The Firefox installer sets Firefox to be the default browser on install. (Or, at least, it used to. Not sure if it still does; I stopped using Windows entirely.) Did the Google Pack do that?
Totally agree. Got any ideas to actually make it change? I don't. Politicians in Canada have misrepresented Canadians repeatedly on issues such as these, and voting that set out and a new set in has done precisely nothing. US politicians have done the same. (I assume you're in the US.)
Yes, I even mentioned that I have problems with the whole idea in what you replied to. But as much as I dislike most Microsoft products, blaming the company for the way the system works is just silly.
There really isn't one. Microsoft spent money researching, created something, and patented it. Now, they are doing what they ethically must: using previous investments (R&D, patents) to maximize value for their shareholders.
I haven't seen these patents, obviously. (I don't think we even know which they are.) I imagine some of them are broad, cover-everything patents. But some are probably fairly specific, given that Microsoft actually creates products in the same category and isn't (exclusively) a patent troll.
The flaw is that the patents are allowed to exist; the "wrong" is that conditions that allow this to happen exist, not that it's happening. The system needs reform.
Since RIM and HP both have mobile patent portfolios of their own, I imagine there is some variety of cross-licensing at work (and possibly cash transfers, one way or the other). I think RIM and Microsoft are suing each other as well.
You're kidding right? Only a few releases ago, Xcode 3 produced code that hard crashed on armv6. A few months before that, it produced code that potentially crashed on startup, but only when re-signed by Apple's keys.
I can't remember the last time I fought code signing problems for a full day, but I can assure you it was with Xcode 3 not 4.
This is the way it is, and if anything it's getting better as time goes on.
There's a couple minor bugs that can cause this. Are you using the latest released Xcode 4? At least one of the causes was fixed in a.0.1 release.
Other than that, search StackOverflow, etc.
Important thing to know is that your experience isn't typical. There IS a fix. Sorry I can't give you details; I haven't run into this myself, but discussed in passing with someone who had hit it.
I should say that I'm likely seeing different changes than the rest of you (I'm not in the US), so it's entirely possible the changes you're seeing are just terrible crap changes.
Facebook is exactly what I was thinking about, actually. Nearly every Facebook UI change I've actually liked, with just a couple problems. That have generally been fixed quickly.
But I need to read through comment after comment about how the world is ending, along with watching people fall for stupid scams because they think they can Like this one thing and things will go back to the way they were.
Meanwhile, some jerk at (say) CNet or The Guardian will hop on it as if it's actual story and ride it into the ground, beating the dead horse and continuing to stir up bad feeling until it stops garnering pageviews.
Didn't say that. Trying something out before commencing the loud complaining would probably be useful, though. Complain if it doesn't suit you. (I'd argue you should be specific in your complaints, though; "thumbs down", "it sucks", "I'm cancelling" are all useless.)
But my real complaint is treating every story "Users hate recent changes to ____.com!" as if it were a real story. It's not. It's just the general ebb and flow, and masturbation for tech news.
I mean, granted, it may be a bad change. That'd cause users to hate it, sure. But it could just as easily be a good change, and nearly the same number (and indeed, nearly the same individual) users would hate it.
A lack of flexibility is entirely too common in web users, though.
Apple has probably been doing some work on this since before the iPhone was ever showed to the public. It's also against terms for the app store. Of course they're going to reject it, and it's insane to think they'd stop work on their own project because of that.
Add basic functionality to the OS and you're going to get rolled over eventually.
It's the first rule of dealing with spammers, and should be the first rule of dealing with patent trolls.
You're fighting someone with no ethics and no memory. Assume they'll lie to you. Assume they'll lie to everyone else. And assume the lies will contradict each other, and even (sometimes) a lie will contradict itself.
Don't give them anything: valuable information, money, or the time of day.
(Don't get me wrong; I think they should continue to release the whole thing. And the fact that they're not is annoying. But saying they've skipped a legal obligation, doesn't *necessarily* follow. If Nitro is not statically linked to WebCore, they'd seem to be fine.)
Wait a second. Isn't the JavaScript code separate from WebCore? WebCore is the part they have a legal obligation to release. They used to have an obligation to release JavaScriptCore, too, but they've replaced that with SquirrelFish (and now SquirrelFish Extreme, aka Nitro).
