But even gtk apps might get there if we can get an alternative file dialog [..]
This is the alternative file dialog, because people loudly complained about the original GTK fle dialog (I found it nice after some time with it). Now people loudly complain about the new fle dialog (I like that also) and it seems that the complainers will only be statisfied when they get a copy of the POS win32 file dialog (at which point I will start complaining).
You may be a pack animal, I'm not, they can stick themselves, because the're not getting my money nor my eartime. All I want of them is to leave me alone, unfortunatly they won't, they push manufacturers ad lawmakers to design and regulate the hardware I purchase with my hard earned money in the way they want to have it, and that's what anti-DRM is about for me.
This is true, and good for them for reaching an agreement, although I'm curious to know what the hooks are in the agreement since Real would probably have been able to take and re-package Firefox regardless given its licensing.
They can repackage the software, but they can't get the branding. As an example the Firefox as packaged with Debian doesn't have any images of the fox.
The main thing that I'm wondering about this is how much and in what ways Real might plan to modify Firefox for their own packaged version.
The effects of open doors can be understood by using common sense. Likewise the fact that the laptop and the router that you didn't bought as a package work without any further setup stongly implies that any other laptop will work as well, if one is even somewhat concerned about this a look into the router manual/call to family geek/google search should be the natural course of action. If somone else set up the router it is their duty to inform people about potential problems.
No I'm not. A manufacturer slapping one of the BSDs without releasing code or unmodified Linux on a router that doesn't run anything that the manufacturer hasn't signed does nothing good for free software.
It does not dictate hardware specs as such, just requires that users have the right to run modified versions. While this may need hardware changes (such as the ability to indicate the signatures of which keys the user trusts) manufacturers are free to find their own way.
GPLv3 doesn't prevent this, if the owner of the hardware (goverment, bank) has the keys to sign software or have the ability to change what keys the hardware trusts the requirements are satisfied.
And we (the free software community) don't need them to use GPLed code in a manner that prevents modification. If one of hundred such manufacturers chooses GPLv3 vs complete in-house development it's a net win for free software.
Because no one cares about extensions that don't come from the inner circle of developers... This system fails the "distributed" criteria, because it mostly relies on the central authority of Mozilla developers. How would aspiring extension developer from remote-place-where-there-are-no-mozilla-developers -around get started?
You're in the hole here, and you still have to give me 60 days to come into compliance before you can terminate the license and have any leverage at all with me.
No, it's you who has to shake in his boots for 60 days after all violations are corrected, anytime within those 60 days a copyright holder can come and terminate your license.
It would be TRIVIAL to insert a trojan onto that site.
I still don't see how that differs from a trojan on, say, SourceForge--that's just how trojans are.
The funny thing is IE was panned for ActiveX control issues and yet Firefox contains something just as serious in extensions.
IMHO problem with ActiveX are the seemingly endless vulnerabilities that enable drive by installations, I don't see this with Firefox.
It is true that extensions must be voluntarily fetched by a user so the user base as a whole has a lot of protection, but it does not excuse the lack of trust information for the poor sucker who caught a dose from Mozilla's own web site.
And your proposition for a distributed system of trust information that is transparent to users is? Sure, PGP/GPG signing might benefit to those who watch where they step, but it does little for those who are most susceptible to trojan attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be a pack animal, I'm not, they can stick themselves, because the're not getting my money nor my eartime. All I want of them is to leave me alone, unfortunatly they won't, they push manufacturers ad lawmakers to design and regulate the hardware I purchase with my hard earned money in the way they want to have it, and that's what anti-DRM is about for me.
A constitutional extremist!
You sir, are a xenophobe.
They just wake up at lunch.
PDF isn't read only, it's just hard to edit.
That signature probably holds no weight.
The effects of open doors can be understood by using common sense. Likewise the fact that the laptop and the router that you didn't bought as a package work without any further setup stongly implies that any other laptop will work as well, if one is even somewhat concerned about this a look into the router manual/call to family geek/google search should be the natural course of action. If somone else set up the router it is their duty to inform people about potential problems.
No I'm not. A manufacturer slapping one of the BSDs without releasing code or unmodified Linux on a router that doesn't run anything that the manufacturer hasn't signed does nothing good for free software.
It can be a bit tricky to tell an unintentionally unsecured wireless access point from an intentionaly open wireless access point.
It does not dictate hardware specs as such, just requires that users have the right to run modified versions. While this may need hardware changes (such as the ability to indicate the signatures of which keys the user trusts) manufacturers are free to find their own way.
GPLv3 doesn't prevent this, if the owner of the hardware (goverment, bank) has the keys to sign software or have the ability to change what keys the hardware trusts the requirements are satisfied.
3. The hardware verifies the software, but the owner of the hardware decides what is trusted, not the manufacturer.
Corporations have no natural rights.
And we (the free software community) don't need them to use GPLed code in a manner that prevents modification. If one of hundred such manufacturers chooses GPLv3 vs complete in-house development it's a net win for free software.
The GPLv3 does not prevent this.
Because no one cares about extensions that don't come from the inner circle of developers... This system fails the "distributed" criteria, because it mostly relies on the central authority of Mozilla developers. How would aspiring extension developer from remote-place-where-there-are-no-mozilla-developers -around get started?
They'll have a collective heart attack when they get their hands on Defcon. :-D
From where the ghost's eyes come out.
87%? Do you run microsoft.com or something?