If you just want to change one line in a larger function and it has a non-free license. You probably can't copy the modified function and distribute the greasemonkey script.
The article specifically talks about government websites, I can see if I already paid for it through taxes, then why should not be able to modify it and run in my browser on my machine as I see fit ?
This isn't related to copyright, you aren't distributing the code by running the code in your own browser on your machine.
The FSF was never interrested in giving developers freedom, they are care about users freedom. They want source code to be available so if a user wants a program to work in a different way then intended by the original developer they can modify it themselves or pay a developer to do so.
I think the FSF wants developers to create code users ask for. The user would pay the developer for the time spent on creating that code.
Many virus-scanners and proxy servers actually change the headers the browser sends and thus the server will still send non-compressed HTML, CSS, Javascript.
Last time I looked the share of users that didn't get gzip-compressed content sent to their browser was above 10%.
On a website like Google more than 10% actually does matters.
Slashdot Mirror
If not, you can use Emscripten/asm.js to just recompile the runtime as Javascript and be done quicker.
The parent basically mentioned VNC, RDP and called it CloudOS. That didn't make a lot of sense to me.
HTML5 supports offline apps, how about your CloudOS ?
More open is good for the user.
Page load time, you really want to download all the images, css, js, etc. all over again every time you visit a site ?
Static files really are static files:
http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/01/04/performance-research-part-2/
Overcomplex solution for this specific problem (you might have other reasons)
As the article states, if you don't want anything cached Use Private Window/Incognito mode.
Or Safari, Safari doesn't cache at all for HTTPS.
Really ? Works just fine here.
There seems to be a larger barrier to calling someone by phone than walking to the next cubicle to ask someone.
But people will call you.
Some companies do some other tricks. I believe Github uses a chatroom as their main communication channel. Look up How GitHub Works.
It is possible, but only with a lot of effort.
The solution is obviously things like mulitpath-TCP.
Even with lowerbandwidth network you can do bulk data copying and streaming video.
The problem is probably somewhere else in your network, look up Bufferbloat and CoDel.
They don't, they have their own datacenters.
Windows is strong on the server because of the desktop, office and integration of all these products for businesses.
So what if Windows or Office or both are have a much smaller market share ? Gone are these advantages.
You actually have it wrong.
There are over 6 billion phone users in the world and only 1 billion smartphone users.
There is a lot more markets that smartphones can expend to.
That is why Mozilla and their partners are talking about markets like Brazil and India.
You are wrong.
English isn't even my first language.
If you just want to change one line in a larger function and it has a non-free license. You probably can't copy the modified function and distribute the greasemonkey script.
None of that works, on a lot of desktop machines the keyboard is USB too.
Windows 8 made it even more complicated to install Linux. Not only because of UEFI but also because of Fast Boot.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM4MDY
The stupid thing is, it also makes it harder to fix Windows.
It might even make it legally very complicated to get a refund from Microsoft if you want a refund for the pre-installed software.
The article specifically talks about government websites, I can see if I already paid for it through taxes, then why should not be able to modify it and run in my browser on my machine as I see fit ?
This isn't related to copyright, you aren't distributing the code by running the code in your own browser on your machine.
Do you really think Stallman spents time on movies and television ? I really doubt he thinks it is interresting.
I think you should have read the article that was linked from the article, that specifically mentions this type of Javascript-code:
"in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long"
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
The FSF was never interrested in giving developers freedom, they are care about users freedom. They want source code to be available so if a user wants a program to work in a different way then intended by the original developer they can modify it themselves or pay a developer to do so.
I think the FSF wants developers to create code users ask for. The user would pay the developer for the time spent on creating that code.
Why would people not get paid ?
Many people currently get paid to create new GPL-code.
No, you actually didn't understand the FSF.
The article points to an other article which talks about things like what Google docs does:
"in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long"
it is especially that last part they have a problem with.
Many virus-scanners and proxy servers actually change the headers the browser sends and thus the server will still send non-compressed HTML, CSS, Javascript.
Last time I looked the share of users that didn't get gzip-compressed content sent to their browser was above 10%.
On a website like Google more than 10% actually does matters.
"You can't easily take the source, modify it significantly and use it on the site no matter what license they give you."
Greasemonkey does exactly this.
How about a sign next to the door of the shop that they have CCTV ?
That would allow people to choose not to go into the shop.
Sometimes it really is that simple.