I'm wondering if the fact that contributions to Unity require copyright assignment going to Canonical has anything to do with the GNOME resistance to working with them on Unity.
Mark neatly does not mention this aspect of the division in his blog post.
I'm a member and I've never contributed a piece of code.
I do a bit of bug triaging and reporting on Launchpad. I work with the Loco here and people locally to get involved and educated in free software using Ubuntu.
If you ask me the membership doesn't do much overall. The major reason I went for it was to get the @ubuntu.com email address that l think helps on the advocacy front when I give someone my business card. Makes it seem more legit in some way.
this raises questions (again) about cloud computing, as well as Google's eternal beta-status for a lot of their services.
What do you mean it raises questions again? Did the questions get put down between the last time a flaw was found in 'the cloud' or Google's beta services and this time?
The questions are the same. The answers are the same. If you're not happy with it don't participate in it.
So for each failed attempt it's more traffic that you generate that goes against the mystery cap before getting your service cut off for the month for over usage of failed attempts due to their software.
The point of the 'opposition' I think is that such a fundamental piece of the software such as auto-updates should be a configuration option out of the box, not a default requirement needing a plug-in to disable it.
Someone made a mistake. Possibly Paypal, possibly the organizers of the fund.
My guess is that they had never set one of these up before and when setting up the Paypal account was asked many questions and they ticked of the wrong box.
This is not unreasonable due to those who tend to set these accounts up as scams. But putting the hold it forces the legit people to justify themselves and the bogus people to jump through hoops.
Now if you really want to be upset at someone it's the bankers who try to pull scams that caused these types of rules in the first place. The banking regulations that were tightened in the 90's. The Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that have caused increased accountability and paperwork.
For some other insights from Kevin check out this weeks LUGRadio interview from the episode "Pigeon! Like your English!" availible at http://lugradio.org/episodes/50.
Sounds like thier spam detection needs some fine tuning. It's catching opt-in mail and classifing it as spam.
So these sites that offer opt-in or opt-out policies are being subjected to the 'spammer' tag by these guys just because this company is not doing enough background on what they are checking and just wanting to be the first company to do something 'cool'.
Yes, a sofware company _could_ make a modification and deploy it in the kernel as you say. They could do that now for all you know.
But the beauty of open source is that you can find out about things like that by looking at the code. Seeing thier compile time options, build the kernel yourself and you would get the same size as they did. If it's different, something is wrong.
And as soon as a company is discovered doing something like that (and in this community they would be discovered sooner than later) they get a Slashdot/Digg/etc post that blasts them. And let's say for the sake of arguement that it is RH that pulls this stunt. What do you think thier trust levels would be after being found out? How many developers are going to help them to move forward?
That would be the difference between this idea and spyware.
I don't particularly care if someone is getting anonymous data about my usage of the linux kernel for most of my boxen. It'll help improve the performance with good accurate real world information. However I don't want some sensitive boxen that I am responsible for to output data to any other source for good or ill.
Slashdot Mirror
Access to one quantum processor is great and all, but how many cores does it give me access to?
If OKCupid is really that against FF as a browser, block the useragent string. Then I'll believe they really want to take a stand.
Also, as the FF CEO also created Javascript, get rid of that on the site.
I'm wondering if the fact that contributions to Unity require copyright assignment going to Canonical has anything to do with the GNOME resistance to working with them on Unity.
Mark neatly does not mention this aspect of the division in his blog post.
I'm a member and I've never contributed a piece of code.
I do a bit of bug triaging and reporting on Launchpad. I work with the Loco here and people locally to get involved and educated in free software using Ubuntu.
If you ask me the membership doesn't do much overall. The major reason I went for it was to get the @ubuntu.com email address that l think helps on the advocacy front when I give someone my business card. Makes it seem more legit in some way.
Wow, a credit card company changing the rules in the middle of the game.
How Shocking!
this raises questions (again) about cloud computing, as well as Google's eternal beta-status for a lot of their services.
What do you mean it raises questions again? Did the questions get put down between the last time a flaw was found in 'the cloud' or Google's beta services and this time?
The questions are the same. The answers are the same. If you're not happy with it don't participate in it.
So how will my game be able to be played?
The Chinese are not a good food source. You're only hungry again in an hour.
So are plants less dead than a cow on my dinner plate?
What I want to know is what makes these PETA (and similar) groups so damn sure that plants are not sentient in some way we don't understand
So for each failed attempt it's more traffic that you generate that goes against the mystery cap before getting your service cut off for the month for over usage of failed attempts due to their software.
The point of the 'opposition' I think is that such a fundamental piece of the software such as auto-updates should be a configuration option out of the box, not a default requirement needing a plug-in to disable it.
Someone made a mistake. Possibly Paypal, possibly the organizers of the fund.
My guess is that they had never set one of these up before and when setting up the Paypal account was asked many questions and they ticked of the wrong box.
This is not unreasonable due to those who tend to set these accounts up as scams. But putting the hold it forces the legit people to justify themselves and the bogus people to jump through hoops.
Now if you really want to be upset at someone it's the bankers who try to pull scams that caused these types of rules in the first place. The banking regulations that were tightened in the 90's. The Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that have caused increased accountability and paperwork.
For some other insights from Kevin check out this weeks LUGRadio interview from the episode "Pigeon! Like your English!" availible at http://lugradio.org/episodes/50.
CTU had certian information that SCSI was working with the terrorists and Jack got to SCSI first...
If only Gibson could hack.
Then get paid for it.
If you want to blog for the fun of it, don't take it so seriously. If you miss a day that's just too bad. If you regret missing a day, that's fine.
If I'm on vacation and miss blogging for a few days to a week or two, too bad. And if people complain, let them pay me to do it daily.
Well you've obviously never tried to change to a different provider have you.....
Sounds like thier spam detection needs some fine tuning. It's catching opt-in mail and classifing it as spam.
So these sites that offer opt-in or opt-out policies are being subjected to the 'spammer' tag by these guys just because this company is not doing enough background on what they are checking and just wanting to be the first company to do something 'cool'.
Yes, a sofware company _could_ make a modification and deploy it in the kernel as you say. They could do that now for all you know.
But the beauty of open source is that you can find out about things like that by looking at the code. Seeing thier compile time options, build the kernel yourself and you would get the same size as they did. If it's different, something is wrong.
And as soon as a company is discovered doing something like that (and in this community they would be discovered sooner than later) they get a Slashdot/Digg/etc post that blasts them. And let's say for the sake of arguement that it is RH that pulls this stunt. What do you think thier trust levels would be after being found out? How many developers are going to help them to move forward?
That would be the difference between this idea and spyware.
I don't particularly care if someone is getting anonymous data about my usage of the linux kernel for most of my boxen. It'll help improve the performance with good accurate real world information. However I don't want some sensitive boxen that I am responsible for to output data to any other source for good or ill.
So if I can chose, I'll be happy.
Well I can't offer you proof or conclusive evidence, but I can offer you a California jury saying it is so.
People still have them? I thought they went out years ago once satellite radios came into being.
They would be more of an idiot than SCO and MS combined.
And I don't say this as a troll.
Use your power and vote the current government out. Send a message to the politicians that you will not be censored!
What, oh, it's China, not the US?
My Bad.
Check thier web site. They had a press release on October 12 last year and they have announced that it will be availible Q1 2005.
What more do you want? It's all right there on thier home page at www.cherryos.com.
Is there anything else I can do for you?