We generally call the whole gestalt "WebKit," but it's worth noting the actual licensing is more complex than that. We know that Apple updated Nitro. Did they update WebCore at all?
No, you're putting words in my mouth there. (I don't think it's intentional.)
I'm saying that in absence of those ethics, someone who puts out a copy of something to this degree should expect to be sued. Action, reaction. Solve it in the courts. We shouldn't be offended at the copy, nor offended at the lawsuit. This isn't something as ridiculous as the SCO case, where the claim was ludicrous. Let evidence be presented, and let it be sorted out. React if the evidence is wrong, or if the decision doesn't match it.
I can't even guess where this goes, but I'm curious to find out.
The grid is the least part of it. If you look at the Samsung from the months before the iPhone, then the one "previewed" a few months later, you can see it the product design wasn't a natural evolution for Samsung. It was a very direct, very shameless copy.
Yes, there can never be a law against what Samsung did. It would be stupid to restrict them that much. But Samsung ought to have (if nothing else) enough pride to come up with something that wasn't as direct a copy. I mean, look at Windows Phone 7. It ain't for me, but it's something different. There are dozens of approaches you can take with a touch screen. You have to be pretty uncreative to come up with the same design as your competition months after them.
I'm not saying it's right to deal with this in the courts, but it's clearly not right for Google and Samsung to just rip off designs like this. It takes years of research and development to do a design right (over five in this case), and only months to do a shallow copy.
The ethical flaw here is in the copying. I'm not blaming the companies; there's no law against copying. The closest we have is what Apple's currently suing for.
There ought to be standards. There ought to be ethics. There ought to be principles. But there aren't, and there won't ever be. So there's only the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
The Firefox installer sets Firefox to be the default browser on install. (Or, at least, it used to. Not sure if it still does; I stopped using Windows entirely.) Did the Google Pack do that?
Totally agree. Got any ideas to actually make it change? I don't. Politicians in Canada have misrepresented Canadians repeatedly on issues such as these, and voting that set out and a new set in has done precisely nothing. US politicians have done the same. (I assume you're in the US.)
Yes, I even mentioned that I have problems with the whole idea in what you replied to. But as much as I dislike most Microsoft products, blaming the company for the way the system works is just silly.
Because we (society; not you *OR* I) have decided that the first person to an idea has the right to patent it.
For no other reason.
If we (society) don't like it (as neither you nor I do), we need to change it.
There really isn't one. Microsoft spent money researching, created something, and patented it. Now, they are doing what they ethically must: using previous investments (R&D, patents) to maximize value for their shareholders.
I haven't seen these patents, obviously. (I don't think we even know which they are.) I imagine some of them are broad, cover-everything patents. But some are probably fairly specific, given that Microsoft actually creates products in the same category and isn't (exclusively) a patent troll.
The flaw is that the patents are allowed to exist; the "wrong" is that conditions that allow this to happen exist, not that it's happening. The system needs reform.
Since RIM and HP both have mobile patent portfolios of their own, I imagine there is some variety of cross-licensing at work (and possibly cash transfers, one way or the other). I think RIM and Microsoft are suing each other as well.
You're kidding right? Only a few releases ago, Xcode 3 produced code that hard crashed on armv6. A few months before that, it produced code that potentially crashed on startup, but only when re-signed by Apple's keys.
I can't remember the last time I fought code signing problems for a full day, but I can assure you it was with Xcode 3 not 4.
This is the way it is, and if anything it's getting better as time goes on.
There's a couple minor bugs that can cause this. Are you using the latest released Xcode 4? At least one of the causes was fixed in a .0.1 release.
Other than that, search StackOverflow, etc.
Important thing to know is that your experience isn't typical. There IS a fix. Sorry I can't give you details; I haven't run into this myself, but discussed in passing with someone who had hit it.
I can't argue with that. A lot of designs put usability well down on their list.
I should say that I'm likely seeing different changes than the rest of you (I'm not in the US), so it's entirely possible the changes you're seeing are just terrible crap changes.
