Chrome was released earlier, but it didn't immediately catch up so it all makes sense.
I personally never thought of Mozilla as a company. And since they are not a company they don't have the survival skills of one. Google, on the other hand, is a predator and Mozilla is no match. It sucks, but that's how the real world works.
Who's going to buy refined products if they were available? Americans don't need Canadian gasoline and I don't see any other countries near Canada on the map.
That "someone" didn't get Russia, China, France and Britain to sit down and negotiate with Iran. Those countries never had as big as problem with nuclear Iran as the U.S. did/does. It was mostly the other way around - the U.S. threatening Iran and the others with leaving the talks and keeping the sanctions every other day.
It does make economic sense, but it's not easy/cheap/quick. In fact, that's what's being done in my city right now. But they started extending the existing platforms 2 years ago and it's going to take another year. Some platforms had to be moved/rebuilt from scratch. So back to my point - it's not easy:)
It's not easy to add cars because you'd have to extend existing platforms to accommodate longer trains, which is usually expensive and time consuming.
This is not to discard the entire point about the value of light rail, but that particular argument is incorrect.
You're missing the point. I'm commenting on the expectations of significantly lower price for the same service promised by SpaceX, not on the reliability. A failure rate is factored in the price of Russian rockets.
Things can not be what they used to be forever, especially in IT. Things change.* A few years ago there was no Chrome - it was FF and IE. Now the browser market is completely different. Maybe Yahoo isn't paying Mozilla as much as Google used to so Mozilla needs new partnerships. It's complicated, we can only guess what's going on behind the scenes in Mozilla's business, but ultimately, they do what they think is best - for them and for their users. Those priorities don't necessarily align all the time.
* Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!
Well, maybe more expensive Russian rockets cost what they do for a reason? Maybe promising 2-3 times cheaper price for the same (or better) service was a little too good to be true?
What's an "open source company"? Mozilla, like any company, has to generate enough revenue to pay their employees, do R&D, marketing and cover a bunch of other expenses. How they do it is up to them. Whether to use their products is up to you.
I'm ok with the current version of FF and I don't feel sold out. Sure, there are a few picky things I'd like improved in FF, but the alternatives are way worse.
Why isn't the cost of solar panels included in any of the calculations about the Tesla's battery? What use is the battery if you don't have a way to charge it "for free"?
Or am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
Who is crazy enough to still be working for Yahoo?
What's wrong with KDE being an option in OpenSUSE?
I wonder why AT&T didn't go with Red Hat.
And that is fine with me. I really don't care if they care.
Why does Mozilla think FirefoxOS would be more relevant in IoT than it was on smartphones?
The poor economic conditions are overwhelmingly due to low oil prices. The effect of sanctions is minuscule compared to the oil factor.
1. New doesn't mean useful
2. Going to the Moon is not exactly new...
Chrome was released earlier, but it didn't immediately catch up so it all makes sense. I personally never thought of Mozilla as a company. And since they are not a company they don't have the survival skills of one. Google, on the other hand, is a predator and Mozilla is no match. It sucks, but that's how the real world works.
Actually, just one thing happened - Chrome.
Who's going to buy refined products if they were available? Americans don't need Canadian gasoline and I don't see any other countries near Canada on the map.
Not sure why Warren Buffet would be doing a happy dance since he bought a large stake in Suncor, the largest oil sands producer.
That "someone" didn't get Russia, China, France and Britain to sit down and negotiate with Iran. Those countries never had as big as problem with nuclear Iran as the U.S. did/does. It was mostly the other way around - the U.S. threatening Iran and the others with leaving the talks and keeping the sanctions every other day.
It does make economic sense, but it's not easy/cheap/quick. In fact, that's what's being done in my city right now. But they started extending the existing platforms 2 years ago and it's going to take another year. Some platforms had to be moved/rebuilt from scratch. So back to my point - it's not easy :)
It's easy to add more cars to the train.
It's not easy to add cars because you'd have to extend existing platforms to accommodate longer trains, which is usually expensive and time consuming.
This is not to discard the entire point about the value of light rail, but that particular argument is incorrect.
You're missing the point. I'm commenting on the expectations of significantly lower price for the same service promised by SpaceX, not on the reliability. A failure rate is factored in the price of Russian rockets.
Things can not be what they used to be forever, especially in IT. Things change.* A few years ago there was no Chrome - it was FF and IE. Now the browser market is completely different. Maybe Yahoo isn't paying Mozilla as much as Google used to so Mozilla needs new partnerships. It's complicated, we can only guess what's going on behind the scenes in Mozilla's business, but ultimately, they do what they think is best - for them and for their users. Those priorities don't necessarily align all the time.
* Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!
Well, maybe more expensive Russian rockets cost what they do for a reason? Maybe promising 2-3 times cheaper price for the same (or better) service was a little too good to be true?
I never said Mozilla was/should be free of criticism. I just disagreed with you comparing free Firefox with paid cable.
What's an "open source company"? Mozilla, like any company, has to generate enough revenue to pay their employees, do R&D, marketing and cover a bunch of other expenses. How they do it is up to them. Whether to use their products is up to you. I'm ok with the current version of FF and I don't feel sold out. Sure, there are a few picky things I'd like improved in FF, but the alternatives are way worse.
"Every other open source company" makes money on support - what's there to support in Mozilla's products for end users?
But you pay for cable TV. And you don't pay for Firefox. Yet, Mozilla pays its employees.
Let me guess - you don't want ads on the internet either, right? Do you also want free groceries, free gas, free clothes etc?
Where I live the price (at least for residential customers) doesn't change at night.
Why isn't the cost of solar panels included in any of the calculations about the Tesla's battery? What use is the battery if you don't have a way to charge it "for free"? Or am I missing something?
In other words, Russia fulfills its contractual obligations despite all the politics and actually CAN be trusted.