Because it makes phone calls and that's what 90% of users use it for at least in part?
It's certainly one of the features, but I think it's clear that won't be the case as more and more general computing moves to mobile.
Agreed, absolutely! You did buy it for full price like you buy a computer, right? If you did, then you are 100% correct. Did you buy it for several hundred dollars less than the true cost because you agreed to use it under a carrier's terms and conditions for a fixed period of time? Then you are getting what you paid for.
That's exactly what I did. Carriers don't have that type of control where I live and hardware is therefore usually available at full retail price. The last phone I bought cost me roughly $1100 with current exchange rates.
I don't care personally what OS the computer (which some people call phone for no good reason) originally came with. I want to be able to swap it at will. But this is not the case for some reason. Hardware should not be locked down just because the computer is called a phone. It's a computer and you as the user should be able to do what you want with it. This doesn't of course mean that a company like Apple has to support this, but they should at least not actively prevent it like they do now by locking down the bootloader using encryption and digital signatures. Let the user decide, and provide documentation so that those who want can make it work.
Do you know of any actual popularity statistics? Pretty much every "non-techie" Linux user I know runs Ubuntu, and quite a lot of the techies too. That's not representational of course, and some real hard numbers would be interesting.
That certainly is seen as a problem, and the AGPL is supposed to address the loophole. Adoptions isn't that big though, although some large players like Oracle uses it for certain software packages like for example Berkeley DB.
No one can stop them except you. If the entire chain from you to them is open then you will be able to see what information they might get from you and chose to not use their services.
3.2.0-4 is the name Debian uses for their branch of the kernel. It is not the kernel version. Type uname -v and it will give you the actual version that it is based on. My Debian machine runs 3.2.0-4 but the actual kernel version which it is based on is 3.2.46.
Debian also did a bunch of improvements in their local branch, so I would not be surprised if the version that ends up in Jessie will be slightly different from upstream.
Yes. Fedora has the policy that the firmware it includes does not have to be free software, it only has to be freely redistributed without restrictions.
The summary implies Fedora is not under the control of Red Hat. However, since almost all the key people at the Fedora project are employees of Red Hat, I find it hard to believe Red Hat isn't running the show.
Fedora is not controlled by Red Hat, but Red Hat is a large contributor to Fedora and thus has a large de facto control over Fedora.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe .uk should outlaw City of London since it seams highly inappropriate.
Because it makes phone calls and that's what 90% of users use it for at least in part?
It's certainly one of the features, but I think it's clear that won't be the case as more and more general computing moves to mobile.
Agreed, absolutely! You did buy it for full price like you buy a computer, right? If you did, then you are 100% correct. Did you buy it for several hundred dollars less than the true cost because you agreed to use it under a carrier's terms and conditions for a fixed period of time? Then you are getting what you paid for.
That's exactly what I did. Carriers don't have that type of control where I live and hardware is therefore usually available at full retail price. The last phone I bought cost me roughly $1100 with current exchange rates.
I don't care personally what OS the computer (which some people call phone for no good reason) originally came with. I want to be able to swap it at will. But this is not the case for some reason. Hardware should not be locked down just because the computer is called a phone. It's a computer and you as the user should be able to do what you want with it. This doesn't of course mean that a company like Apple has to support this, but they should at least not actively prevent it like they do now by locking down the bootloader using encryption and digital signatures. Let the user decide, and provide documentation so that those who want can make it work.
Unless of course it is illegal to circumvent DRM. Mozilla could get in legal trouble for distributing such extension.
Do you know of any actual popularity statistics? Pretty much every "non-techie" Linux user I know runs Ubuntu, and quite a lot of the techies too. That's not representational of course, and some real hard numbers would be interesting.
You can upgrade quite easily with the freebsd-update utility.
I guess they are busy.
Have you seen the new Yahoo logo?
Are you suggesting that preventing terrorism is not essential?
I guess they will have to look for other jobs.
It is possible, but it might also make some users of Berkeley DB release their own software packages under a compatible license.
That certainly is seen as a problem, and the AGPL is supposed to address the loophole. Adoptions isn't that big though, although some large players like Oracle uses it for certain software packages like for example Berkeley DB.
That doesn't make any sense. What Richard talks about is program, and what you talk about is not programs.
No one can stop them except you. If the entire chain from you to them is open then you will be able to see what information they might get from you and chose to not use their services.
RHEL is not just for servers, there's a desktop and a workstation flavour that is supposed to be used on desktops and laptops.
3.2.0-4 is the name Debian uses for their branch of the kernel. It is not the kernel version. Type uname -v and it will give you the actual version that it is based on. My Debian machine runs 3.2.0-4 but the actual kernel version which it is based on is 3.2.46.
I thought that was part of the graphics driver, but I'm not familiar with the details.
Fuck You,
Sincerely
Nvidia
Mmm, agree. It looked better at first glance.
Not that impressed anymore after reading TFA. I guess it's at least better than doing nothing.
Some of us are not allowed to have Netflix, or some of the content on it.
I guess this is a good thing. They screwed up, and now they pay the price for it.
Debian also did a bunch of improvements in their local branch, so I would not be surprised if the version that ends up in Jessie will be slightly different from upstream.
Yes. Fedora has the policy that the firmware it includes does not have to be free software, it only has to be freely redistributed without restrictions.
The summary implies Fedora is not under the control of Red Hat. However, since almost all the key people at the Fedora project are employees of Red Hat, I find it hard to believe Red Hat isn't running the show.
Fedora is not controlled by Red Hat, but Red Hat is a large contributor to Fedora and thus has a large de facto control over Fedora.