The problem is that they want everything to be backed up by a verifiable source, and fails to enforce it. You either allow everyone to edit, or you follow established scientific procedures. Wikipedia does something in between, leaving both sides unhappy with it.
It still does absolutely inane things like treating Gimp/Inkscape as valid a PDF reader.
Are you sure that's a Firefox issue? Here (Debian) Firefox picks up gimp as a PDF reader because the gimp package declares itself as being able to handle PDF.
Well he is technically correct. IE is as of version 10 actually a good browser. The only problem is that it's only available on Windows and the source code is not available under an open source license. If both of these were false I then I wouldn't mind running it.
Have we actually heard anything that suggests that they put in back doors into software? All I've heard is that NSA has collected data going in and out of their datacenter, not individual customers.
The problem was there from the start. Do-Not-Track is built on the premise that most users won't know about it. Only those who have enough knowledge about the situation will go to the preferences and turn it on.
What we should have is legislation which says that you are not allowed to track unless a Do-Track header exists and is set to true. Let people opt in to tracking and see how many will do it. And if it's that important that you are able to track your visitors then by all mans check that the header is set and display a message saying that you want to track them in order to serve the content.
They are similar but not the same. Most Linux distributions uses the GNU user land, where FreeBSD develops its own. Programs like ls will still fulfill the same task, but the options will be different and some features might be missing. You can still install the GNU user land on top of FreeBSD if you want it.
As a regular user you don't see any difference. The same software works on both.
The main differences are in the kernel, and in the way the systems are developed. In Linux land the kernel and most other operating system components are developed in separate projects, and the distributions are responsible for packaging them so that they work together as one cohesive operating system. In FreeBSD everything is developed by essentially the same team as one big project. That's why we often don't speak about BSD distributions, because unlike Linux distributions the BSD kernel is developed in parallell by each distribution. Some prefer one way or the other, but overall both systems are fine.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but not if you're among the 99+ % that installs a binary distribution.
So which operating system should we use?
Redhat doesn't sell software.
They sell subscription to software, which in practice is selling software. You go to them, you pay money, you get software.
SELinux is great. Configuring it could be somewhat easier.
Microsoft is integrating Git in Visual Studio. It starts small but you'll see, soon all they do will be open.
Just make sure that you don't connect non-GPL parts of the Internet to the GPL parts and you'll be fine.
How to you know that Microsoft Word doesn't spy on you? Do you have the source code?
http://xkcd.com/978/
The problem is that they want everything to be backed up by a verifiable source, and fails to enforce it. You either allow everyone to edit, or you follow established scientific procedures. Wikipedia does something in between, leaving both sides unhappy with it.
It still does absolutely inane things like treating Gimp/Inkscape as valid a PDF reader.
Are you sure that's a Firefox issue? Here (Debian) Firefox picks up gimp as a PDF reader because the gimp package declares itself as being able to handle PDF.
This must be hard for you.
If you don't want your data mined then you shouln't publish it in the first place.
/bin/ls and friends are part of the base OS. What else do you need?
I wouldn't be surprised if it actually can be an act of terrorism to make a complaint. In that case don't blame the messenger.
Why not even go a step further and don't use the web at all?
Well he is technically correct. IE is as of version 10 actually a good browser. The only problem is that it's only available on Windows and the source code is not available under an open source license. If both of these were false I then I wouldn't mind running it.
Of course there can be security, the problem is rather if you trust it.
Have we actually heard anything that suggests that they put in back doors into software? All I've heard is that NSA has collected data going in and out of their datacenter, not individual customers.
No it's in the regular preferences. Under Privacy, Website tracking. Select the checkbox right next to "Ask websites not to track me."
Which is why we need legislation that says that they should.
The problem was there from the start. Do-Not-Track is built on the premise that most users won't know about it. Only those who have enough knowledge about the situation will go to the preferences and turn it on.
What we should have is legislation which says that you are not allowed to track unless a Do-Track header exists and is set to true. Let people opt in to tracking and see how many will do it. And if it's that important that you are able to track your visitors then by all mans check that the header is set and display a message saying that you want to track them in order to serve the content.
It's the tyranny of the default. Most people don't know about it.
It's the same reason why advertisers want DNT to be off by default, because most users don't know that they can opt out.
Safari blocks third party cookies by default, but they don't set DNT header unless you say so.
Android is mostly Apache license, which is very similar to BSD in nature. The kernel is more or less the only thing they ship that is GPL.
They are similar but not the same. Most Linux distributions uses the GNU user land, where FreeBSD develops its own. Programs like ls will still fulfill the same task, but the options will be different and some features might be missing. You can still install the GNU user land on top of FreeBSD if you want it.
As a regular user you don't see any difference. The same software works on both.
The main differences are in the kernel, and in the way the systems are developed. In Linux land the kernel and most other operating system components are developed in separate projects, and the distributions are responsible for packaging them so that they work together as one cohesive operating system. In FreeBSD everything is developed by essentially the same team as one big project. That's why we often don't speak about BSD distributions, because unlike Linux distributions the BSD kernel is developed in parallell by each distribution. Some prefer one way or the other, but overall both systems are fine.