HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) because it depends solely on the browser.
This is an utterly ignorant statement. You think just because there is no longer one implementation done by one company that its more secure to have at least 4 implementations by different companies?
No matter how good the browser, it cannot control Flash except to disable it.
Its certainly FAR easier to add controls to flash than add a whole new rendering and event system to a browser.
There is no technical or logical reason why a browser would always be better than Flash player. The fact that you think simply because its not a plugin? that it would be more secure/better shows you just dont get how software works.
A secure browser =
I'm sorry, I made the assumption you lived in the same world as the rest of us and had some sort of understanding of how programming worked.
There is no such thing, today, as a 'secure browser'. When fantasy becomes reality, you may have a point, but until pigs fly, you're just being silly.
There were more than a few firefox4 betas and in the meantime all new development nearly stopped.
New development stopped because the devs actually had to go back and FINISH THE SHIT THEY STARTED AND NEVER COMPLETED. A faster release cycle can not solve this problem, only make it worse.
The dropped features... were features they never finished.
Unless you need FF3.6 because of some internal website or some specific add-on there are no reasons (other than personal preference) to be using 3.6 instead of 6.
So basically... unless (insert lots of reasons that fall into the massive categories you named above) then FF 6 is awesome...
So it works perfect all the time... except those times when it doesn't and you have to use 3.6.
Stop being such a pathetic fanboy.
Instead of defending them like an idiot, why don't you take a look at the writing on the wall. Everything you've tried to use to defend this release cycle is a shining example of how they don't know how to manage a development project.
What we're saying, is if they want to continue getting 80 million or so a year from Google so they can sit over there and circle jerk themselves into their on personal code heaven, then they're going to have to do what is required by their customer (Google) which is to keep refering search requests to Google.
If no one uses Firefox, they refer no searchs to Google, and Google stops paying them.
I'm pretty sure the morons at Mozilla will not be okay with this. The difference is, unlike the last time they drove netscape into the ground, there is no.COM bubble here to dump money in their lap. The one company still dumping money in their lap is so fed up with them, it decided to just replace them with something better... they built themselves.
If providing a stable release pattern was too much effort for them, then taking the paycheck for doing so is too much effort too.
The only device I have that doesn't have a calculator and a notepad on it, is my car radio.
My phone has a calculator and a notepad app, both of which are apps I would be pissed it didn't come with, they are extremely handy.
Lets see, my TV has a calculator and a message thingy that is sort of like a scratch pad/note taking place.
Of course every Desktop OS has both, as does my iPad (and every other tablet I've seen).
Lets see, this little 8088 HP palmtop PC I have from 1996... yep, it has a calculator and editor built in, though the calculator didn't come with the OS (which was DOS), the edit.com did.
Of course a calculator and notepad don't generally run on start and stay in the background, which is generally the real problem with bloatware.
What OS are you using, that is so lame that it DOESN'T come with a calculator and notepad app in the base distro?
Your definition of bloatware seems to be 'it comes with Windows', which is a pretty retarded definition for obvious reasons.
If they can't afford an iPhone, they'll by an Android device that looks kinda the same and does most of the same stuff, but its not an iPhone...:(
So... Apple can say 'do what we tell you' and the carriers say 'Okay, please keep sending us the most sought after cell phone in existence, we want those recuring customers'
On the other hand, Android makers say 'Pretty please with sugar on top, PLEASE sell our copycat android device that no one actually ASKS FOR BY NAME', and the carriers say 'Okay, but heres all the shit you're going to have to do to it if you want us to bother with it' and if the Android device maker says 'no', the carrier says 'Okay, well only 300 other cheap knock off handsets EXACTLY LIKE THAT ONE to choose from, I'm sure one of those guys will be our bitch'
You don't get to call the shots when you're the guy making the cheap chinese knock offs, only the guy making the original item that everyone ACTUALLY WANTs get to call the shots.
MySQL has been a game changer in the database market offering for little or no cost a product which directly competes with Oracle offerings in some market segments.
You're thinking of PostgreSQL. MySQL has never been competition for anything Oracle has been considered for. They are two completely different classes of software. Anyone who was considering Oracle and MySQL really needed nothing more than MySQL and should have never been considering Oracle. By acting like the two are in some sort of competition for the same customers, you pretty much show that you have no fucking clue what Oracle is for, how its used, or how it should be used. In short, by comparing MySQL and Oracle, all you've done is proven you don't know anything about MySQL, Oracle or databases in general.
