It's not a sign of anything at all. Firebird(fox) is a technology preview. If you want a stable browser that installs clean, look at Netscape's Navigator.
Both Mozilla and Firefox are intended for developers and testers that know that upgrading means lots of broken stuff, not end users.
I dunno - I guess I always scroll then read, not read while scrolling. Maybe most people do, so they just axed the feature, which to me would seem to slow down the actual scrolling process.
I'd probably want to turn it off the same way I turn off "fade in menus" and, "window minimize animations" and "update during drag."
Both mozilla and firebird (now firefox) are developer tools. Firefox is actually an early beta of a developer tool.
If you want a stable platform with seamless upgrades and well-tested istallers, you should use the Netscape suite, and expect to be behind in development. Otherwise, expect everything to break every release, because you're on the bleeding edge. The focuses of the two groups are very different.
I'd really like native SVG support to start appearing in the builds - last I checked the old code is still in the tree. Are there still political/licensing issues preventing it from being in the default builds?
Charging people because you keep important secrets from them is one business model I'd love to see go away. Let's focus on making a decent living extending, improving and supporting the existing intellectual property - spend your days getting paid to improve everyone's lives, not just those that pay you.
The Microsoft-sponsored black period of software development is ending, along with the practice of inventing value by keeping people in the dark about their own tools. We all need to find new ways to survive in the light that is now shining into our business models - those who can provide real value will stay in this business, those who were surviving by preying on the uninformed will have to go somewhere else.
The one thing that this does not point toward is software stagnation - developers can spend time enhancing a shared infrastructure instead of creating something new for every project, and massive amounts of lost resource will be reclaimed. It will most likely destroy the ISV that still wants to sell thier ability to keep secrets, though, unless you can find someone that wants to pay you to keep them. In that case, you won't have to change your business model at all.
That's the meat of a BSD licsnse - do what you want, including renaming it, closing the source or moving licenses.
MS Windows once had some BSD stuff included in it - I don't know if it still does - and this is one of the reasons that they support the BSD license, but not the GPL, which "taints" derivatives with enforced freedom.
I wonder why they would insist upon this new clause. They're free to do it - it's their software after all, able to be licensed any way they wish, but I don't understand the motivation.
Booble states obviously that it has no relationship with Google. Google has no trademark on the work "Booble." Google's logo does not have breasts in it.
In other words, no one could possibly confuse the two sites, and it's existence does not minimize the impact of Google's trademark.
This is predatory practice because they are seeking to kill a competitor, not to defend themselves.
When would I suggest a corporation sue another? I'm not a lawyer, but I were king of the world, it would take a lot. Starting with actual, measurable monetary damages, resulting from the loss of physical income. Say if Booble hijacked Google's internet connection or IP block, or broke in and swiped a bunch of pens from thier supply closet. These are tangible losses.
"They look like us and we don't like it" isn't representative of monetary loss.
Well, first of all, anyone who doensn't react when the "lawyer button" gets pushed may want to spend some time re-examining goals. The U.S. Legal system is very diseased. I've never been sued, and I've never sued anyone, but any casual observer can see that the process is destroying what little faith people place in the system.
Second, Booble isn't stepping on Google's trademark. Yes, Booble has a logo that is obviously similar to Google's in a humorous way, and also obviously different - you may notice the prominent breasts.
Yes, Booble has a site that is obviously similar to Google's in a humorous way. And it's also obviously different.
Yes, th ehumor is poor, but there is no concern that any person would confuse the two sites, nor consider Booble to be watering down Google's trademark.
Google does not have a trademark on "Google and anything that may sound like it" and look and feel is indefensible.
Their demands do not relate to Booble changing their logo. Google is insisting on ownership of all domains that might sound something like google. Trademark law should not extend this far.
Google is not evil because they have engaged in litigation. Google should now be considered untrustworthy because they have used litigation against a target that is in no way injuring them, now or in the future, because they are not using thier trademark. They are showing a significant lack of humor, and an intent to force the legal system to once again stretch the concept of trademark law.
As a result, they move from the category of 'corporation pretending to have a soul' to 'corporation admitting that it doesn't'. This is presumably part of the new image they are putting on for the IPO, and this indicates that humans should stop placing any faith or support in Google beyond that which comes with legal documentation.
