A problem with both Server 2003 and XP is that they will be unsupported as of April 2014. If 32 bit Windows is still required in 2012, then my guess is it will be in 2014 as well. So if possible I would go with something more modern.
GPL -> User has access to source code so (in theory) has less risk of vendor lock-in.
BSD -> Developers can create lockin
Well, it depends. Here on my FreeBSD system I have the source code to the entire operating system under/usr/src, it is included with the installer and can be installed during installation. Companies like Apple can use it to improve their products, and sometimes they contribute back even if all their products aren't open. However that doesn't make/usr/src go away.
I think it comes down to what you define as free software. The Stallman approach is of course very popular, but some say that's actually a bit more non-free since it restricts users of the source code and using BSD is in that sense more free. And it works well. Apple for example is using lots of FreeBSD in their operating system, and they contribute back.
And for those projects I guess the FreeBSD ports system will just install gcc, so it will continue to build on FreeBSD. GCC is available in the ports tree, they just don't want to include it in the base system.
So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is.
I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.
14.16 - Can I access data on filesystems other than FFS?
Yes. Other supported filesystems include: ext2 (Linux), ISO9660 and UDF (CD-ROM, DVD media), FAT (MS-DOS and Windows), NFS, NTFS (Windows). Some of them have limited, for instance read-only, support. ...
So now they get no Google maps renewal guaranteed, no screens from Samsung for any products, no licensing for anything Samsung owns, serious 4G LTE patent problems, everyone else in the entire industry hates them and it actively trying to destroy them, and they don't even get their 1 billion in all likelihood. Wow, great business strategy there, Apple.
Exactly. Since the tracking is done by the app the user installs and not by Apple, Apple can never really disable it. Because it's not under Apple's control.
Please explain to me why Apple (who sells phones and computers to paying customers)
thinks that advertisers (who haven't paid a dime for those same phones and computers) should have any say at all in the operation of those phones and computers without the EXPLICIT PRIOR CONSENT of the OWNERS of those phones and computers.
Operating system software is supposed to operate for the benefit of the owner of the computer/phone. Any software that operates for the benefit of third parties without the explicit consent of the owner is called malware.
Folks have said that Google gets away with stuff like that because they don't get money from their users. Google claims that its users really want to be tracked to provide relevant advertising. We know that's a crock but we understand who's really paying Google. What's Apple's excuse?
Because the user runs the advertisers software on his or hers device.
If you as a user never run the advertisers software then the setting does nothing.
But if you do and the advertiser plays nicely, then they can use this feature in a safe and tested manner.
Unfortunately a lot of advertisers disagree and are trying all kinds of ways to track you anyway. What they have done is to create an alternative that is good enough that advertisers can use it, yet doesn't violate user privacy.
In an ideal world that would be a better way to put it.
However, nothing in there allows or disallows tracking. Advertisers can always create their own way of tracking you. All this does is turn off the way Apple provides as an alternative so that advertisers shouldn't do the bad ways, such as uploading your address book to their server and use that as a tracking id (that hole is actually fixed now).
Absolutely, Apples is not entitled to that information.
But the story isn't about Apple tracking your spending habits, or about Apple tracking you at all.
That's not what "user tracking" is about in iOS.
Because Apple is more interested in keeping a good relationship with their users rather than tracking them. Apple makes money by selling devices, not through advertisement so there's no reason for them to track anyone. But wait a minute what is this "user tracking" thing? I mean, it's enough to read just "user tracking", stop reading and make up the rest of the story so that it sounds like Apple is this evil company that tracks their users. Right? Ehm, no. So the problem is that there will always be advertisers, not really through Apple (they tried the ad business and have sort of deprecated that idea) but that will use Apples's platform. They will come up with their own way of tracking users. Apple can't really do much about that except closing holes like the old UDID thing that wasn't supposed to be used for such things but advertisers did anyway. So the only thing Apple has done is create something in the middle, that advertisers can accept but also at the same time doesn't invade user's privacy. Again, Apple wants to sell you stuff, not sell you. So really, there's nothing in there for them by turning it off when they update the OS. They can of course do that technically, nothing stops them. But there's no incentive for them to do it, so they probably won't.
Slashdot Mirror
A problem with both Server 2003 and XP is that they will be unsupported as of April 2014. If 32 bit Windows is still required in 2012, then my guess is it will be in 2014 as well. So if possible I would go with something more modern.
couldn't give a single f*ck.
So, where are these non-US garage phones and handsets?
my permanent move away from GNOME. I am learning to like XFCE!
I tried GNOME a few times in the 2.x series but found that it was going downhill.
