MS might not be selling any ARM-compatible systems at the moment (embedded OSs aside), but I would bet they have experimental ARM builds of everything they've produced in the past 5 years.
It's true I haven't owned many computers, but that's more due to a slow upgrade cycle.
As for only being able to build so many NASs:
Whole computers make much better gifts/donations than parts. I might not have much use for an idle piece of RAM, but the best use any of my family members could come up with would probably involve arts & crafts.
Wasn't (and isn't) Catholicism the European religious monopoly? A "nobody was ever fired for buying IBM^W^Wbeing Catholic" kind of option? The lazy that participate in religion only because of peer pressure would naturally gravitate towards the option where most of the peer pressure is pushing them.
I imagine you'd end up with something resembling a four-person volleyball team consisting of enthusiast that meet weekly vs. a six-person volleyball team that has 4 enthusiasts and two people that don't really want to be there and only hinder their teammates, but stay because of their teammates' coaxing.
This is a startup. The law may be on their side if the contract is broken, but they may not be able afford pursuing the issue in court. After all, they can't even afford an in-house admin.
Missed a few:
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers.
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft.
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually.
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem.
I could, but I can't justify it to myself. Replace a whole PC, and you can do something useful with the old one. Replace a part.... this RAM is still perfectly good, but I can't do anything with it.
I will gladly bet that Microsoft will still be a highly profitable company in twenty years. The fallacy of this write as with many other prognosticators is that the game is zero-sum.
I was going to make a post that indirectly pointed out that "Internet Scams" would be a little out of place on a Class Schedule, but then I realized that school calls it "English 101".
The problem is that Ubuntu is shipping a modified version of Firefox instead of the default Firefox shipped by Mozilla.
No it's not. Patches and plugins are fine if they make a positive impact or at least do not make a negative impact and are easily removed. Negative features such as this are not very tolerable regardless of how easy it is to remove.
They don't want the named changed to Shiretoko or IceWeasel.
Shiretoko is Mozilla's own codename for Firefox 3.5. You don't get accuse Slashdot (and every other Linux-topic webpage on the Internet) of changing Ubuntu 9.04's name to "Jaunty", do you?
Some do prefer the name change. When I use Ubuntu I install abrowser, which strips out Mozilla's branding. It's much better for the distributions to make changes to vanilla Firefox and change the name (because Mozilla insists) over not making any changes.
They don't want the icons changed.
It's a one-time adjustment. "Click that one, Grandma. The one that says '$FOOBAR Web Browser'."
They needed to do it when switching from IE anyways. If they could do it once they can do it again.
They don't want weird extensions that change behaviour.
Define 'weird'. ABP changes behavior, but I seriously doubt anybody (ad providers excluded) would complain if it were installed. I never found Ubuntu's modifications very offensive in how they changed it (They put "Ubuntu Package Search" as an engine in the search bar? How dare they!).
They also don't want updates to come from Ubuntu repositories, as they do for every other package. They want the newest version of Firefox from Mozilla at the exact moment that Mozilla ships it.
Since when do you speak for the general population? It seems that that is exactly the inverse of what they want. They don't want to deal with half a dozen individual self-updating programs. They want the programs to leave them alone. Seriously, have you ever done tech support for someone that had the latest patches of anything other than maybe commercial games? Anybody that understands enough to download Firefox from Mozilla is capable of coping with a distribution's unique name for a Firefox build.
I understand the reasoning behind Ubuntu and Debian's policies, but I think it is obvious that Firefox trumps Ubuntu.
I know Debian's policies and how they apply to Firefox, but what do you think Ubuntu's are? AFAIK, Ubuntu has no policy governing this.
You earlier referred to Firefox being called "Shiretoko". To my knowledge, no distribution calls it that for their default Firefox. I do know, however, that is what Ubuntu is calling 3.5 at the moment. But not out of pressure from ideals. Rather, they call it that because sudo apt-get install firefox will install 3.0.x. They call it Shiretoko because, as I noted earlier, that's what Mozilla calls it; and because the name "Firefox" is already being used by 3.0. That will change when they get around to making 3.5 the default.
They should make a special exception for it.
Unacceptable. An exception means that either Debian doesn't make security patches without getting approval from Mozilla. This puts Debian's security entirely in Mozilla's hands. Their current version, Lenny (and Squeeze, and Sid) is using the 3.0.x branch. It will remain there for the next two years. Meanwhile, Mozilla has moved on to the 3.5.x branch and intends to move on to 3.6.x this fall and 3.7.x in the spring. They aren't going to be putting much support into 3.0.x two years down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
MS might not be selling any ARM-compatible systems at the moment (embedded OSs aside), but I would bet they have experimental ARM builds of everything they've produced in the past 5 years.
We imprison more people per capita...
Because nobody bothers to imprison dead people?
Leroy Jenkins
There was a kid that doesn't sleep in the first movie.
It's true I haven't owned many computers, but that's more due to a slow upgrade cycle.
As for only being able to build so many NASs:
Whole computers make much better gifts/donations than parts. I might not have much use for an idle piece of RAM, but the best use any of my family members could come up with would probably involve arts & crafts.
