Hear, hear. Just look at WHQL. The whole thing is a joke. It is common practice to submit drivers for testing that detect they are being run in a test environment and enable one code path in order to pass the tests; when they are run on an end-user's system they enable another code path which increases performance.
Didn't the BBC pay for models to be distributed to schools throughout the country and produce and broadcast lots of TV programmes that taught people how to use and program it?
It lets Google see his IP address! As you know, such broadcasting of one's IP address can be dangerous. Only this morning I recieved a helpful popup message about it.
Debian's Firefox package is 99% Mozilla's product; it just has a few patches that make it run better on the Debian operating system. Debian have never claimed otherwise; and mozilla.org never had a problem with the practice.
I wish mozilla.com would allocate some more resources to maintaining the 'Linux' port of Firefox (and their other programs) so that Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu and othes wouldn't have to apply so many patches themselves in the first place! But sadly, it appears that mozilla.com would rather protect their valuable intellectual property, even if it means they bite the hand that feeds them in the process.
By the way, comparing the work done by the maintainers of the Debian package to that of virus writers makes you appear either clueless or insulting. Which do you prefer?
The GPL does not demand that people linking to your code also license their works under the GPL. It only requres it of those creating a derivative work of your own work.
So another option would merely be to not sue those who distribute works that link against your own work.
I think we should ban general purpose computers altogether. People shouldn't even be allowed to install software on their own computers, because they may be tricked into installing a trojan horse or a virus, etc.
It's funny how this has never been an issue before. But now that mozilla.org has been replaced by mozilla.com, porting Firefox to your operating system becomes forbidden!
Most people really do believe that they have nothing to fear because they are not racists. 20% of us are actually employed by the government, and to vote for another party would put their livelyhood at risk. 15% of us are unemployed and so again voting for another party would jeopardize their income. A lot of people will simply vote Labour until the day they die because they are from the North and can not conceive of doing otherwise.
The bookmarks aren't stored in a database, they live in a bookmarks.html file. You're thinking of the history.
The present history and bookmarks code was originally going to be replaced by an sqllite database in Firefox 2, but they decided to push it back to Firefox 3 in order to get Firefox 2 out earlier.
I'm sure part of the percieved problem is that users don't have the first clue about how operating systems manage memory, and therefore don't know how to correctly interpret the numbers they see in top and the Windows task manager.
For the record, I've had epiphany (using xulrunner 1.8.0.7) open for 80 hours now. It has mapped 326 MB of memory, of which 122 MB is resident and 93 MB is 'private dirty'. So I can't claim to see this memory problem.
The plugins I have installed are the totem movie player, Java 1.5.0_08-b03, and Flash 9.0 r68. I use the CSS rules at http://www.floppymoose.com/ to block Flash until I click on it. Do you block Flash movies?
Well what exactly do you expect people to do? Record every web site they visit, every key they press, every mouse movement they make, so that when the browser's memory usage eventually gets too high there is a clear record of what has happened?
It would be easier for someone to write an extension that logs each page viewed by the user, along with the images, plugins, embedded objects and scripts encountered, the amount of reserved/resident/private dirty memory allocated to the firefox process, and a list of what firefox itsemf thinks the memory is allocated for and how much it thinks it is using.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they are already doing so.
Given that Mozilla don't fix security problems in old versions of their browsers at all... yes.
Microsoft {c,w}ould revoke your signing key and push the CRL out as a 'critical' update.
Hear, hear. Just look at WHQL. The whole thing is a joke. It is common practice to submit drivers for testing that detect they are being run in a test environment and enable one code path in order to pass the tests; when they are run on an end-user's system they enable another code path which increases performance.
FYI, the tri-licensing issue is bug #330295 and is fixed in Firefox's trunk and whatever branch Firefox 2.0 is being built from.
/ 03/relicensing_complete.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006
Why would you want to use the Official Use logo in a DDD?
The package in non-free could just dpkg-divert the DFSG-free artwork out of the way, replacing it with the original Firefox artwork.
It's not a fork! They are just going to add a patch that rebrands the browser. Learn your terminology.
What part of considered a bug don't you understand?
By the way, I use Debian and I've yet to see the non-free Debian logo actually in the Debian distribution. So I don't see what your point is.
It's unfair to make that comparison without acknowledging the tremendous difference in size and resources between Mozilla Corporation and Microsoft.
Security support for Debian 3.0 ("woody") only ended in June, 3 years and 11 months after its release. :)
Didn't the BBC pay for models to be distributed to schools throughout the country and produce and broadcast lots of TV programmes that taught people how to use and program it?
That's just the FSF's opinion. AFAIK, we have yet to see the matter decided in court.
It lets Google see his IP address! As you know, such broadcasting of one's IP address can be dangerous. Only this morning I recieved a helpful popup message about it.
Debian's Firefox package is 99% Mozilla's product; it just has a few patches that make it run better on the Debian operating system. Debian have never claimed otherwise; and mozilla.org never had a problem with the practice.
I wish mozilla.com would allocate some more resources to maintaining the 'Linux' port of Firefox (and their other programs) so that Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu and othes wouldn't have to apply so many patches themselves in the first place! But sadly, it appears that mozilla.com would rather protect their valuable intellectual property, even if it means they bite the hand that feeds them in the process.
By the way, comparing the work done by the maintainers of the Debian package to that of virus writers makes you appear either clueless or insulting. Which do you prefer?
The GPL does not demand that people linking to your code also license their works under the GPL. It only requres it of those creating a derivative work of your own work.
So another option would merely be to not sue those who distribute works that link against your own work.
I think we should ban general purpose computers altogether. People shouldn't even be allowed to install software on their own computers, because they may be tricked into installing a trojan horse or a virus, etc.
It's funny how this has never been an issue before. But now that mozilla.org has been replaced by mozilla.com, porting Firefox to your operating system becomes forbidden!
Hence, Mozilla are forcing them to change the name.
Please stop spreading FUD. Mozilla are forcing Debian to change the name.
There is pretty much no opposition to it.
Most people really do believe that they have nothing to fear because they are not racists.
20% of us are actually employed by the government, and to vote for another party would put their livelyhood at risk.
15% of us are unemployed and so again voting for another party would jeopardize their income.
A lot of people will simply vote Labour until the day they die because they are from the North and can not conceive of doing otherwise.
The bookmarks aren't stored in a database, they live in a bookmarks.html file. You're thinking of the history.
The present history and bookmarks code was originally going to be replaced by an sqllite database in Firefox 2, but they decided to push it back to Firefox 3 in order to get Firefox 2 out earlier.
I'm sure part of the percieved problem is that users don't have the first clue about how operating systems manage memory, and therefore don't know how to correctly interpret the numbers they see in top and the Windows task manager.
You missed -fomit-instructions.
For the record, I've had epiphany (using xulrunner 1.8.0.7) open for 80 hours now. It has mapped 326 MB of memory, of which 122 MB is resident and 93 MB is 'private dirty'. So I can't claim to see this memory problem.
The plugins I have installed are the totem movie player, Java 1.5.0_08-b03, and Flash 9.0 r68. I use the CSS rules at http://www.floppymoose.com/ to block Flash until I click on it. Do you block Flash movies?
It would be easier for someone to write an extension that logs each page viewed by the user, along with the images, plugins, embedded objects and scripts encountered, the amount of reserved/resident/private dirty memory allocated to the firefox process, and a list of what firefox itsemf thinks the memory is allocated for and how much it thinks it is using.