I'm not bashing Google, but I'm definitely making it obvious that I don't support Google's actions.
People keep indicating that this is a legal move for Google - of course it is. Anyone can sue for anything in the U.S. My point is that by excercising that right, Google goes off my radar as an organization I trust and support.
And you also obviously don't know (or care) what bitching is. I'm not complaining here - although some of these posts are out of anger, I'm stating how using predatory legal practices destroys the public's faith in a company, and contributes to the general negativity of the U.S. legal landscape.
If you've got some point to make, why don't you go and make it instead of trying to insult me?
It looks like two posts that agree with what I'm saying - that this is predatory behavior.
One talks about how this type of behavior is "bad and hurts everybody" and another that seems to think that google is acting in "self-defence", against an entity that isn't attacking them.
The fact that it's legal isn't enough to make me believe it's something I should support.
Google does not hold a trademark on the word Booble.
Google does not need to defend themselves from Booble - Google is big enough that they can absorb a considerable amount of uncomfortability, and Booble is well within that threshold.
Google is pulling the trigger here because they have reached a "critical legal mass" where it has become easier to destroy another organization than to reasonably deal with the possibility of some futire percieved competition. That's the symbol that all of the humanity has been removed from an organization - something that typically happens just before... well, what do you know? It goes public.
At that point, it becomes, like I said, just a commodity tool, and no longer deserves the brand loyalty of humans.
You know what? Screw you and your dumb joke. Most, if not all corporations are evil.
Or at least amoral. There are only two options for a corporation: amoral or immoral.
When I see a company like google taking steps like these, then damnit, they step over the line, and they deserve what they get. That's the price they pay for the "invented status" we give corporations in America. They get the benefit of being an entity and massive tax cuts, without the negative aspects like being sued or jailed, and the people involved don't get held responsible for the reprehensible things they do.
It sucks, and that's where the outrage comes from - if the U.S. Stopped giving corporations a shield against the crimes they perpetrate and the ability to hold themselves outside of society, but still reap the benefits of being a member, then we wouldn't need to attack them over every infraction.
If you needed further evidence that google is "going corporate," I just saw that they are joining the outsourcing bandwagon.
Google India is hiring
Google is opening an office in Bangalore, India - our first full engineering facility outside the United States. The office will operate in an identical manner to our other engineering groups, with the same scope of work, hiring standards and unique Google culture. Our goal is to conceive, research, implement and deploy the next generation search engine - a goal that requires talented software engineers, top coders and visionary computer scientists. Those who join us in this worldwide effort can expect an outstanding work environment and the satisfaction of tackling some of the most interesting challenges in computing today.
Our engineering team is working on problems in a number of areas, including distributed systems, information retrieval, algorithms, UI, a variety of novel search features, and scalability issues related to dealing with huge amounts of data and a rapidly increasing user population.
Requirements:
* B-Tech or MS in Computer Science (Ph.D. a plus)
* Extensive experience with C and C++
* Experience with programming large scale, distributed systems
* Extensive knowledge of UNIX/Linux or Windows environments
Send a text resume (and for new grads unofficial copies of transcripts) to jobs-india@google.com.
Amazingly, only an hour ago, I considered google one of the coolest companies I knew of, and actively defended them when people commented on the amount of googlebombing and googlespamming.
If this article is true, then they can go to hell, like all the other legal-driven asshat corporate tools I have to deal with on a regular basis.
Way to destroy that brand loyalty. For the first time in years, I'm going to go and see what other search engines exist, because web searching just became a commodity in my mind.
Actually, I think that Windows (and DOS before it) are the only modern OSes shipped with a shell that even remotely care about file extensions.
UNIX applications typically sniff the file to see what it contains, the MacOS uses stuff in the resource fork to track the file's creating app and type.
The problem here (as I understand it) is related to mime type vs file extension, in which the "file retrieval and processing camp" decided to follow one method of identification, and the "security and prevention" camp chose to follow another. This mostly comes about because while file extensions are *easy* to implement, they are inadequate for many situations. Find someone who is feeling lazy, under the gun, or improperly trained, and they will pick the wrong one.
Information about security breaches (and potential security breaches) has to be made known to all users as quickly as possible, so those users can defend themselves. When a "white hat" discovers a security problem, there is no way to tell how many "black hats" know about it and are already exploiting it.
