...*who* exactly are making megabucks riding on the backs of developers? Mozilla is a non-profit foundation. There are no stock holders. NOBODY privately profits from the money generated by the Mozilla project. They pay salaries to employees, that's it. Noone is getting rich from it.
Gecko is "Mozilla's" in the same way that the Linux kernel is "Red Hat's". They contribute to it, but not a whole lot, they concentrate on building the browser. I.e., the bits that bring in their dollars.
Note to everyone, parent is a troll, and the above statement is an outright lie. (I felt that I had to post this and point this out so people didn't get misled into believing that statement.)
Don't forget "use" and "possession" crimes. They should be in the top 10.
Indeed. If you haven't, you should consider reading the most excellent book on this subject, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams, available from amazon here and full text online here.
(That's not a referral link, I won't make any money if you buy the book from amazon via that link, I'm just posting this because I happen to think that the world will be a better place if more people read that book.)
Yes, it seems that you did actually miss one thing, namely that it wasn't ext4 that was referred to as a next-generation filesystem, but rather btrfs. So while ext4 might only have incremental improvements, noone claimed anything else. btrfs is what they claimed was next-gen, with ext4 being, as the title says, an interim step.
As to a definition of what makes a filesystem "next-generation", I cannot say.
It gets worse: Ctrl+Tab has in fact switched tabs in every firefox version EVER, as it was inherited from the original mozilla frontend ("seamonkey") that FF was forked from. But apparently the author just discovered it now and forgot to do their research:-)
What if you develop a pure software product that is bundled, by a distributor, on the same physical medium as a GPL3 infringing product? What are the legal ramifications versus your product which wasn't infringing in the first place, but now possibly is?
There is no way that some distributor bundling something you made with something else could possibly make your product infringe anything.
"The biggest thing that's got me down is that on the ATI fglrx open source driver running on Ubuntu Hardy, the minimap is white."
On which driver again? There's the proprietary fglrx driver, and then there's two different open source drivers. "the ATI fglrx open source driver" makes no sense.
The Netscape browser skipped version 5 to catch up with MSIE.
I always thought they were working on a 5.0 release that got cancelled in favor of the new codebase, and therefore the next final release after 4.x ended up being 6.0. Is it just a guess or something you know for sure, that they skipped v5 to match IEs version number for appearances sake?
(And while I agree with you on the "lack of anarchy" part, you know, you could just have written something like "the existense of coercive authorities" if you wanted to, you know, make it clear to a lot more people what you meant:-) Actually "lack of anarchy" is a pretty weird phrase -- I'm sure you know what the 'an' part of the word means, so why not complain about what you're complaining about, instead of complaining about the lack of lack of it?:) )
Sun is about to lose the enterprise completely and they don't even know it. [...] Lustre--which only works on Linux--is what is really needed to take on this decade's problems.
-- parent post
Lustre is a scalable, secure, robust, highly-available cluster file system. It is designed, developed and maintained by Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Notice that it says GNOME and not Gnome. Can you give me a reference to back up the claim that it has been renamed, or are you just claiming random statements as facts?
Notice also that it specifically states that GNOME is part of the GNU project. How it fits into the running system is irrelevant then, isn't it, when you were talking about the unfairness of not mentioning GNOME. I don't even see the point of arguing about this, I just pointed out that GNOME happened to be part of the GNU project, I wasn't trying to start a discussion -- and now it seems like you are suddenly attempting to contradict facts just to have something to argue about?:-)
Adobe has Open sourced the SWF file format, the Flex framework (for building.net-style flash apps) and donated the Tamarin (look it up) project to Mozilla. I'd say your worries are unfounded.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.
They released _some_ documentation for the SWF file format (to say they "open sourced" it is nonsense), but that document were missing large portions necessary to implement the file format, and the information that they did release contained practically nothing that the free software community hadn't already reversed engineered, and the license agreement for their Flash player still contains anti-reverse engineering clauses which obstruct free software developers. The SWF documentation release was a big PR move with no substance.
Read and/or watch from 3:20 of .
The scripting engine that you mention (Tamarin) is only a small part of the Flash player, and Flex is just a project running on top of Flash -- it's no good in itself.