Facebook is exactly what I was thinking about, actually. Nearly every Facebook UI change I've actually liked, with just a couple problems. That have generally been fixed quickly.
But I need to read through comment after comment about how the world is ending, along with watching people fall for stupid scams because they think they can Like this one thing and things will go back to the way they were.
Meanwhile, some jerk at (say) CNet or The Guardian will hop on it as if it's actual story and ride it into the ground, beating the dead horse and continuing to stir up bad feeling until it stops garnering pageviews.
Didn't say that. Trying something out before commencing the loud complaining would probably be useful, though. Complain if it doesn't suit you. (I'd argue you should be specific in your complaints, though; "thumbs down", "it sucks", "I'm cancelling" are all useless.)
But my real complaint is treating every story "Users hate recent changes to ____.com!" as if it were a real story. It's not. It's just the general ebb and flow, and masturbation for tech news.
See also: Users hate change. :)
I mean, granted, it may be a bad change. That'd cause users to hate it, sure. But it could just as easily be a good change, and nearly the same number (and indeed, nearly the same individual) users would hate it.
A lack of flexibility is entirely too common in web users, though.
Users hate change.
Apple has probably been doing some work on this since before the iPhone was ever showed to the public. It's also against terms for the app store. Of course they're going to reject it, and it's insane to think they'd stop work on their own project because of that.
Add basic functionality to the OS and you're going to get rolled over eventually.
Seems like he'd be the guy to know.
A "quick" response from Apple legal is a couple weeks. It hasn't been that yet.
It's the first rule of dealing with spammers, and should be the first rule of dealing with patent trolls.
You're fighting someone with no ethics and no memory. Assume they'll lie to you. Assume they'll lie to everyone else. And assume the lies will contradict each other, and even (sometimes) a lie will contradict itself.
Don't give them anything: valuable information, money, or the time of day.
(Don't get me wrong; I think they should continue to release the whole thing. And the fact that they're not is annoying. But saying they've skipped a legal obligation, doesn't *necessarily* follow. If Nitro is not statically linked to WebCore, they'd seem to be fine.)
Wait a second. Isn't the JavaScript code separate from WebCore? WebCore is the part they have a legal obligation to release. They used to have an obligation to release JavaScriptCore, too, but they've replaced that with SquirrelFish (and now SquirrelFish Extreme, aka Nitro).
We generally call the whole gestalt "WebKit," but it's worth noting the actual licensing is more complex than that. We know that Apple updated Nitro. Did they update WebCore at all?
No, you're putting words in my mouth there. (I don't think it's intentional.)
I'm saying that in absence of those ethics, someone who puts out a copy of something to this degree should expect to be sued. Action, reaction. Solve it in the courts. We shouldn't be offended at the copy, nor offended at the lawsuit. This isn't something as ridiculous as the SCO case, where the claim was ludicrous. Let evidence be presented, and let it be sorted out. React if the evidence is wrong, or if the decision doesn't match it.
I can't even guess where this goes, but I'm curious to find out.
The grid is the least part of it. If you look at the Samsung from the months before the iPhone, then the one "previewed" a few months later, you can see it the product design wasn't a natural evolution for Samsung. It was a very direct, very shameless copy.
Yes, there can never be a law against what Samsung did. It would be stupid to restrict them that much. But Samsung ought to have (if nothing else) enough pride to come up with something that wasn't as direct a copy. I mean, look at Windows Phone 7. It ain't for me, but it's something different. There are dozens of approaches you can take with a touch screen. You have to be pretty uncreative to come up with the same design as your competition months after them.
I'm not saying it's right to deal with this in the courts, but it's clearly not right for Google and Samsung to just rip off designs like this. It takes years of research and development to do a design right (over five in this case), and only months to do a shallow copy.
The ethical flaw here is in the copying. I'm not blaming the companies; there's no law against copying. The closest we have is what Apple's currently suing for.
There ought to be standards. There ought to be ethics. There ought to be principles. But there aren't, and there won't ever be. So there's only the courts.
Ah, you're right. Apple licensed it after initial rumblings, not waiting until it went to the courts.
Different Apple then: gave up faster.
Apple licensed 1 Click after Amazon sued them.