or web designers just tell Safari users to stop using that backward browser.
And switch to what? Every third-party web browser in the iOS App Store other than Opera Mini uses the same WebKit engine that Safari uses, with the same unsupported elements, attributes, and APIs. Should iOS users switch to Opera Mini, which is essentially Remote Desktop to a browser running on someone else's server? Or should they instead choose to forfeit access to all iTunes Store and App Store purchases?
Do you earn money for the page you developed in 2000?
That'd be like The Walt Disney Company earning money for short films it produced in 1928. Or like Gershwin Enterprises earning money for a musical piece written in 1924.
Oh wait, those are still the case because of the three-generation copyright regime.
A video game developer might consider targeting WebGL in order to avoid having to develop the game five times, once each for Windows, macOS, GNU/Linux, iOS, and Android, or to avoid the editorial censorship imposed by the sole app store of one or more of said platforms. If you were developing a video game, would you develop it five times in such a manner, or would you instead limit supported operating systems and forgo revenue from users of others?
I thought Wine, an mostly binary compatible free reimplementation of Win32, was available for macOS. If you need to share between a key file, and KeePass for macOS cannot import databased from KeePass for Windows, try running KeePass for Windows in Wine for macOS.
We can just boycott pages that require connections to Google in order to work properly.
Until your national government requires connection to Google in order to exercise the rights of a citizen, such as submitting comments on proposed regulations. It has happened recently; see the Free Software Foundation's 2016 letter to U.S. Copyright Office.
Whatever happened to you happened because the owner of the site chose to use ReCaptcha as a tool to prevent bots. You have no right to insist that a particular website cater a particular user experience to you -- if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere.
What you said applies when a private sector business in a competitive market requires solving a reCAPTCHA challenge or running other proprietary scripts as a condition of accessing a luxury. I don't find it so defensible when a private sector monopolist or even a government requires doing so as a condition of accessing a necessity, as the United States Copyright Office required last year.
Microsoft is under NO obligation to produce a product that doesn't incorporate advertising, spying or other "evil" things.
Depends on the jurisdiction. The European Union regulates privacy, consumer protection, and competition more strictly than the United States of America does.
The connection to Firefox is that if you modify the site on your private network to make Firefox show the warning only once rather than on every visit, that may break your site on other devices.
I thought Progressive Web Apps could access device functionality, such as the camera, microphone, location, orientation, etc. Or is Apple deliberately withholding device functionality from JavaScript? To which particular "functionality not available to a browser" are you referring?
Installing Google Play Store on a device that is not licensed to run Google Play Store is infringement of copyright
Bullshit.
Have you a citation that using GApps without permission does not infringe?
That's only if the user updates. They can then install GApps to completely and legally restore Google Play.
Have you a citation that installing GApps on a device that is no longer licensed is legal? I agree with your claim that it is possible, but I dispute your claim that it is legal.
Windows 8 Metro apps are fullscreen, full stop. The only way they wouldn't be is if you BUY commercial software hacks.
If you need the latest version of a popular free application for Ubuntu, there's usually someone building a PPA of it. For example, I'm using the firefox-next PPA, which provides Firefox Beta.
Why can't Lubuntu likewise be used for this sort of "refurbishing"? It'd have the advantage of continuing security support. Or does it use significantly more RAM than Windows XP Service Pack 3?
changes absolutely nothing about that situation. Prior to FF 52.0, your choices were:
* Create a self-signed TLS cert and deal with the warnings and rely on TOFU. * Create a self-signed TLS cert and put your CA in each connecting device's trusted CA list. * Get a Real Domain and get a TLS cert signed by a CA that everyone trusts.
Your comment did not list the fourth choice:
* Use cleartext HTTP instead of HTTPS.
After FF 52.0, your choices are exactly the same.
Firefox 52.0 adds a warning to the fourth choice, removing its advantage over "Create a self-signed TLS cert and deal with the warnings and rely on TOFU."
Self-signed certs can be used in a TOFU capacity with no loss of security.
Provided the device has a user interface for TOFU, as opposed to just giving an error message to the effect "Secure Connection Failed" that the device's user cannot override. I don't have an iPhone with which to test; does Safari for iOS have UI for TOFU?
Irrelevant. You claimed that Android was completely incapable of showing more than one app. That's false.
My comment did not use an intensifier to the effect "completely".
Doesn't matter if it was using a customization.
Yes it does, because my comment explicitly mentioned "stock Android".
It sounds like your argument is to the effect "The features of stock Android are irrelevant because end users can count on manufacturers to provide needed customizations and on app developers to support said customizations." If so, then what fraction of tablets that shipped with Android 5 or 6 contained a multi-window customization? If less than a majority, this means that an end user would not perceive such a customization as part of the Android platform.