Step 2 Develop an migration path between MySQL and Oracle, hey guys there's no pressure (Maybe a MySQL front end on Oracle?) Step 3 Migrate more components to a closed source model, ones that you really need
Again, you're thinking of PostgreSQL, not MySQL.
There is nothing that MySQL has that you 'NEED' that every database product on the planet doesn't already have. I assure you that no feature of MySQL can't be emulated in Oracle, probably with more features.
They'll have to add features to MySQL and then take them back away before you end up in that situation, and again, you'll just have to move to ANY OTHER database platform instead. Someone could just as easily add a mysql front end to any other database. MySQL doesn't support anything particularly impressive in its query syntax, most of it could literally be handled with a SED script, maybe a slightly more complex regexp if you use something that has to be emulated with subselects.
Again, you guys don't freaking get it.
MySQL USERS ARE NOT ORACLE USERS, they never will be. They are different use cases.
You put important data in Oracle. You run your reports on backup copies of copious amounts of rows stored in a mysql database, and its data you can lose or recreate without being bothered.
I've seen fanboys promoting its openness and how much greater it is than evil competitions product, but I've not seen Google actually say anything of the sort.
Google actually has been marketing it based on things people ACTUALLY care about, which interestingly enough, has nothing to do with source code.
Because not all of us subscribe to the same utterly silly and completely incorrect definitions you and RMS like to use for the words 'free' and 'open'.
The fundamental basis of the whole idea as you put it, is fucking flawed by any normal persons definition. When you're solution to a problem (in this case lack of 'free' and 'open' software) is to do the exact opposite (attach a viral, rather restrictive license like GPL with severe limits built in), and preventing it from being exactly what you're claiming it should be... well it kind of makes you look stupid.
Before you bother to argue with me, remember, I've already said we've clearly got different definitions for free and open, everything after that is irrelevant.
Considering that many of the apps in the Google android store are ad-supported or just free instead of paid, I'd say store sales are a lousy way to measure success of the platform.
The Apple app store is no different. It has a great majority of ad supported and free apps. The ratio between the two is likely more or less the same.
Do politicians, and corporations really expect us to live under the guise that we really have anything left to lose to them? Liberty and freedom are all we have here folks.
It blows me away that people can make such statements. I get your point and all that, but perhaps you should live in Somalia for a while to see just how much you can lose.
That's different from the daily cheat schemes from not-so-hot companies..... how?
The company forces you to see the ToS in order for it to be binding. They are required to put it in front of your eye balls in a way that you can not have missed it, only chosen to ignore it in order for it to be legally binding.
And then you fucking click next or I agree or whatever. THATS the difference.
They never get the option to look at your terms, and you are willfully ignoring to read theirs so you can claim ignorance later.
You can be sued for checking personal email at work or visiting Facebook.
Yes, you can, and for good reason. There are times when those are actually a crime, just like how in certain circumstances you really CAN sue someone because YOU spilled hot coffee on YOURSELF.
Its not always cut and dried 'checking personal email'... sometimes its 'emailing company documents to corp spies using personal email' or 'making death threats on facebook'.
These stupid laws exist because of lawyers who will use any twisting thing they can to win a case, right or wrong.
You make things like ToS violations illegal because otherwise some lawyer twists 'well, just because they were supposed to use email at work doesn't mean they should be fired even though they just did that all day long for 6 years and never once did anything they were assigned to do!' and after enough bullshitting, the company who tried to fire the secretary who dicked around on Facebook all day instead of answering the phones now gets hit with a fucking lawsuit where THEY are the bad guy for firing him/her/it.
Why are there never any names associated with these kinds of things? I really want to know who not to vote for just in case they are in my state, then again I don't vote, but my internet posts have the potential to:)
Well, I know reading is hard... but... if you had bothered to read THE SUMMARY AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE it attached two names itself...
Senators Franken and Grassley put their names on it.
The problem is, as you've already pointed out, you don't care enough to vote, just enough to rant on the Internet and expect a different outcome. That makes you insane, as well as stupid. But if you actually cared enough to do something about it, you might pay attention to the news and notice which laws are being passed and who's pushing them... you see, theres this neat thing about our government, bills don't come into being in front of congress without a name attached to them, its just the way it works, but you're too ignorant/lazy/stupid to even know that apparently.
All in all, I'd wager its probably better that you don't vote. You have so little fucking clue about whats going on that you could not possibly vote in any meaningful or intelligent way.
According to their ToS, if they think you might have posted something objectionable, they'll shitcan your account, and maybe you can complain to a Google customer service robot about it.