Keeping an exploit out of the press doesn't prevent the bad guys from using it - it only keeps the users in the dark.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a sign of anything at all. Firebird(fox) is a technology preview. If you want a stable browser that installs clean, look at Netscape's Navigator.
Both Mozilla and Firefox are intended for developers and testers that know that upgrading means lots of broken stuff, not end users.
It's possible that instead of going belly up or losing thier backbone, they were instead trying to be considerate.
Is consideration for others really such a strange concept?
I dunno - I guess I always scroll then read, not read while scrolling. Maybe most people do, so they just axed the feature, which to me would seem to slow down the actual scrolling process.
I'd probably want to turn it off the same way I turn off "fade in menus" and, "window minimize animations" and "update during drag."
Why do you want to scroll less than one line? Doesn't scrolling (for instance) half a line just make two lines unreadable?
Tell them it's a reference to a Clint Eastwood movie.
Or don't.
Actually, we're numerically close to fire[bird|fox] 0.10 - which has no bearing how close we are release wise to 1.0...
Both mozilla and firebird (now firefox) are developer tools. Firefox is actually an early beta of a developer tool.
If you want a stable platform with seamless upgrades and well-tested istallers, you should use the Netscape suite, and expect to be behind in development. Otherwise, expect everything to break every release, because you're on the bleeding edge. The focuses of the two groups are very different.
The release notes state that you must disable all extensions during an upgrade.
After, you can only re-enable those that are 0.8-safe.
It'll always be BFKAP to me...
I'd really like native SVG support to start appearing in the builds - last I checked the old code is still in the tree. Are there still political/licensing issues preventing it from being in the default builds?
See Buggy Whips.
Charging people because you keep important secrets from them is one business model I'd love to see go away. Let's focus on making a decent living extending, improving and supporting the existing intellectual property - spend your days getting paid to improve everyone's lives, not just those that pay you.
The Microsoft-sponsored black period of software development is ending, along with the practice of inventing value by keeping people in the dark about their own tools. We all need to find new ways to survive in the light that is now shining into our business models - those who can provide real value will stay in this business, those who were surviving by preying on the uninformed will have to go somewhere else.
The one thing that this does not point toward is software stagnation - developers can spend time enhancing a shared infrastructure instead of creating something new for every project, and massive amounts of lost resource will be reclaimed. It will most likely destroy the ISV that still wants to sell thier ability to keep secrets, though, unless you can find someone that wants to pay you to keep them. In that case, you won't have to change your business model at all.
That's the meat of a BSD licsnse - do what you want, including renaming it, closing the source or moving licenses.
MS Windows once had some BSD stuff included in it - I don't know if it still does - and this is one of the reasons that they support the BSD license, but not the GPL, which "taints" derivatives with enforced freedom.
I wonder why they would insist upon this new clause. They're free to do it - it's their software after all, able to be licensed any way they wish, but I don't understand the motivation.
Booble states obviously that it has no relationship with Google. Google has no trademark on the work "Booble." Google's logo does not have breasts in it.
In other words, no one could possibly confuse the two sites, and it's existence does not minimize the impact of Google's trademark.
This is predatory practice because they are seeking to kill a competitor, not to defend themselves.
When would I suggest a corporation sue another? I'm not a lawyer, but I were king of the world, it would take a lot. Starting with actual, measurable monetary damages, resulting from the loss of physical income. Say if Booble hijacked Google's internet connection or IP block, or broke in and swiped a bunch of pens from thier supply closet. These are tangible losses.
"They look like us and we don't like it" isn't representative of monetary loss.
Well, first of all, anyone who doensn't react when the "lawyer button" gets pushed may want to spend some time re-examining goals. The U.S. Legal system is very diseased. I've never been sued, and I've never sued anyone, but any casual observer can see that the process is destroying what little faith people place in the system.
Second, Booble isn't stepping on Google's trademark. Yes, Booble has a logo that is obviously similar to Google's in a humorous way, and also obviously different - you may notice the prominent breasts.
Yes, Booble has a site that is obviously similar to Google's in a humorous way. And it's also obviously different.
Yes, th ehumor is poor, but there is no concern that any person would confuse the two sites, nor consider Booble to be watering down Google's trademark.