In the meantime my old fvwm configuration still works.
GPL -> User has access to source code so (in theory) has less risk of vendor lock-in. BSD -> Developers can create lockin
Well, it depends. Here on my FreeBSD system I have the source code to the entire operating system under /usr/src, it is included with the installer and can be installed during installation. Companies like Apple can use it to improve their products, and sometimes they contribute back even if all their products aren't open. However that doesn't make /usr/src go away.
Why wouldn't the user be able to get the changes for both programs?
Wow dissing on GCC now gets modded +3 huh?
Nice...
Where does he mention GCC? From what I can tell he just mentions that clang++ works great.
I think it comes down to what you define as free software. The Stallman approach is of course very popular, but some say that's actually a bit more non-free since it restricts users of the source code and using BSD is in that sense more free. And it works well. Apple for example is using lots of FreeBSD in their operating system, and they contribute back.
And for those projects I guess the FreeBSD ports system will just install gcc, so it will continue to build on FreeBSD. GCC is available in the ports tree, they just don't want to include it in the base system.
Does he run Linux ?
Yes he does
So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is. I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.
Since when is Ubuntu about Linux?
So now they get no Google maps renewal guaranteed, no screens from Samsung for any products, no licensing for anything Samsung owns, serious 4G LTE patent problems, everyone else in the entire industry hates them and it actively trying to destroy them, and they don't even get their 1 billion in all likelihood. Wow, great business strategy there, Apple.
Apple is doing just great financially, so yes it is a good business strategy.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm
They did this just after they launched their DC
It was also common practice about ten years ago. They always streamed everything.
That's money too but peanuts in comparison.
Exactly. Since the tracking is done by the app the user installs and not by Apple, Apple can never really disable it. Because it's not under Apple's control.
You just have to look at the numbers they present.
Apple makes its money from selling hardware to people.
Wait a minute.
Please explain to me why Apple (who sells phones and computers to paying customers) thinks that advertisers (who haven't paid a dime for those same phones and computers) should have any say at all in the operation of those phones and computers without the EXPLICIT PRIOR CONSENT of the OWNERS of those phones and computers.
Operating system software is supposed to operate for the benefit of the owner of the computer/phone. Any software that operates for the benefit of third parties without the explicit consent of the owner is called malware.
Folks have said that Google gets away with stuff like that because they don't get money from their users. Google claims that its users really want to be tracked to provide relevant advertising. We know that's a crock but we understand who's really paying Google. What's Apple's excuse?
Because the user runs the advertisers software on his or hers device.
If you as a user never run the advertisers software then the setting does nothing.
But if you do and the advertiser plays nicely, then they can use this feature in a safe and tested manner.
Unfortunately a lot of advertisers disagree and are trying all kinds of ways to track you anyway. What they have done is to create an alternative that is good enough that advertisers can use it, yet doesn't violate user privacy.
In an ideal world that would be a better way to put it.
However, nothing in there allows or disallows tracking. Advertisers can always create their own way of tracking you. All this does is turn off the way Apple provides as an alternative so that advertisers shouldn't do the bad ways, such as uploading your address book to their server and use that as a tracking id (that hole is actually fixed now).
Apple doesn't track their users, that's not what this story is about.
Absolutely, Apples is not entitled to that information. But the story isn't about Apple tracking your spending habits, or about Apple tracking you at all. That's not what "user tracking" is about in iOS.
Because Apple is more interested in keeping a good relationship with their users rather than tracking them. Apple makes money by selling devices, not through advertisement so there's no reason for them to track anyone. But wait a minute what is this "user tracking" thing? I mean, it's enough to read just "user tracking", stop reading and make up the rest of the story so that it sounds like Apple is this evil company that tracks their users. Right? Ehm, no. So the problem is that there will always be advertisers, not really through Apple (they tried the ad business and have sort of deprecated that idea) but that will use Apples's platform. They will come up with their own way of tracking users. Apple can't really do much about that except closing holes like the old UDID thing that wasn't supposed to be used for such things but advertisers did anyway. So the only thing Apple has done is create something in the middle, that advertisers can accept but also at the same time doesn't invade user's privacy. Again, Apple wants to sell you stuff, not sell you. So really, there's nothing in there for them by turning it off when they update the OS. They can of course do that technically, nothing stops them. But there's no incentive for them to do it, so they probably won't.
I guess you don't use Mozilla Firefox since they don't turn on Do-Not-Track by default.
This is basically the same thing for apps.
Then install debian.
Stallman's organization maintains a list of approved distributions.
Debian is not there, so he won't recommend it.