There's a lot of spin here. Apple pulled this at the request of a developer, over concerns of the GPL-licensed components contained in VLC. A lot of folks were surprised that VLC even made it the store, as App Store rules pretty much violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL. Apple was more than happy to keep VLC in the store, but everyone is very happy to spin them as evil yet again. Not that they haven't done some tacky things with App Store takedowns, but really that seems to be more and more a thing of the past.
For more info on the reasons VLC was pulled, check out this Engadget article, just one of many articles out there that reports the truth of the issue.
As a side note, I love VLC; it does a lot on the Mac mini hooked to my HDTV. It's absolutely essential on Linux. But the iOS version was not that great. The one thing I use VLC for more than anything is its network streaming capabilities (remember, it's the Video LAN Client, first and foremost), and this feature didn't make it to the iOS version. So I never used it. Yeah, it's good to have to play videos that QuickTime can't handle, but I've never had occasion to view such videos on my iPhone or iPad. And if I have to use iTunes to load the videos onto my iPhone or iPad, that means the videos are on my computer, where I am more likely to watch them (with the OS X version of VLC, or QuickTime with Perian).
The feature is there for when you rip it from CD, not to do it later. Check out macosxhints.com or Google around for methods to join your existing MP3s or AACs into one track. On OS X or other Unix-like systems, you could probably even 'cat' them together on the command line.
I'm not a fan of the caps lock key myself...it can go to hell, for all I'm concerned.
But in the very same breath says:
But taking away choice from people is not good, especially when this is not going to improve the quality of comments.
Dude, make up your mind! If you want it to go to hell, you should be happy that somebody has taken a stand and done it for you. That last sentence is clearly troll-bait aimed at getting people riled up that such a major player as Google is taking away "people's choice."
I'm redoing my Dell Inspiron Mini 10 with Ubuntu 10.10 as we speak for my 5-year-old daughter. She has had a computer of some sort ever since she was 1. Most recently she had a white MacBook which has pretty much shot craps--a process definitely helped along by being used by a preschooler for much of its life. Anyway, she's more responsible now, and the Dell netbook will be a little tougher all around.
She's had Tuxpaint on everything she's owned, be it running Linux or Mac OS X, along with a few other "Tux" things like Tuxracer, etc. They're going on there. It's also getting VirtualBox with XP so that she can play the Dora and SpongeBob games we've bought at stores. Some of these work OK with Wine, but I find it's just not worth the effort when you can virtualize Windows. OpenOffice comes by default, so that she can practice typing. I'll probably find an actual typing practice game from Synaptic too, but having had computer experience for 80% of her life, she's pretty decent with typing already.
Other than that, it's all pretty much gonna be via Chrome or Firefox. She's been on pbskids.org and nick.gom/games for a while. She's already a YouTube addict, and I'm setting up a Gmail account that I will be logging into daily. There will also be some of her favorite tunes loaded into Rhythmbox as MP3/AAC.
Long story short...a few educational things, but mostly the same things you and I use every day. Just keep an eye on the usage. If it gets to be a problem, I'll set up a DansGuardian proxy or something similar.
Yep, you can get SSL certs for low or no cost, but one of our goals is having the cert's root CA already be in the root chain of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, IE, etc., so that we don't have to have users install the root CA themselves. (We'd just go self-signed if we wanted to put them through that.) It's not likely that the free or super-cheap certs will have their root CA installed and trusted in all of the aforementioned browsers.
Most of my company intranet is plain http. There are two parts that we encrypt with SSL. First is the optional login widget on the intranet front page. Employees can customize their front page if they choose to login, but it's not required. But since we use a single sign-in type of situation, where many services are authenticating against the same LDAP service, we feel like we should keep that password encrypted, even on pages not available to the outside world.
The second page that is https is a web form that allows you to change said LDAP password, by entering in the current password, and then the new password twice. Once again, same reasoning. This password gives you access to everything internal. We use a separate RADIUS server to authenticate for external services like VPN, etc.
So yes, we did buy SSL certs for these pages, but they are not from VeriSign, and sure as hell are not $400 per year. Look around, there are a lot of cheaper SSL certs that are in the root chain for nearly all browsers and devices. The only thing we had trouble with--where users had to import the root CA and the cert themselves--was Android 1.x devices. Since we're an iPhone shop and don't officially support Android, I let them figure that one out.:-) But apparently Android 2.x devices worked without any extra hassle. But back to the main point, I think we paid $200 for three years' worth of SSL for these sites.