Google does not have a trademark on "Google and anything that may sound like it" and look and feel is indefensible.
Their demands do not relate to Booble changing their logo. Google is insisting on ownership of all domains that might sound something like google. Trademark law should not extend this far.
Google is not evil because they have engaged in litigation. Google should now be considered untrustworthy because they have used litigation against a target that is in no way injuring them, now or in the future, because they are not using thier trademark. They are showing a significant lack of humor, and an intent to force the legal system to once again stretch the concept of trademark law.
As a result, they move from the category of 'corporation pretending to have a soul' to 'corporation admitting that it doesn't'. This is presumably part of the new image they are putting on for the IPO, and this indicates that humans should stop placing any faith or support in Google beyond that which comes with legal documentation.
I'm not bashing Google, but I'm definitely making it obvious that I don't support Google's actions.
People keep indicating that this is a legal move for Google - of course it is. Anyone can sue for anything in the U.S. My point is that by excercising that right, Google goes off my radar as an organization I trust and support.
And you also obviously don't know (or care) what bitching is. I'm not complaining here - although some of these posts are out of anger, I'm stating how using predatory legal practices destroys the public's faith in a company, and contributes to the general negativity of the U.S. legal landscape.
If you've got some point to make, why don't you go and make it instead of trying to insult me?
It looks like two posts that agree with what I'm saying - that this is predatory behavior.
One talks about how this type of behavior is "bad and hurts everybody" and another that seems to think that google is acting in "self-defence", against an entity that isn't attacking them.
The fact that it's legal isn't enough to make me believe it's something I should support.
And you obviously don't know what bitching is.
What drives you to live above simple hunter-gatherer status, if you have no ideals to follow?
That just indicates how thin the line really is, between amoral (the best we can hope for) and immoral (a corporation's natural leaning) actions.
Google does not hold a trademark on the word Booble.
... well, what do you know? It goes public.
Google does not need to defend themselves from Booble - Google is big enough that they can absorb a considerable amount of uncomfortability, and Booble is well within that threshold.
Google is pulling the trigger here because they have reached a "critical legal mass" where it has become easier to destroy another organization than to reasonably deal with the possibility of some futire percieved competition. That's the symbol that all of the humanity has been removed from an organization - something that typically happens just before
At that point, it becomes, like I said, just a commodity tool, and no longer deserves the brand loyalty of humans.
You know what? Screw you and your dumb joke. Most, if not all corporations are evil.
Or at least amoral. There are only two options for a corporation: amoral or immoral.
When I see a company like google taking steps like these, then damnit, they step over the line, and they deserve what they get. That's the price they pay for the "invented status" we give corporations in America. They get the benefit of being an entity and massive tax cuts, without the negative aspects like being sued or jailed, and the people involved don't get held responsible for the reprehensible things they do.
It sucks, and that's where the outrage comes from - if the U.S. Stopped giving corporations a shield against the crimes they perpetrate and the ability to hold themselves outside of society, but still reap the benefits of being a member, then we wouldn't need to attack them over every infraction.
Amazingly, only an hour ago, I considered google one of the coolest companies I knew of, and actively defended them when people commented on the amount of googlebombing and googlespamming.
If this article is true, then they can go to hell, like all the other legal-driven asshat corporate tools I have to deal with on a regular basis.
Way to destroy that brand loyalty. For the first time in years, I'm going to go and see what other search engines exist, because web searching just became a commodity in my mind.
Actually, I think that Windows (and DOS before it) are the only modern OSes shipped with a shell that even remotely care about file extensions.
UNIX applications typically sniff the file to see what it contains, the MacOS uses stuff in the resource fork to track the file's creating app and type.
The problem here (as I understand it) is related to mime type vs file extension, in which the "file retrieval and processing camp" decided to follow one method of identification, and the "security and prevention" camp chose to follow another. This mostly comes about because while file extensions are *easy* to implement, they are inadequate for many situations. Find someone who is feeling lazy, under the gun, or improperly trained, and they will pick the wrong one.
Information about security breaches (and potential security breaches) has to be made known to all users as quickly as possible, so those users can defend themselves. When a "white hat" discovers a security problem, there is no way to tell how many "black hats" know about it and are already exploiting it.
Keeping an exploit out of the press doesn't prevent the bad guys from using it - it only keeps the users in the dark.