Google is another deal. Pay $ millions and new version of browser defaults to ON for "Anti phishing", sending every URL to Google Inc.
Except that Firefox doesn't send anything to Google. It checks your urls against a locally stored blacklist, which it periodically updates from Google's servers.
Instead, Rob Malda posts this gem to the front page, claiming that Microsoft "prefers" Flash to Silverlight because Microsoft doesn't have some super-special-secret transmogrifier that could spontaneously transform each and every Flash animation on each and every web site Microsoft owns into Silverlight content, and didn't use it the very minute Silverlight 1.0 was released to the public. but at least it said "from the recoding-takes-time dept."...
The language pack was not infected with the trojan itself. It only contained some HTML code displaying ads in the help files. These were inserted BY the trojan, on the language pack contributor's infected computer, but the language pack itself only contained the ad-displaying code.
"the author's local network was infected with the virus, so it modified html files. The main virus is a Win32 program. The infected code just display annoying banner but it can't propagate." -- https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=432406#c10
I'm replying to this thread to put this information at the top of the discussion because the article summary makes it sound like the language pack actually infected people's systems with the trojan.
Which is, of course, pure unadulterated bullshit. [...] That right there is proof enough that the author has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
Yes. And so is this:
Mark Shuttleworth - who has been funding Ubuntu out of the half billion dollar fortune he earned from closed source software back in the 90s
He made his half billion dollars not on closed source software, but on a digital certificates company (which was by the way running on free software).
Because people are willing to pay money for Microsoft Office. If they bundle a free OpenOffice, they lose MS Office sales. Therefore they don't.
That issue doesn't exist with browsers, because it's not something the OEMs make money selling, so they wouldn't lose any profits by bundling Firefox or Opera, since web browsers are free.
Is there a GUI tool in Ubuntu for disabling the power button? My daughter has discovered buttons and likes to crawl around pushing them. I found it in XP without any problems. I can't seem to find it in Ubuntu.
Have you looked in System->Preferences->Power Management?
Why in the world not? Seriously, enough with the rms-bashing. A *judge* of all people should be expected to judge the arguments, not the appearance of the person stating them.
So, GPLers are taking huge amounts of BSD code, locking it up under an incompatible license, and all too often contributing nothing back. If a commercial company did this, BSDers would get at least a little bit upset. It's strictly allowed by the license, but definitely antisocial behavior.
Commercial companies do that all the time, which is FINE - that is the idea of BSD-style licenses, that anyone can take it and make changes without ever contributing anything back. It seems absurd to me to put something under a license which specifically permits that, and then complain about someone releasing some changes under the GPL, whose major difference from the BSD license is that it requires people to contribute back the changes. If they want people to contribute changes back, why didn't they put their code under the GPL instead of the BSD license in the first place?
I think you are wrong, and Intel has NOT released documentation, only drivers, and that is why noone else can fix the driver issues. What Matthew was talking about that anyone could do is a planned architecture change in X that would work around the driver issues. That's how I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, GPL 2 vs. GPL 3: what exactly changes from a programmer's point of view?
Some ways were found to get around the intent of GPLv2 without violating the letter of it; version 3 attempts to close those loopholes. For example, where version 2 said that you had to distribute the modified source along with your binaries to allow the recipient to modify the software, version 3 adds that you cannot try to get around that by putting in a hardware check to prevent running those modified versions. Think of GPLv3 as a bugfix update to v2.
Public School in America is communist education. There is no benefit for working harder or being smarter. You still get the same lessons, at the same time, in the same way.
I have to correct your usage of the word communist here. A short definition of communism is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", so a communist school would be the exact opposite of what you describe: One where each individual student would get the education they need.
Isn't the whole point of Open Source to have "freedom"?
If you believe that, you should maybe be careful using the term "Open Source", because that term was invented specifically to have a way to talk about some of the practical aspects of Free Software without mentioning that it's about freedom. You should read http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software- for-freedom.html
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh*
please READ THE GPL VERSION 2 before talking about what the spirit of it was.
or if you did read it, you have misunderstood it, so go read it again.
Except that Firefox doesn't send anything to Google. It checks your urls against a locally stored blacklist, which it periodically updates from Google's servers.
I'm surprised noone posted a link to this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qmXv3naV_IQ
The language pack was not infected with the trojan itself. It only contained some HTML code displaying ads in the help files. These were inserted BY the trojan, on the language pack contributor's infected computer, but the language pack itself only contained the ad-displaying code.
"the author's local network was infected with the virus, so it modified html files. The main virus is a Win32 program. The infected code just display annoying banner but it can't propagate." -- https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=432406#c10
I'm replying to this thread to put this information at the top of the discussion because the article summary makes it sound like the language pack actually infected people's systems with the trojan.
I still prefer calling them Micros~1.
Which is, of course, pure unadulterated bullshit. [...] That right there is proof enough that the author has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
Yes. And so is this:
He made his half billion dollars not on closed source software, but on a digital certificates company (which was by the way running on free software).
http://xkcd.com/285/
I can! http://uk.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4806B1FAAC9C7DE1
Because people are willing to pay money for Microsoft Office. If they bundle a free OpenOffice, they lose MS Office sales. Therefore they don't.
That issue doesn't exist with browsers, because it's not something the OEMs make money selling, so they wouldn't lose any profits by bundling Firefox or Opera, since web browsers are free.
Other operating systems already have number 1, 2 and 6 on that list. Shows how far behind MS is!
Jonathan Schwartz is gonna be pissed off.
Have you looked in System->Preferences->Power Management?
Obviously your robot's kill switch works the wrong way around, as it killed your modem (a machine) instead of you.
HA! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, THANK YOU for that. It boosted my mood in just the way I needed right now.
That was his point.
Again, that's what they meant!
Why in the world not? Seriously, enough with the rms-bashing. A *judge* of all people should be expected to judge the arguments, not the appearance of the person stating them.
Commercial companies do that all the time, which is FINE - that is the idea of BSD-style licenses, that anyone can take it and make changes without ever contributing anything back. It seems absurd to me to put something under a license which specifically permits that, and then complain about someone releasing some changes under the GPL, whose major difference from the BSD license is that it requires people to contribute back the changes. If they want people to contribute changes back, why didn't they put their code under the GPL instead of the BSD license in the first place?
I think you are wrong, and Intel has NOT released documentation, only drivers, and that is why noone else can fix the driver issues. What Matthew was talking about that anyone could do is a planned architecture change in X that would work around the driver issues. That's how I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Some ways were found to get around the intent of GPLv2 without violating the letter of it; version 3 attempts to close those loopholes. For example, where version 2 said that you had to distribute the modified source along with your binaries to allow the recipient to modify the software, version 3 adds that you cannot try to get around that by putting in a hardware check to prevent running those modified versions. Think of GPLv3 as a bugfix update to v2.
I have to correct your usage of the word communist here. A short definition of communism is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", so a communist school would be the exact opposite of what you describe: One where each individual student would get the education they need.
If you believe that, you should maybe be careful using the term "Open Source", because that term was invented specifically to have a way to talk about some of the practical aspects of Free Software without mentioning that it's about freedom. You should read http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software