Now, for our VPN and Zimbra webmail, which are both public facing, yeah we buy some fancy-schmancy VeriSign certs that make the address bar turn green and other features that allow the big CAs to gouge you for their certs. We do this for widest compatibility, as we allow people to check their webmail via https from any internet-connected computer in the world.
I often wonder the same thing. I am inclined to think they are using "i386" as a moniker for "32-bit Intel x86 processors." Will RHEL6 actually load on a honest-to-goodness 386 box from 1991? I have a feeling not, and that a i586-class, or perhaps even i1686-class, processor is really required to run the thing.
Although there used to be several large players in the ERP software business, it basically comes down to SAP and Oracle now. Since Oracle likes to have as few competitors as possible, they filed suit in 2007 against SAP, claiming that SAP's ERP software infringed on Oracle's intellectual property in an effort to cripple SAP, in the hopes of one day being the only player in the large-scale ERP software world.
The linked review is pretty damn weak. It mostly goes over the installed software without actually talking much about what it all does and how it all works together. And the author "doesn't understand" why MP3 codecs or Flash Player are not installed by default, even though they are a click away when you need them. I would expect an IT professional to understand the licensing issues here, and how they come in to play when shipping a FLOSS distro. Ubuntu handles it quite elegantly, IMO, but to do what he wants would violate some laws (stupid, bad laws, but laws nonetheless).
Yep, that is the truth. If we are talking prints, yeah, those are long gone. People forget (or just don't know) that Star Wars ran for a LONG time in most theaters back in 1977-78. If you know Star Wars one-sheets (standard size movie posters), you know about the "Happy Birthday" poster that was issued in May 1978. It was sent out to theaters that were *still* playing Star Wars a year after its release. Those prints were battered, torn, faded, etc., when they were returned to Fox, to the point where they were not usable any more.
As a former projectionist, I can also tell you that there was a habit amongst projectionists and theater owners (it still exists, but not so much, as it is monitored much more closely) to cut out favorite scenes from the print for the theater to keep. Sometimes entire prints would not make it back to the distributor. They'd get "lost" along the way, or the wrong film would be in the can once they were returned to the distribution point. You'd better believe that this happened a lot more with popular films like Star Wars. Hell, if theaters were fined $10,000 for not returning their print, it was worth it to them.
And if we're talking the ORIGINAL original Star Wars, it was the nine (yes, only 9) 70mm prints that were sent out to theaters on May 25, 1977. In this version, there are several audible differences in the soundtrack--most obviously Aunt Beru's voice was not dubbed by another actress. People who claim to have seen Star Wars "the day it came out" are probably full of crap unless they lived in a major metropolitan area with a theater that could project 70mm--and had one of those 9 prints. The general release 35mm version didn't come out until two weeks later, and by that time Lucas had already been tinkering with it (Aunt Beru, dialogue on the Death Star, dialogue in the attack on the Death Star, and more).
So yeah, it's pretty much a given that any existing prints would either be long gone or not usable. What would hoped to be preserved would be the original negative, but even back then it was clear that they needed to strike a new negative to keep Star Wars preserved. That is the April 1981 version, the first with A New Hope added, and which is the basis for nearly all home video releases in the 1980s, HBO and network TV showings, etc. There are even more changes in this version, all documented in the site I linked to above.
In this era of beautiful DVD and BluRay remasters and reissues, people assume that the studios just go in the vault, find a good print and make up some shiny new copies. To make those good-looking new prints, they need the original negative, but most of the time that hasn't been preserved. More often than not, a combination of an existing negative, a positive master, and existing prints in good shape are all combined to make the DVD digital master, which is then preserved--and sometimes new 35mm prints are struck from this new digital master.
I saw this clip over the weekend before it was pulled from YouTube. As others have mentioned, it doesn't advance the plot, and it's established later on that Luke built his own lightsaber to replace the one he lost in Episode V, but I, for one, am looking forward to it being inserted into Episode VI. The tone of the scene is more in line with Episode V--something that could only help Episode VI.
Wikipedia claims that because, believe it or not, it is correct. One of the Wikipedia citations is a Time Magazine article from 1980, the week of Empire Strikes Back's release. In the article, they talk about how "Episode V" was confusing viewers, and that a re-release of Star Wars slated for "next year" (e.g., 1981) will contain the "Episode IV" subtitle, reassuring viewers that they had not missed three movies in between the original Star Wars and Empire.