Which is... exactly... the same... as all other Google services, like sharing your Docs or Spreadsheets.
Facebook doesn't behave that way and even if they did,
Funny how you can completely ignore all the shit that facebook does but you bitch about the same rules applying to Google. You're just too ignorant to realize they are pretty much the exact same as far as ToS goes, and that Google ToSes are ALL pretty much identical. Someone else bothered to read the Google+ ToS and told you about it, which is the only reason you have anything against Google+. You're just too stupid to realize that its not unique to Google+ since no one else has pointed it out too you and you're clearly too lazy to read the agreements presented too you before clicking next.
How blissful it must be to be so ignorant that you think the policy that effects one part of the company doesn't effect the rest of the company.
All Google online services have a real name policy moron, they just haven't bothered to really enforce it on a large scale... but if you just search slashdot you'll find at least one story of someone who lost Android apps for that very reason.
Sorry for not knowing the government as well as I should, but in America we have rules against our own Military acting against our own citizens. We don't always follow them as perfectly as we should, but the general consensus is that its a bad idea for your warriors to also be involved in your policing. They are killers, not peace keepers, you don't use them on yourself. (As I said, if I knew my government better I'd probably have a better description of why its important to us)
The problem with that logic is that the TSA hasn't actually caught anyone TRYING to do something.
The NSA, CIA, FBI, random passengers, local cops, 10 year old littler girls... THEY'VE ALL CAUGHT SOMEONE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING... but the TSA, who's sole job is to catch people trying to sneak shit onto planes... hasn't caught anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) because it depends solely on the browser.
This is an utterly ignorant statement. You think just because there is no longer one implementation done by one company that its more secure to have at least 4 implementations by different companies?
No matter how good the browser, it cannot control Flash except to disable it.
Its certainly FAR easier to add controls to flash than add a whole new rendering and event system to a browser.
There is no technical or logical reason why a browser would always be better than Flash player. The fact that you think simply because its not a plugin? that it would be more secure/better shows you just dont get how software works.
A secure browser =
I'm sorry, I made the assumption you lived in the same world as the rest of us and had some sort of understanding of how programming worked.
There is no such thing, today, as a 'secure browser'. When fantasy becomes reality, you may have a point, but until pigs fly, you're just being silly.
There were more than a few firefox4 betas and in the meantime all new development nearly stopped.
New development stopped because the devs actually had to go back and FINISH THE SHIT THEY STARTED AND NEVER COMPLETED. A faster release cycle can not solve this problem, only make it worse.
The dropped features ... were features they never finished.
Unless you need FF3.6 because of some internal website or some specific add-on there are no reasons (other than personal preference) to be using 3.6 instead of 6.
So basically ... unless (insert lots of reasons that fall into the massive categories you named above) then FF 6 is awesome ...
So it works perfect all the time ... except those times when it doesn't and you have to use 3.6.
Stop being such a pathetic fanboy.
Instead of defending them like an idiot, why don't you take a look at the writing on the wall. Everything you've tried to use to defend this release cycle is a shining example of how they don't know how to manage a development project.
What we're saying, is if they want to continue getting 80 million or so a year from Google so they can sit over there and circle jerk themselves into their on personal code heaven, then they're going to have to do what is required by their customer (Google) which is to keep refering search requests to Google.
If no one uses Firefox, they refer no searchs to Google, and Google stops paying them.
I'm pretty sure the morons at Mozilla will not be okay with this. The difference is, unlike the last time they drove netscape into the ground, there is no .COM bubble here to dump money in their lap. The one company still dumping money in their lap is so fed up with them, it decided to just replace them with something better ... they built themselves.
If providing a stable release pattern was too much effort for them, then taking the paycheck for doing so is too much effort too.
Then you're blind and utterly ignorant of what Firefox is.
I hope the OS can report the correct DPI to the app when it is plugged in to an external device.
No, you don't.
You want the OS to be written in such a way that the app never needs to know what the DPI actually is.
The only device I have that doesn't have a calculator and a notepad on it, is my car radio.
My phone has a calculator and a notepad app, both of which are apps I would be pissed it didn't come with, they are extremely handy.
Lets see, my TV has a calculator and a message thingy that is sort of like a scratch pad/note taking place.
Of course every Desktop OS has both, as does my iPad (and every other tablet I've seen).
Lets see, this little 8088 HP palmtop PC I have from 1996 ... yep, it has a calculator and editor built in, though the calculator didn't come with the OS (which was DOS), the edit.com did.