Not a problem given the target platform for Android - phones, phablets and tablets.
My Nexus 7 (2012) tablet's display is larger than two phones' displays put together. There also existed Android tablets with even larger displays, such as 10 inches. So why did Google not add to the version of Android shipped on the Nexus 7 (2012) tablet the ability to run two phone-sized apps side by side to fill the tablet's screen properly?
If you want what you are describing, you should use ChromeOS, which is to Android what OS-X is to iOS
Until very recently, Chrome OS could run only web apps and Chrome OS packaged apps from Chrome Web Store, not Android apps from Google Play Store. As I understand it, most apps for Android were not written in a framework that would allow transpiling to ECMAScript using the APIs available to Chrome OS packaged apps. This means that switching from Android to Chrome OS would have caused me to have to do without such apps.
From the about section of the page whose URL appears in your comment:
Take note that Open GApps does not provide you with any license for Google’s APKs included in the package. The Open GApps packages merely provide a convenient way to sideload APKs to your device. It is your own responsibility to obtain the proper permissions by e.g. buying an OHA-licensed device with pre-installed Google Apps and/or acquiring the applications from Google’s Play Store.
If you install Open GApps on a device other than "an OHA-licensed device with pre-installed Google Apps", you lack "the proper permissions". This makes your use of Open GApps an infringement of Google's copyright.
As for removable SD cards, they normally come preformatted with FAT or exFAT which Android can read and write to which in turn avoids the exFAT royalty.
I don't see how that works if the patent is on the process of reading and writing novel data structures that a Microsoft employee invented for exFAT.
it's a shame they're not pushing a SOHO model too.
I think major laptop makers tried offering GNU/Linux laptops for the home market, but handling returns from people who didn't understand what they were buying made it unprofitable to continue offering them.
Slashdot Mirror
You can turn off Flash, EME, and other proprietary technologies by building Chromium from source, as some GNU/Linux distributions do.
or web designers just tell Safari users to stop using that backward browser.
And switch to what? Every third-party web browser in the iOS App Store other than Opera Mini uses the same WebKit engine that Safari uses, with the same unsupported elements, attributes, and APIs. Should iOS users switch to Opera Mini, which is essentially Remote Desktop to a browser running on someone else's server? Or should they instead choose to forfeit access to all iTunes Store and App Store purchases?
Do you earn money for the page you developed in 2000?
That'd be like The Walt Disney Company earning money for short films it produced in 1928. Or like Gershwin Enterprises earning money for a musical piece written in 1924.
Oh wait, those are still the case because of the three-generation copyright regime.
Let me rephrase:
A video game developer might consider targeting WebGL in order to avoid having to develop the game five times, once each for Windows, macOS, GNU/Linux, iOS, and Android, or to avoid the editorial censorship imposed by the sole app store of one or more of said platforms. If you were developing a video game, would you develop it five times in such a manner, or would you instead limit supported operating systems and forgo revenue from users of others?
I thought Wine, an mostly binary compatible free reimplementation of Win32, was available for macOS. If you need to share between a key file, and KeePass for macOS cannot import databased from KeePass for Windows, try running KeePass for Windows in Wine for macOS.
We can just boycott pages that require connections to Google in order to work properly.
Until your national government requires connection to Google in order to exercise the rights of a citizen, such as submitting comments on proposed regulations. It has happened recently; see the Free Software Foundation's 2016 letter to U.S. Copyright Office.
Whatever happened to you happened because the owner of the site chose to use ReCaptcha as a tool to prevent bots. You have no right to insist that a particular website cater a particular user experience to you -- if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere.
What you said applies when a private sector business in a competitive market requires solving a reCAPTCHA challenge or running other proprietary scripts as a condition of accessing a luxury. I don't find it so defensible when a private sector monopolist or even a government requires doing so as a condition of accessing a necessity, as the United States Copyright Office required last year.
I've worked on GPU drivers and there's no way in hell I'd allow untrusted code into them, even if it's been through a WebGL verifier.
What should reach more users: an application developed for WebGL or an application developed for, say, OpenGL on a Mac?
Windows is also a POS.
Microsoft is under NO obligation to produce a product that doesn't incorporate advertising, spying or other "evil" things.
Depends on the jurisdiction. The European Union regulates privacy, consumer protection, and competition more strictly than the United States of America does.
The connection to Firefox is that if you modify the site on your private network to make Firefox show the warning only once rather than on every visit, that may break your site on other devices.
I thought Progressive Web Apps could access device functionality, such as the camera, microphone, location, orientation, etc. Or is Apple deliberately withholding device functionality from JavaScript? To which particular "functionality not available to a browser" are you referring?