I think he mean obscure in the same way that Haiku, RISC OS, and OS/2 are obscure: few people run it, so even less look to exploit it.
Wasn't (and isn't) Catholicism the European religious monopoly? A "nobody was ever fired for buying IBM^W^Wbeing Catholic" kind of option? The lazy that participate in religion only because of peer pressure would naturally gravitate towards the option where most of the peer pressure is pushing them.
I imagine you'd end up with something resembling a four-person volleyball team consisting of enthusiast that meet weekly vs. a six-person volleyball team that has 4 enthusiasts and two people that don't really want to be there and only hinder their teammates, but stay because of their teammates' coaxing.
This is a startup. The law may be on their side if the contract is broken, but they may not be able afford pursuing the issue in court. After all, they can't even afford an in-house admin.
Missed a few:
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers.
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft.
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually.
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem.
I could, but I can't justify it to myself. Replace a whole PC, and you can do something useful with the old one. Replace a part.... this RAM is still perfectly good, but I can't do anything with it.
example.com exists. You aren't going to get NXDOMAIN message using that.
The problem is our elections are supposed to be transparent by law.
The problem is our elections are supposed to have public oversight.
Down with transparent elections and public oversight!
I will gladly bet that Microsoft will still be a highly profitable company in twenty years. The fallacy of this write as with many other prognosticators is that the game is zero-sum.
Much like what happened to IBM.
That works fine in non-monopolistic markets. When AT&T is your only choice for DSL, however...
Are you a stupid person who can't make a decision in the fast food restaurant? Dog orders you a cheeseburger.
At Taco Bell.
The public.
Last I checked, ABP & NoScript worked in Minefield (the nightly builds). Most others don't, though.
(god, how I have that frickin' program)
Love your enthusiasm. You're hired.
Does the hosts file accept wildcards/regular expressions?
127.0.0.1 *.eco
I was going to make a post that indirectly pointed out that "Internet Scams" would be a little out of place on a Class Schedule, but then I realized that school calls it "English 101".
Here.
And like other Firefox Alphas, it does not bear the Firefox logo.
Um... yay?
My personal hobby is making little kids cry when playing board games.
The desire to be first
The problem is that Ubuntu is shipping a modified version of Firefox instead of the default Firefox shipped by Mozilla.
No it's not. Patches and plugins are fine if they make a positive impact or at least do not make a negative impact and are easily removed. Negative features such as this are not very tolerable regardless of how easy it is to remove.
They don't want the named changed to Shiretoko or IceWeasel.
Shiretoko is Mozilla's own codename for Firefox 3.5. You don't get accuse Slashdot (and every other Linux-topic webpage on the Internet) of changing Ubuntu 9.04's name to "Jaunty", do you?
Some do prefer the name change. When I use Ubuntu I install abrowser, which strips out Mozilla's branding. It's much better for the distributions to make changes to vanilla Firefox and change the name (because Mozilla insists) over not making any changes.
They don't want the icons changed.
It's a one-time adjustment. "Click that one, Grandma. The one that says '$FOOBAR Web Browser'." They needed to do it when switching from IE anyways. If they could do it once they can do it again.
They don't want weird extensions that change behaviour.
Define 'weird'. ABP changes behavior, but I seriously doubt anybody (ad providers excluded) would complain if it were installed. I never found Ubuntu's modifications very offensive in how they changed it (They put "Ubuntu Package Search" as an engine in the search bar? How dare they!).
They also don't want updates to come from Ubuntu repositories, as they do for every other package. They want the newest version of Firefox from Mozilla at the exact moment that Mozilla ships it.
Since when do you speak for the general population? It seems that that is exactly the inverse of what they want. They don't want to deal with half a dozen individual self-updating programs. They want the programs to leave them alone. Seriously, have you ever done tech support for someone that had the latest patches of anything other than maybe commercial games? Anybody that understands enough to download Firefox from Mozilla is capable of coping with a distribution's unique name for a Firefox build.
I understand the reasoning behind Ubuntu and Debian's policies, but I think it is obvious that Firefox trumps Ubuntu.
I know Debian's policies and how they apply to Firefox, but what do you think Ubuntu's are? AFAIK, Ubuntu has no policy governing this.
You earlier referred to Firefox being called "Shiretoko". To my knowledge, no distribution calls it that for their default Firefox. I do know, however, that is what Ubuntu is calling 3.5 at the moment. But not out of pressure from ideals. Rather, they call it that because sudo apt-get install firefox will install 3.0.x. They call it Shiretoko because, as I noted earlier, that's what Mozilla calls it; and because the name "Firefox" is already being used by 3.0. That will change when they get around to making 3.5 the default.
They should make a special exception for it.
Unacceptable. An exception means that either Debian doesn't make security patches without getting approval from Mozilla. This puts Debian's security entirely in Mozilla's hands. Their current version, Lenny (and Squeeze, and Sid) is using the 3.0.x branch. It will remain there for the next two years. Meanwhile, Mozilla has moved on to the 3.5.x branch and intends to move on to 3.6.x this fall and 3.7.x in the spring. They aren't going to be putting much support into 3.0.x two years down the road.