If that is not good enough for you, how about the research of some hardcore Star Wars geeks who answered this question way back in 1995 by reviewing all known prints of Star Wars up to that time. From that site:
The reissue of "Star Wars" that ran for three weeks starting on
Wednesday, August 15, 1979, DID NOT contain the "Episode IV: A NEW
HOPE" subtitle. A trailer for "Empire" was shown, however, and a
Kenner toys discount booklet was given out (both of which are
announced on the poster for the reissue).
The first appearance of "Episode IV: A NEW HOPE" was on the new
prints struck for the two-week reissue of "Star Wars" on April 10,
1981, nearly one year after the premiere of "Empire."
While my local KMart isn't quite the dystopia you describe (there are usually cashiers at at least half the checkout lanes), it does appear to have been hit by a tornado, with the shelves having not been stocked since 1987 or so. New merchandise is there, but just randomly strewn about. And don't bother asking anyone where anything is.
It's just so depressing to walk in the place. I've just been there in the last couple of years to find Wii games that my kid wanted and were sold out elsewhere. Sure enough, they were there at KMart--as long as I didn't mind going through boxes to find them, or looking at a long shelf of games that had no organization at all. I was "Dad the hero" for finding the only local copy of Wii Carnival Games around Christmastime a couple of years ago, but I felt the need to pop a couple of Prozacs afterwards.
I was thinking of going back to check out this Android device, but the thought of trying to find it in that mess (I sure as hell wasn't going to ask any of the "associates"), and the overall poor reviews online, made me change my mind.
It's well known that sysadmins or mail server admins can peek into employee mailboxes when needed. More than likely, it's in the corporate policy handbook. It happens often at the request of HR or the legal department. So no surprises there.
But a sysadmin or mail admin who talks about doing it--regardless of why they are doing it--is freakin' dense in the head. Not only are they causing a PR nightmare for the already oft-despised IT department ("All those guys do is sit around and spy on us!"), they are losing the trust of HR, legal, the CIO, or whoever else asked them to do it. I would assume they asked them to perform the task with the expectation of utmost confidence. Do they expect anyone to ever trust them again?
I've been put in the position of having to look at the mailboxes of both active users and employees who have left the company, but it will only be discussed with the person who had the authority to request it...and my boss, but only if he asks. Gaining people's confidence and trust is very, very hard in IT, and it is blown very easily.
All that said, how can the guy asking the question expect any kind of security or secrecy with an Outlook server (or any other server) he doesn't host or administer?
I got my iPhone 4 last Thursday. I am left-handed and have had no dropped calls or reduction in signal strength. I have no case or bumper (the case is due to arrive in the mail this week). Quite the contrary, this iPhone gets much better reception than my previous iPhones. I haven't had any problems with the proximity sensor. Everything works as advertised, and I'm extremely happy with it. Being an iPhone owner since Day 1 of the first model, this is the first time I can say I am completely, 100% satisfied, and have no lingering thoughts of "I wish Apple had done 'x' or 'y'..."
Am I just lucky and got the only iPhone 4 that shipped with no defects? Or are people blowing these issues out of proportion?
I thought it was called the Awesome Bar. And while a lot of folks on the internets jumped at the chance to complain about how not awesome it was, I always liked it. Since I've mostly migrated to Chrome at this point, I see that others have implemented the idea even better.
And to further answer the question, the "official" Linux version from the Google Linux repositories is behind the Windows and OS X versions. If I am not mistaken, it is WAY behind, as in I think the Linux version is 2.x and Windows and OS X have 3.x.
Personally, I don't care a whole lot because the version I have on my Ubuntu boxes does everything I need it to do, and the OS X version I use is great too. (I used to love iPhoto, but once they went to the "Events" paradigm and blew away my years of sorting photos by date, I dropped it). I honestly can't be bothered to look at the version numbers of the Linux and OS X versions, because they just work.
I do remember reading a while back a way to get the latest Windows version of Picasa running in Linux by downloading the latest Windows binary and copying it into the Linux package that has Wine bundled with it, if having the latest and greatest is important to you. Or, as has been mentioned, you can just install wine and grab the latest version and be done with it. I like to use what will update automatically with the Ubuntu package manager.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot of spin here. Apple pulled this at the request of a developer, over concerns of the GPL-licensed components contained in VLC. A lot of folks were surprised that VLC even made it the store, as App Store rules pretty much violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL. Apple was more than happy to keep VLC in the store, but everyone is very happy to spin them as evil yet again. Not that they haven't done some tacky things with App Store takedowns, but really that seems to be more and more a thing of the past.
