I remember a time, only a few years ago, where even one crash in several hours of use would be seen as unacceptable for software at a major version number release.
What the hell are you talking about? This has been a hallmark of FOSS software for over a decade.
It's ironic. Microsoft could become insolvent tomorrow and vanish off the face of the Earth, and still, at this point, ultimately they would have won.
Yeah, cause it's Microsoft's fault that a bunch of anti-Microsoft script kiddies have been producing shitty software for longer than they've even had dominance on the desktop. *yawn* get a new schtick you fucking turd.
Instead, it's purely about pleasing the lowest common denominator of mindless end users. Whatever said demographic screams for the loudest, they get.
That pretty much sums up Linux development since when it started.
Unless you're using some ancient 2x burner, you can burn full CDs in like 2 minutes and a full DVD-9 at around 10 minutes.
are too likely not to work on another drive or even the same drive,
Then you have a defective drive or you buy shit quality optical media. Never had any such issue in the 1000s of CDs and DVDs I've burned in the last 5 years. One might have had issues with this when CD and DVD burners first came out, but such an issue has long since passed.
have one little bad spot that spoils everything,
Unless that "one little bad spot" is a deep scratch this is also bullshit. DVD and CD error correction is far more robust than that unless you just have disks that were manufactured defectively.
No, I'm not missing anything. It's you who seem to be missing something. Google has partnerships with retailers to sell books through Google's store. Hence why they will be getting a chunk of the money from the sales.
I don't understand why they would be paying "the vast majority" (of whats left after paying the publisher) to retailers?
I haven't read the article yet, but either the summary is way off, misleading, or it just doesn't make sense!
Because the retailers want to be paid for their books that Google is selling from them?
Sorry, I don't trust you. I see no reason why either one of those organizations would willingly hire someone on as their general counsel when the person is working against their own cause.
That doesn't make them a vendor in any sense of the word. A vendor has a specific meaning as someone who sells something. The OSI and Linux Foundation don't sell products hence they are not vendors or "meta-vendors".
Yes, because the OSI and the Linux Foundation are going to hire lawyers to be their counsel that are actually enemies of their cause. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.
Except you seem to fail to realize that I or anyone can upgrade any project that has the "GPLv2 or any later version" in it's license clause all they want as well. This isn't something unique to the v3.
I was reffering to people who work at companies that write proprietary software and their lazy ass developpers.
Ahh yes because it's only proprietary software companies that have lazy developers. LOL.
They cannot copy GPL code because they don't want to use the GPL. People get hostile when their job is jeopardy because of a free of charge and rivaling GLP project.
So then all the companies that do copy GPL code aren't lazy, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a time, only a few years ago, where even one crash in several hours of use would be seen as unacceptable for software at a major version number release.
What the hell are you talking about? This has been a hallmark of FOSS software for over a decade.
It's ironic. Microsoft could become insolvent tomorrow and vanish off the face of the Earth, and still, at this point, ultimately they would have won.
Yeah, cause it's Microsoft's fault that a bunch of anti-Microsoft script kiddies have been producing shitty software for longer than they've even had dominance on the desktop. *yawn* get a new schtick you fucking turd.
Instead, it's purely about pleasing the lowest common denominator of mindless end users. Whatever said demographic screams for the loudest, they get.
That pretty much sums up Linux development since when it started.
Burns take too long,
Unless you're using some ancient 2x burner, you can burn full CDs in like 2 minutes and a full DVD-9 at around 10 minutes.
are too likely not to work on another drive or even the same drive,
Then you have a defective drive or you buy shit quality optical media. Never had any such issue in the 1000s of CDs and DVDs I've burned in the last 5 years. One might have had issues with this when CD and DVD burners first came out, but such an issue has long since passed.
have one little bad spot that spoils everything,
Unless that "one little bad spot" is a deep scratch this is also bullshit. DVD and CD error correction is far more robust than that unless you just have disks that were manufactured defectively.
Doubtful that Netflix has the rights to distribute things internationally.
WebKit and GCD?
No, I'm not missing anything. It's you who seem to be missing something. Google has partnerships with retailers to sell books through Google's store. Hence why they will be getting a chunk of the money from the sales.
I don't understand why they would be paying "the vast majority" (of whats left after paying the publisher) to retailers? I haven't read the article yet, but either the summary is way off, misleading, or it just doesn't make sense!
Because the retailers want to be paid for their books that Google is selling from them?
Oh and that floating Full/Abbreviated/Hidden thing on the left doesn't work, but then I don't use it on the desktop either.
That thing hasn't worked in ages. It's been broken for at least 3 or 4 months.
I'm willing to bet $10 million that no one is going to get laid off over this.
Yeah because when your yearly revenue exceeds $200 billion you definitely are going to sweat 10 million dollars.
No, the "but a minority are still affected" has to do with some people still experiencing outages.
How would buying Danger get more market share for WinCE or WinMo?
Microsoft Corporate Vice President Roz Ho says that all data will be restored, beginning with personal contacts.
She believes that only a minority of Sidekick users are still affected.
This is the quote in full context. There was no data loss.
Is it really that hard for you to just admit you were wrong and used incorrect terminology?
BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data
In fact, yes, people have lost data from Google. That isn't even the only example one can find.
Last I checked, Hotmail still ran on FreeBSD
Which was what? 8 years ago?
Sorry, I don't trust you. I see no reason why either one of those organizations would willingly hire someone on as their general counsel when the person is working against their own cause.
That doesn't make them a vendor in any sense of the word. A vendor has a specific meaning as someone who sells something. The OSI and Linux Foundation don't sell products hence they are not vendors or "meta-vendors".
Except that this is a story about a "web conference hosted by the license-sniffing firm Black Duck software".
Umm, no it's not. They are about what two lawyers who work for the OSI and the Linux Foundation think may be legal deficiencies in the GPLv2.
Yes, because the OSI and the Linux Foundation are going to hire lawyers to be their counsel that are actually enemies of their cause. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.
Except this is a story about lawyers who work for the OSI and the Linux Foundation. Not for SCO. Hardly organizations that are anti-FOSS.
Except you seem to fail to realize that I or anyone can upgrade any project that has the "GPLv2 or any later version" in it's license clause all they want as well. This isn't something unique to the v3.
I was reffering to people who work at companies that write proprietary software and their lazy ass developpers.
Ahh yes because it's only proprietary software companies that have lazy developers. LOL.
They cannot copy GPL code because they don't want to use the GPL. People get hostile when their job is jeopardy because of a free of charge and rivaling GLP project.
So then all the companies that do copy GPL code aren't lazy, right?
The OSI and the Linux Foundation aren't vendors.
What does Microsoft have to do with a story about lawyers from the OSI and the Linux Foundation saying the GPLv2 may have legal issues?