Applets would work really fine nowadays they cannot be used due to being a plugin, flash only can be used because everyone has flash on his machine, once Microsoft drops the default flash install on a future windows version flash will go the same way applets did. *What* are you talking about? Flash is not and has never been part of a default Windows install.
Honestly, how can I begrudge Microsoft for giving me IE for free when, how the fuck else would I download Firefox? ftp to releases.mozilla.org? Windows has command-line ftp.:-P
Six point three million lines of code???
The SOURCE for java is 6.3 megabytes? 6.3 megabytes is 6.3 million bytes. For 6.3 million lines of code. That's a single byte per line of code? That doesn't sound right!
I tried installing the source tarball in CYGWIN, but no avail. I know you're joking, but might wine-under-cygwin actually be a solution to Vista's incompability with some software written for older versions of windows?
Official Firefox 2 support will only last six months after Firefox 3 is released (though most Linux vendors will support it far longer) so we won't want to wait too long to start transitioning people Given that Firefox 3.1 should be out by then: Have you considered to not auto-upgrade firefox 2.x users to 3.0, and wait for 3.1 instead and upgrade them directly to that?
Some service packs contain significant new software. How else would they pass 100MB in size? From my experience with Microsoft's operating systems, I do not in any way find it hard to believe that a bug-fix-only update could be larger than 100MB.
Or maybe I do find that hard to believe, but then only because they wouldn't spend resources on fixing so many bugs (or are too incompetent, or whatever) -- not because there aren't enough bugs to fix for an update of that size to be realistic.
You said, "The spirit of the GPL is to keep the code open so everybody benefits. [...] GPL was always about the code never about the users or the hardware".
Okay. The opening words of the GPL v2 are "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.".
So, we have a license which states in the first line that it is designed to keep software "free". This license comes from a project called GNU. So, what does the GNU project mean when they say "free software"? Let's see:
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software" (emphasis added) - From the GNU Project's Free Software Definition.
I did misremember, and think that those words were in the actual GPL and not just in the Free Software Definition document, but when the name of the license is the GNU GPL, and it claims to be about protecting software freedom, and the GNU project clearly has states what they mean by that (freedom for users of the software), then there's no way you can claim that "RMS has gone off in a new (IMHO worse) direction". Because this is the direction he's been on all along. Listen to anything he ever said: He has always stated that he was fighting for freedom for users primarily.
Slashdot Mirror
...*who* exactly are making megabucks riding on the backs of developers? Mozilla is a non-profit foundation. There are no stock holders. NOBODY privately profits from the money generated by the Mozilla project. They pay salaries to employees, that's it. Noone is getting rich from it.
Note to everyone, parent is a troll, and the above statement is an outright lie. (I felt that I had to post this and point this out so people didn't get misled into believing that statement.)
Don't forget "use" and "possession" crimes. They should be in the top 10.
Indeed. If you haven't, you should consider reading the most excellent book on this subject, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams, available from amazon here and full text online here.
(That's not a referral link, I won't make any money if you buy the book from amazon via that link, I'm just posting this because I happen to think that the world will be a better place if more people read that book.)
Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation (if he has it)? Everyone else has to.
What, his birth certificate (which has been verified to be valid) isn't documentation enough for you?
(You are talking about documentation of U.S. citizenship, right? Or did I just misunderstand you?)
Or did I miss something?
Yes, it seems that you did actually miss one thing, namely that it wasn't ext4 that was referred to as a next-generation filesystem, but rather btrfs. So while ext4 might only have incremental improvements, noone claimed anything else. btrfs is what they claimed was next-gen, with ext4 being, as the title says, an interim step.
As to a definition of what makes a filesystem "next-generation", I cannot say.
It gets worse: Ctrl+Tab has in fact switched tabs in every firefox version EVER, as it was inherited from the original mozilla frontend ("seamonkey") that FF was forked from. But apparently the author just discovered it now and forgot to do their research :-)
What if you develop a pure software product that is bundled, by a distributor, on the same physical medium as a GPL3 infringing product? What are the legal ramifications versus your product which wasn't infringing in the first place, but now possibly is?
There is no way that some distributor bundling something you made with something else could possibly make your product infringe anything.
