're bound to Mozilla by a contract
2) They're not paying Mozilla "to be nice", but because Mozilla is bringing them visitors. It's a simple business contract, in which both parties are benefiting.
Now, if Google decided not to renew the contract after it expire, Mozilla may be able to find an other partner. It may hurt them or not to work with a service different from Google.
FF3 already have the blue (connection is secure) and green (connection is secure *and* the other party is identified). What is kind of weird is that both are delivered by Verisign and friends, you just have to pay more to get a green. CACert could get the blue but not the green, what's wrong with that? The problem with the current situation is that some website will just have to give up on https because they can't pay for a certification.
It was, until the version 7. Netscape 8 is based on Firefox 1, and Netscape 9 is based on Firefox 2. So it really makes more sense to send users to Firefox (the base for Netscape) or Flock (a Firefox-based browser, just like Netscape).
Yahoo! in Japan is not Yahoo!. It's Softbank paying royalties to Yahoo! to use their brand, logo, and some of their technologies (like IM). That's why they have so many services that Yahoo US doesn't have (ISP, a leading auctions website...) Softbank bought the Japanese branch of Vodaphone (formely J-Phone, before Vodaphone bought it and screw it up). It's not a suprise that Softbank phone have a Y! button: it's the same company! Also, that's why there is no Japanese version of Flickr: because of their contract with Softbank, Yahoo! isn't allowed to release any product in Japanese.
Google is huge for search (and ads), but that's pretty much it. Their other services are great but don't have that much market share. Gmail, Picasa Web, GReader, Blogger... All great services with a small market share. For example, Yahoo Mail has about 5 times as many customers as GMail. Yahoo isn't as "cool" as Google, but they have a good position in a lot of markets. A common joke is that they are 2nd at everything they do. Photo sharing (Flickr) may be the only market where they are leading. But, hey, being second in so many markets isn't such a bad position.
You're comparing Firefox 3 (not released) with Epiphany based on a Gecko 1.8. Wait for Firefox 3 to be released and Epiphany/Gecko to switch to a 1.9 base to compare.
If it's like in Europe, the patent office gets money from patents; so they accept them quite easily. But being accepted by the PO doesn't mean it's valid. The court can decide whether it's valid or not by looking at evidence produced.
With Microsoft, you run the software and you store your data. With Google, they run the software and they store your data. Agreed. Now, where is the source for Google Talk? (the windows client) Where is the source for Picasa? (the photo management software) Where is the source for Google Desktop? Where is the source for the Google toolbar? (Firefox extension) If it's true that they recently started to release Open Source software (Google Gears, Android, and a few helpers/libraries related to OpenSocial) the big bulk of product is just plain old Windows proprietary software.
No - the Apple Remote is a good example of oversimplifying for the sake of saying: "hey! look how Apple products are simple!" OK, 52 buttons is too much, but 6 buttons is not enoug. Example: I'm listening to a song in Front Row, and now I want to go back to my desktop: menu; menu; menu; menu... PLUS it /looks/ like an iPod but doesn't /behave/ like an iPod (buttons are placed differently). So if you're an Apple fan and have both you can be sure you will make mistakes.
As far as I understand you can watch the movie as many times as you want during 24h. So you can watch the first 30 minutes 48 times if you want.
What's the point of having a week for something you get with no delay at home? One week make sense for rental of DVD because you may not know when you're going to have time to watch the movie. But with on-demand, if you just "rent" the movie at the time you want to see it, what's the problem? Do you often watch movies in two or more sessions?
Well, you can rip a DVD rented from Blockbuster or Netflix... And that doesn't break their business model. It doesn't seem to kill DVD sales either.