Installing Google Play Store on a device that is not licensed to run Google Play Store is infringement of copyright
Bullshit.
Have you a citation that using GApps without permission does not infringe?
That's only if the user updates. They can then install GApps to completely and legally restore Google Play.
Have you a citation that installing GApps on a device that is no longer licensed is legal? I agree with your claim that it is possible, but I dispute your claim that it is legal.
Windows 8 Metro apps are fullscreen, full stop. The only way they wouldn't be is if you BUY commercial software hacks.
Then to what feature are "How Do You Snap Apps In Windows 8?" by cynthia of WorldStart and "Snap an App Alongside the Desktop on Your Windows 8 Tablet" by Andy Rathbone referring?
What do "most people", those who you claim "are happy using a tablet or smartphone", do when they need to type something substantial?
EVERYONE uses smartphones and tablets, far more than people using PCs.
Then what does "EVERYONE" use when they need to type something substantial into an app for a smartphone or tablet running Android?
If you need the latest version of a popular free application for Ubuntu, there's usually someone building a PPA of it. For example, I'm using the firefox-next PPA, which provides Firefox Beta.
Why can't the application for accessing said service be a web application that runs in Safari for iOS?
Why can't Lubuntu likewise be used for this sort of "refurbishing"? It'd have the advantage of continuing security support. Or does it use significantly more RAM than Windows XP Service Pack 3?
changes absolutely nothing about that situation. Prior to FF 52.0, your choices were:
* Create a self-signed TLS cert and deal with the warnings and rely on TOFU.
* Create a self-signed TLS cert and put your CA in each connecting device's trusted CA list.
* Get a Real Domain and get a TLS cert signed by a CA that everyone trusts.
Your comment did not list the fourth choice:
* Use cleartext HTTP instead of HTTPS.
After FF 52.0, your choices are exactly the same.
Firefox 52.0 adds a warning to the fourth choice, removing its advantage over "Create a self-signed TLS cert and deal with the warnings and rely on TOFU."
Self-signed certs can be used in a TOFU capacity with no loss of security.
Provided the device has a user interface for TOFU, as opposed to just giving an error message to the effect "Secure Connection Failed" that the device's user cannot override. I don't have an iPhone with which to test; does Safari for iOS have UI for TOFU?
Irrelevant. You claimed that Android was completely incapable of showing more than one app. That's false.
My comment did not use an intensifier to the effect "completely".
Doesn't matter if it was using a customization.
Yes it does, because my comment explicitly mentioned "stock Android".
It sounds like your argument is to the effect "The features of stock Android are irrelevant because end users can count on manufacturers to provide needed customizations and on app developers to support said customizations." If so, then what fraction of tablets that shipped with Android 5 or 6 contained a multi-window customization? If less than a majority, this means that an end user would not perceive such a customization as part of the Android platform.
Not a problem given the target platform for Android - phones, phablets and tablets.
My Nexus 7 (2012) tablet's display is larger than two phones' displays put together. There also existed Android tablets with even larger displays, such as 10 inches. So why did Google not add to the version of Android shipped on the Nexus 7 (2012) tablet the ability to run two phone-sized apps side by side to fill the tablet's screen properly?
If you want what you are describing, you should use ChromeOS, which is to Android what OS-X is to iOS
Until very recently, Chrome OS could run only web apps and Chrome OS packaged apps from Chrome Web Store, not Android apps from Google Play Store. As I understand it, most apps for Android were not written in a framework that would allow transpiling to ECMAScript using the APIs available to Chrome OS packaged apps. This means that switching from Android to Chrome OS would have caused me to have to do without such apps.
From the about section of the page whose URL appears in your comment:
If you install Open GApps on a device other than "an OHA-licensed device with pre-installed Google Apps", you lack "the proper permissions". This makes your use of Open GApps an infringement of Google's copyright.
But only Lenovo makes IBMs.
(It bought the IBM PC business in 2005.)
As for removable SD cards, they normally come preformatted with FAT or exFAT which Android can read and write to which in turn avoids the exFAT royalty.
I don't see how that works if the patent is on the process of reading and writing novel data structures that a Microsoft employee invented for exFAT.
There's are very few reasons not to go LTS unless you like having to upgrade your distro every 6 months.
Other than someone on Launchpad asking you "Does the issue that you reported also happen with the latest version?".
it's a shame they're not pushing a SOHO model too.
I think major laptop makers tried offering GNU/Linux laptops for the home market, but handling returns from people who didn't understand what they were buying made it unprofitable to continue offering them.
What makes you think you will be able to buy a computer that isn't locked down?
Because I see no reason for a reversal of the business practice described in the article "Dell Doubles Down On High-End Ubuntu Linux Laptops".