Of course a calculator and notepad don't generally run on start and stay in the background, which is generally the real problem with bloatware.
What OS are you using, that is so lame that it DOESN'T come with a calculator and notepad app in the base distro?
Your definition of bloatware seems to be 'it comes with Windows', which is a pretty retarded definition for obvious reasons.
The difference is:
People want to buy an iPhone.
If they can't afford an iPhone, they'll by an Android device that looks kinda the same and does most of the same stuff, but its not an iPhone ... :(
So ... Apple can say 'do what we tell you' and the carriers say 'Okay, please keep sending us the most sought after cell phone in existence, we want those recuring customers'
On the other hand, Android makers say 'Pretty please with sugar on top, PLEASE sell our copycat android device that no one actually ASKS FOR BY NAME', and the carriers say 'Okay, but heres all the shit you're going to have to do to it if you want us to bother with it' and if the Android device maker says 'no', the carrier says 'Okay, well only 300 other cheap knock off handsets EXACTLY LIKE THAT ONE to choose from, I'm sure one of those guys will be our bitch'
You don't get to call the shots when you're the guy making the cheap chinese knock offs, only the guy making the original item that everyone ACTUALLY WANTs get to call the shots.
MySQL has been a game changer in the database market offering for little or no cost a product which directly competes with Oracle offerings in some market segments.
You're thinking of PostgreSQL. MySQL has never been competition for anything Oracle has been considered for. They are two completely different classes of software. Anyone who was considering Oracle and MySQL really needed nothing more than MySQL and should have never been considering Oracle. By acting like the two are in some sort of competition for the same customers, you pretty much show that you have no fucking clue what Oracle is for, how its used, or how it should be used. In short, by comparing MySQL and Oracle, all you've done is proven you don't know anything about MySQL, Oracle or databases in general.
Step 2 Develop an migration path between MySQL and Oracle, hey guys there's no pressure (Maybe a MySQL front end on Oracle?)
Step 3 Migrate more components to a closed source model, ones that you really need
Again, you're thinking of PostgreSQL, not MySQL.
There is nothing that MySQL has that you 'NEED' that every database product on the planet doesn't already have. I assure you that no feature of MySQL can't be emulated in Oracle, probably with more features.
They'll have to add features to MySQL and then take them back away before you end up in that situation, and again, you'll just have to move to ANY OTHER database platform instead. Someone could just as easily add a mysql front end to any other database. MySQL doesn't support anything particularly impressive in its query syntax, most of it could literally be handled with a SED script, maybe a slightly more complex regexp if you use something that has to be emulated with subselects.
Again, you guys don't freaking get it.
MySQL USERS ARE NOT ORACLE USERS, they never will be. They are different use cases.
You put important data in Oracle. You run your reports on backup copies of copious amounts of rows stored in a mysql database, and its data you can lose or recreate without being bothered.
Why You Shouldn't Panic About Closed Source MySQL Extensions
Because anyone that mattered moved off of MySQL to PostgreSQL a long time ago?
When?
I've seen fanboys promoting its openness and how much greater it is than evil competitions product, but I've not seen Google actually say anything of the sort.
Google actually has been marketing it based on things people ACTUALLY care about, which interestingly enough, has nothing to do with source code.
Because not all of us subscribe to the same utterly silly and completely incorrect definitions you and RMS like to use for the words 'free' and 'open'.
The fundamental basis of the whole idea as you put it, is fucking flawed by any normal persons definition. When you're solution to a problem (in this case lack of 'free' and 'open' software) is to do the exact opposite (attach a viral, rather restrictive license like GPL with severe limits built in), and preventing it from being exactly what you're claiming it should be ... well it kind of makes you look stupid.
Before you bother to argue with me, remember, I've already said we've clearly got different definitions for free and open, everything after that is irrelevant.
Considering that many of the apps in the Google android store are ad-supported or just free instead of paid, I'd say store sales are a lousy way to measure success of the platform.
The Apple app store is no different. It has a great majority of ad supported and free apps. The ratio between the two is likely more or less the same.
If you're not texting a while, just check once per 1,5min and do nothing else in between. Let it have a tickless OS.
You do realize that its just ticking on a longer period, right? Its not tickless.
Do politicians, and corporations really expect us to live under the guise that we really have anything left to lose to them? Liberty and freedom are all we have here folks.
It blows me away that people can make such statements. I get your point and all that, but perhaps you should live in Somalia for a while to see just how much you can lose.