For more info on the reasons VLC was pulled, check out this Engadget article, just one of many articles out there that reports the truth of the issue.
As a side note, I love VLC; it does a lot on the Mac mini hooked to my HDTV. It's absolutely essential on Linux. But the iOS version was not that great. The one thing I use VLC for more than anything is its network streaming capabilities (remember, it's the Video LAN Client, first and foremost), and this feature didn't make it to the iOS version. So I never used it. Yeah, it's good to have to play videos that QuickTime can't handle, but I've never had occasion to view such videos on my iPhone or iPad. And if I have to use iTunes to load the videos onto my iPhone or iPad, that means the videos are on my computer, where I am more likely to watch them (with the OS X version of VLC, or QuickTime with Perian).
The feature is there for when you rip it from CD, not to do it later. Check out macosxhints.com or Google around for methods to join your existing MP3s or AACs into one track. On OS X or other Unix-like systems, you could probably even 'cat' them together on the command line.
The submitter says:
I'm not a fan of the caps lock key myself...it can go to hell, for all I'm concerned.
But in the very same breath says:
But taking away choice from people is not good, especially when this is not going to improve the quality of comments.
Dude, make up your mind! If you want it to go to hell, you should be happy that somebody has taken a stand and done it for you. That last sentence is clearly troll-bait aimed at getting people riled up that such a major player as Google is taking away "people's choice."
I'm redoing my Dell Inspiron Mini 10 with Ubuntu 10.10 as we speak for my 5-year-old daughter. She has had a computer of some sort ever since she was 1. Most recently she had a white MacBook which has pretty much shot craps--a process definitely helped along by being used by a preschooler for much of its life. Anyway, she's more responsible now, and the Dell netbook will be a little tougher all around.
She's had Tuxpaint on everything she's owned, be it running Linux or Mac OS X, along with a few other "Tux" things like Tuxracer, etc. They're going on there. It's also getting VirtualBox with XP so that she can play the Dora and SpongeBob games we've bought at stores. Some of these work OK with Wine, but I find it's just not worth the effort when you can virtualize Windows. OpenOffice comes by default, so that she can practice typing. I'll probably find an actual typing practice game from Synaptic too, but having had computer experience for 80% of her life, she's pretty decent with typing already.
Other than that, it's all pretty much gonna be via Chrome or Firefox. She's been on pbskids.org and nick.gom/games for a while. She's already a YouTube addict, and I'm setting up a Gmail account that I will be logging into daily. There will also be some of her favorite tunes loaded into Rhythmbox as MP3/AAC.
Long story short...a few educational things, but mostly the same things you and I use every day. Just keep an eye on the usage. If it gets to be a problem, I'll set up a DansGuardian proxy or something similar.
Yep, you can get SSL certs for low or no cost, but one of our goals is having the cert's root CA already be in the root chain of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, IE, etc., so that we don't have to have users install the root CA themselves. (We'd just go self-signed if we wanted to put them through that.) It's not likely that the free or super-cheap certs will have their root CA installed and trusted in all of the aforementioned browsers.
Most of my company intranet is plain http. There are two parts that we encrypt with SSL. First is the optional login widget on the intranet front page. Employees can customize their front page if they choose to login, but it's not required. But since we use a single sign-in type of situation, where many services are authenticating against the same LDAP service, we feel like we should keep that password encrypted, even on pages not available to the outside world.
The second page that is https is a web form that allows you to change said LDAP password, by entering in the current password, and then the new password twice. Once again, same reasoning. This password gives you access to everything internal. We use a separate RADIUS server to authenticate for external services like VPN, etc.
So yes, we did buy SSL certs for these pages, but they are not from VeriSign, and sure as hell are not $400 per year. Look around, there are a lot of cheaper SSL certs that are in the root chain for nearly all browsers and devices. The only thing we had trouble with--where users had to import the root CA and the cert themselves--was Android 1.x devices. Since we're an iPhone shop and don't officially support Android, I let them figure that one out. :-) But apparently Android 2.x devices worked without any extra hassle. But back to the main point, I think we paid $200 for three years' worth of SSL for these sites.
Now, for our VPN and Zimbra webmail, which are both public facing, yeah we buy some fancy-schmancy VeriSign certs that make the address bar turn green and other features that allow the big CAs to gouge you for their certs. We do this for widest compatibility, as we allow people to check their webmail via https from any internet-connected computer in the world.