Aren't you missing a space between the 's:' and the 'a--' in your geek code there?
"The biggest thing that's got me down is that on the ATI fglrx open source driver running on Ubuntu Hardy, the minimap is white."
On which driver again? There's the proprietary fglrx driver, and then there's two different open source drivers. "the ATI fglrx open source driver" makes no sense.
The Netscape browser skipped version 5 to catch up with MSIE.
I always thought they were working on a 5.0 release that got cancelled in favor of the new codebase, and therefore the next final release after 4.x ended up being 6.0. Is it just a guess or something you know for sure, that they skipped v5 to match IEs version number for appearances sake?
(And while I agree with you on the "lack of anarchy" part, you know, you could just have written something like "the existense of coercive authorities" if you wanted to, you know, make it clear to a lot more people what you meant :-) Actually "lack of anarchy" is a pretty weird phrase -- I'm sure you know what the 'an' part of the word means, so why not complain about what you're complaining about, instead of complaining about the lack of lack of it? :) )
7 + 6.1 != 6.55.
7 + 6.1 / 2 = 6.55.
That is all.
-- parent post
-- http://www.lustre.org/
Hmm...
Huh? http://www.gnome.org/about/ says "GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project".
Notice that it says GNOME and not Gnome. Can you give me a reference to back up the claim that it has been renamed, or are you just claiming random statements as facts?
Notice also that it specifically states that GNOME is part of the GNU project. How it fits into the running system is irrelevant then, isn't it, when you were talking about the unfairness of not mentioning GNOME. I don't even see the point of arguing about this, I just pointed out that GNOME happened to be part of the GNU project, I wasn't trying to start a discussion -- and now it seems like you are suddenly attempting to contradict facts just to have something to argue about? :-)
Linux/GNU/X.Org/Gnome would be a fairer (but sillier) name ....
Mentioning GNOME once you have already mentioned GNU would be redundant (guess what the G in GNOME stands for...)
Adobe has Open sourced the SWF file format, the Flex framework (for building .net-style flash apps) and donated the Tamarin (look it up) project to Mozilla. I'd say your worries are unfounded.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.They released _some_ documentation for the SWF file format (to say they "open sourced" it is nonsense), but that document were missing large portions necessary to implement the file format, and the information that they did release contained practically nothing that the free software community hadn't already reversed engineered, and the license agreement for their Flash player still contains anti-reverse engineering clauses which obstruct free software developers. The SWF documentation release was a big PR move with no substance.
Read and/or watch from 3:20 of .
The scripting engine that you mention (Tamarin) is only a small part of the Flash player, and Flex is just a project running on top of Flash -- it's no good in itself.
Wait, wait, wait...
Six point three million lines of code??? The SOURCE for java is 6.3 megabytes? 6.3 megabytes is 6.3 million bytes. For 6.3 million lines of code. That's a single byte per line of code? That doesn't sound right!No, any comparison of one version of Mac OS to another is certainly an Apple to Apple comparison.
"standards compliant DNS lookup error"?
Please point me to the standard in which said compliant DNS lookup error displaying behaviour is specified.
(No such thing exists, and displaying an error message would not be any more "standards compliant" than the ask-google behaviour.)
Or maybe I do find that hard to believe, but then only because they wouldn't spend resources on fixing so many bugs (or are too incompetent, or whatever) -- not because there aren't enough bugs to fix for an update of that size to be realistic.
You said, "The spirit of the GPL is to keep the code open so everybody benefits. [...] GPL was always about the code never about the users or the hardware".
Okay. The opening words of the GPL v2 are "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.".
So, we have a license which states in the first line that it is designed to keep software "free". This license comes from a project called GNU. So, what does the GNU project mean when they say "free software"? Let's see:
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software" (emphasis added)
- From the GNU Project's Free Software Definition.
I did misremember, and think that those words were in the actual GPL and not just in the Free Software Definition document, but when the name of the license is the GNU GPL, and it claims to be about protecting software freedom, and the GNU project clearly has states what they mean by that (freedom for users of the software), then there's no way you can claim that "RMS has gone off in a new (IMHO worse) direction". Because this is the direction he's been on all along. Listen to anything he ever said: He has always stated that he was fighting for freedom for users primarily.