That's different from the daily cheat schemes from not-so-hot companies..... how?
The company forces you to see the ToS in order for it to be binding. They are required to put it in front of your eye balls in a way that you can not have missed it, only chosen to ignore it in order for it to be legally binding.
And then you fucking click next or I agree or whatever. THATS the difference.
They never get the option to look at your terms, and you are willfully ignoring to read theirs so you can claim ignorance later.
You can be sued for checking personal email at work or visiting Facebook.
Yes, you can, and for good reason. There are times when those are actually a crime, just like how in certain circumstances you really CAN sue someone because YOU spilled hot coffee on YOURSELF.
Its not always cut and dried 'checking personal email' ... sometimes its 'emailing company documents to corp spies using personal email' or 'making death threats on facebook'.
These stupid laws exist because of lawyers who will use any twisting thing they can to win a case, right or wrong.
You make things like ToS violations illegal because otherwise some lawyer twists 'well, just because they were supposed to use email at work doesn't mean they should be fired even though they just did that all day long for 6 years and never once did anything they were assigned to do!' and after enough bullshitting, the company who tried to fire the secretary who dicked around on Facebook all day instead of answering the phones now gets hit with a fucking lawsuit where THEY are the bad guy for firing him/her/it.
I'm referencing activities from the past, not trollin'.
No, you're trolling.
Referencing actually requires references that SOMEONE recognizes.
What large companies have sued people over ToS violations because they aren't "making enough money this quarter".
Why are there never any names associated with these kinds of things? I really want to know who not to vote for just in case they are in my state, then again I don't vote, but my internet posts have the potential to :)
Well, I know reading is hard ... but ... if you had bothered to read THE SUMMARY AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE it attached two names itself ...
Senators Franken and Grassley put their names on it.
The problem is, as you've already pointed out, you don't care enough to vote, just enough to rant on the Internet and expect a different outcome. That makes you insane, as well as stupid. But if you actually cared enough to do something about it, you might pay attention to the news and notice which laws are being passed and who's pushing them ... you see, theres this neat thing about our government, bills don't come into being in front of congress without a name attached to them, its just the way it works, but you're too ignorant/lazy/stupid to even know that apparently.
All in all, I'd wager its probably better that you don't vote. You have so little fucking clue about whats going on that you could not possibly vote in any meaningful or intelligent way.
Then why are you trying to combine them with one account?
According to their ToS, if they think you might have posted something objectionable, they'll shitcan your account, and maybe you can complain to a Google customer service robot about it.
Which is ... exactly ... the same ... as all other Google services, like sharing your Docs or Spreadsheets.
Facebook doesn't behave that way and even if they did,
Funny how you can completely ignore all the shit that facebook does but you bitch about the same rules applying to Google. You're just too ignorant to realize they are pretty much the exact same as far as ToS goes, and that Google ToSes are ALL pretty much identical. Someone else bothered to read the Google+ ToS and told you about it, which is the only reason you have anything against Google+. You're just too stupid to realize that its not unique to Google+ since no one else has pointed it out too you and you're clearly too lazy to read the agreements presented too you before clicking next.
How blissful it must be to be so ignorant that you think the policy that effects one part of the company doesn't effect the rest of the company.
All Google online services have a real name policy moron, they just haven't bothered to really enforce it on a large scale ... but if you just search slashdot you'll find at least one story of someone who lost Android apps for that very reason.
"GOOGLE IS GOING TO TAKE ON MICROSOFT WITH ITS OWN OPERATING SYSTEM!!!"
And they did.
And it was a stupid fucking idea and it failed faster than Windows Phone 7.
But they did try.
Dyson never built anything at all in a vacuum. Fiction doesn't count, sorry. This is the real world were in now, try to keep up.
NASA never built anything great in a vacuum, though they have assembled a space station or two, which were built on Earth.
Sorry for not knowing the government as well as I should, but in America we have rules against our own Military acting against our own citizens. We don't always follow them as perfectly as we should, but the general consensus is that its a bad idea for your warriors to also be involved in your policing. They are killers, not peace keepers, you don't use them on yourself. (As I said, if I knew my government better I'd probably have a better description of why its important to us)
The problem with that logic is that the TSA hasn't actually caught anyone TRYING to do something.
The NSA, CIA, FBI, random passengers, local cops, 10 year old littler girls ... THEY'VE ALL CAUGHT SOMEONE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ... but the TSA, who's sole job is to catch people trying to sneak shit onto planes ... hasn't caught anyone.