Just guess which will be my next console
Ummm, a Wii?
I often wonder the same thing. I am inclined to think they are using "i386" as a moniker for "32-bit Intel x86 processors." Will RHEL6 actually load on a honest-to-goodness 386 box from 1991? I have a feeling not, and that a i586-class, or perhaps even i1686-class, processor is really required to run the thing.
Although there used to be several large players in the ERP software business, it basically comes down to SAP and Oracle now. Since Oracle likes to have as few competitors as possible, they filed suit in 2007 against SAP, claiming that SAP's ERP software infringed on Oracle's intellectual property in an effort to cripple SAP, in the hopes of one day being the only player in the large-scale ERP software world.
The linked review is pretty damn weak. It mostly goes over the installed software without actually talking much about what it all does and how it all works together. And the author "doesn't understand" why MP3 codecs or Flash Player are not installed by default, even though they are a click away when you need them. I would expect an IT professional to understand the licensing issues here, and how they come in to play when shipping a FLOSS distro. Ubuntu handles it quite elegantly, IMO, but to do what he wants would violate some laws (stupid, bad laws, but laws nonetheless).
Movies haven't even been around 136 years
You're right. It's only been 132 years since Eadweard_Muybridge made the first piece of work that we recognize as a motion picture.
Yep, that is the truth. If we are talking prints, yeah, those are long gone. People forget (or just don't know) that Star Wars ran for a LONG time in most theaters back in 1977-78. If you know Star Wars one-sheets (standard size movie posters), you know about the "Happy Birthday" poster that was issued in May 1978. It was sent out to theaters that were *still* playing Star Wars a year after its release. Those prints were battered, torn, faded, etc., when they were returned to Fox, to the point where they were not usable any more.
As a former projectionist, I can also tell you that there was a habit amongst projectionists and theater owners (it still exists, but not so much, as it is monitored much more closely) to cut out favorite scenes from the print for the theater to keep. Sometimes entire prints would not make it back to the distributor. They'd get "lost" along the way, or the wrong film would be in the can once they were returned to the distribution point. You'd better believe that this happened a lot more with popular films like Star Wars. Hell, if theaters were fined $10,000 for not returning their print, it was worth it to them.
And if we're talking the ORIGINAL original Star Wars, it was the nine (yes, only 9) 70mm prints that were sent out to theaters on May 25, 1977. In this version, there are several audible differences in the soundtrack--most obviously Aunt Beru's voice was not dubbed by another actress. People who claim to have seen Star Wars "the day it came out" are probably full of crap unless they lived in a major metropolitan area with a theater that could project 70mm--and had one of those 9 prints. The general release 35mm version didn't come out until two weeks later, and by that time Lucas had already been tinkering with it (Aunt Beru, dialogue on the Death Star, dialogue in the attack on the Death Star, and more).
So yeah, it's pretty much a given that any existing prints would either be long gone or not usable. What would hoped to be preserved would be the original negative, but even back then it was clear that they needed to strike a new negative to keep Star Wars preserved. That is the April 1981 version, the first with A New Hope added, and which is the basis for nearly all home video releases in the 1980s, HBO and network TV showings, etc. There are even more changes in this version, all documented in the site I linked to above.
In this era of beautiful DVD and BluRay remasters and reissues, people assume that the studios just go in the vault, find a good print and make up some shiny new copies. To make those good-looking new prints, they need the original negative, but most of the time that hasn't been preserved. More often than not, a combination of an existing negative, a positive master, and existing prints in good shape are all combined to make the DVD digital master, which is then preserved--and sometimes new 35mm prints are struck from this new digital master.
I saw this clip over the weekend before it was pulled from YouTube. As others have mentioned, it doesn't advance the plot, and it's established later on that Luke built his own lightsaber to replace the one he lost in Episode V, but I, for one, am looking forward to it being inserted into Episode VI. The tone of the scene is more in line with Episode V--something that could only help Episode VI.
Wikipedia claims that because, believe it or not, it is correct. One of the Wikipedia citations is a Time Magazine article from 1980, the week of Empire Strikes Back's release. In the article, they talk about how "Episode V" was confusing viewers, and that a re-release of Star Wars slated for "next year" (e.g., 1981) will contain the "Episode IV" subtitle, reassuring viewers that they had not missed three movies in between the original Star Wars and Empire.
If that is not good enough for you, how about the research of some hardcore Star Wars geeks who answered this question way back in 1995 by reviewing all known prints of Star Wars up to that time. From that site:
While my local KMart isn't quite the dystopia you describe (there are usually cashiers at at least half the checkout lanes), it does appear to have been hit by a tornado, with the shelves having not been stocked since 1987 or so. New merchandise is there, but just randomly strewn about. And don't bother asking anyone where anything is.
It's just so depressing to walk in the place. I've just been there in the last couple of years to find Wii games that my kid wanted and were sold out elsewhere. Sure enough, they were there at KMart--as long as I didn't mind going through boxes to find them, or looking at a long shelf of games that had no organization at all. I was "Dad the hero" for finding the only local copy of Wii Carnival Games around Christmastime a couple of years ago, but I felt the need to pop a couple of Prozacs afterwards.
I was thinking of going back to check out this Android device, but the thought of trying to find it in that mess (I sure as hell wasn't going to ask any of the "associates"), and the overall poor reviews online, made me change my mind.
If I had mod points, I'd +1 you.
It's well known that sysadmins or mail server admins can peek into employee mailboxes when needed. More than likely, it's in the corporate policy handbook. It happens often at the request of HR or the legal department. So no surprises there.
But a sysadmin or mail admin who talks about doing it--regardless of why they are doing it--is freakin' dense in the head. Not only are they causing a PR nightmare for the already oft-despised IT department ("All those guys do is sit around and spy on us!"), they are losing the trust of HR, legal, the CIO, or whoever else asked them to do it. I would assume they asked them to perform the task with the expectation of utmost confidence. Do they expect anyone to ever trust them again?
I've been put in the position of having to look at the mailboxes of both active users and employees who have left the company, but it will only be discussed with the person who had the authority to request it...and my boss, but only if he asks. Gaining people's confidence and trust is very, very hard in IT, and it is blown very easily.
All that said, how can the guy asking the question expect any kind of security or secrecy with an Outlook server (or any other server) he doesn't host or administer?
Yeah, I know because Apple never gives anything back to the open source community at all!
Thanks for a logical and thoughtful reply! My question was a serious one, and you helped to put the situation in perspective for me.
I got my iPhone 4 last Thursday. I am left-handed and have had no dropped calls or reduction in signal strength. I have no case or bumper (the case is due to arrive in the mail this week). Quite the contrary, this iPhone gets much better reception than my previous iPhones. I haven't had any problems with the proximity sensor. Everything works as advertised, and I'm extremely happy with it. Being an iPhone owner since Day 1 of the first model, this is the first time I can say I am completely, 100% satisfied, and have no lingering thoughts of "I wish Apple had done 'x' or 'y'..."
Am I just lucky and got the only iPhone 4 that shipped with no defects? Or are people blowing these issues out of proportion?
I thought it was called the Awesome Bar. And while a lot of folks on the internets jumped at the chance to complain about how not awesome it was, I always liked it. Since I've mostly migrated to Chrome at this point, I see that others have implemented the idea even better.
And to further answer the question, the "official" Linux version from the Google Linux repositories is behind the Windows and OS X versions. If I am not mistaken, it is WAY behind, as in I think the Linux version is 2.x and Windows and OS X have 3.x.
Personally, I don't care a whole lot because the version I have on my Ubuntu boxes does everything I need it to do, and the OS X version I use is great too. (I used to love iPhoto, but once they went to the "Events" paradigm and blew away my years of sorting photos by date, I dropped it). I honestly can't be bothered to look at the version numbers of the Linux and OS X versions, because they just work.
I do remember reading a while back a way to get the latest Windows version of Picasa running in Linux by downloading the latest Windows binary and copying it into the Linux package that has Wine bundled with it, if having the latest and greatest is important to you. Or, as has been mentioned, you can just install wine and grab the latest version and be done with it. I like to use what will update automatically with the Ubuntu package manager.
Sadly they'll never know who I am so they can suck my cock.
What exactly are you sad about? That you are NOT being sued, or that you will be receiving oral sex? Sounds like reasons to be happy to me!
Wow, you are an interesting guy!
My Macs already have a license for H.264. I assume it's bundled in QuickTime, because H.264 videos in HTML5 work in Safari.
So since I already have a license, why can't Firefox use it on my Macs? (According to the logic of your post, that is...)
Many non-technical users get confused by the file concept...
No doubt. I know far too many people who think "folders" are "files," because, um, you know, that's where you file stuff.