It's all about the license
It's all about the license. And there is room (and desire, apparently) for both free and non-free licensing.
88 posts • joined 4 Mar 2008
Think of a website with a Donate button; should that be opt in? The first time you visit, present you with a confirm dialog "Would you like to see the Donate button?" and store the result in a cookie?
I haven't tried 12.10 and am unlikely to any time soon, but it really doesn't sound like that big a deal.
Lots of people buy things from Amazon. Lots of people use Ubuntu and wouldn't mind doing something easy to support it. Seems like they've just made that possible. Is that such a big deal?
As a search tool, the new feature sounds useless, I admit. So think of it as a Donate button - except that it donates Amazon's money, not yours.
Who is MWR Infosecurity? No wikipedia page; not much web presence at all other than their thin website.
I'm a little baffled by this; are there some other permissions the app should use when displaying advertisements besides the permissions the user granted? What do these users who weren't informed of something (not sure what) expecting?
Well, at least not the major problem. I actually believe carriers when they say they only want to use CarrierIQ to help customers. But in a world where police feel free to seize and strip data off your phone without a warrant, it doesn't help that the information would have been only transfered to the carrier after encryption, or how well they protect anonymity in handling the data. They have to not log it in the first place.
While Buffett seems to understand IBM's plan very well...to continue to convince companies to voluntarily submit to vendor lock in. That's something that's worked very well the last 20, 30, 40 years. But it's an idea whose time has passed. Pity Buffett doesn't get that.
"Failure to appear before the committee would have meant they'd broken US law and were liable for arrest."
And, if they grabbed a bunch of Google's cash and fled the country, they'd be in danger of being charged with embezzlement too. And suppose they hijacked the plane and ordered it to take them to China to start a new Internet Empire on the other side of the Great Firewall? Then there would have been serious diplomatic consequences. Should they actually succeed in taking over a majority of Chinese internet traffic, they could then expand their new services to Europe and the Americas, replacing the Google "monopoly" with a much bigger, better, global one.
So far I see *nothing* tying this to the FTC probe other than journalists' assertions.
To me, it seems much more likely to be tied to the Nortel auction (and Google's general position in the patent wars). That's something lobbyists will be able to help.
(I'd love it if Google chose to "invest" 3.14 billion on getting software patents abolished and fixing other problems in the patent system...)
> It's all a giant conspiracy.
Thanks for responding. I guess your conspiracy is my well-thought out plan. Or rather, Microsoft's.
Do you think they don't have one? Or that they do, but some of the components I mentioned are not part of it?
The lesson (call it myth if you want) of MS vs OS/2 is vitally important today.
However much there might be to criticize in IBM's handling of OS/2, the fact is that it was killed off by a very well planned campaign of FUD and viciously anti-competitive practices by Microsoft. It is really disappointing to hear in the comments here some of the memes designed by MS for their campaign:
And we are seeing exactly the same kind of campaign today against Android. All the lawsuits, all the astroturfed press, all the backroom arm-twisting for royalties from Android device manufacturers, the buying off of Nokia: it's all part of the campaign to give MS a chance to catch up on the mobile market they missed.
Muller may well say that's why there are so many lawsuits. I and others would say there are so many because many of them are filed for the principal reason of fueling anti-Android news stories. Which ironically enough is also the reason he makes his claim.
A couple of points:
Microsoft is advertising this as a lawsuit against Android in general, when it in fact is particular to certain ebook reader interfaces. While I'm sure they have some basis for the lawsuit itself, the positioning of it as part of their greater anti-Android campaign is just more Microsoft FUD.
Remember SCO's "the hidden cost of Linux"? Now we have Microsoft's "the hidden cost of Android", and it's equally nonsense.
Secondly, Florian Mueller's name comes up again and again in these baseless Android attacks, and his motivations, financial and otherwise, remain very murky. Please, report the news (and this lawsuit is clearly news), but do it without treating him as a primary source or giving him more of a platform to stand on.
Mozilla has released a whole lot more versions than that, just not major versions.
Chrome isn't really comparable, since they don't make the same distinction of major vs minor.
It's arguable which is the better approach, both for users and for web developers. Sounds like Mozilla is edging towards a compromise position. Will that be better than the extremes? Only time will tell.
"Surfers might have protected themselves by regularly backing up important data, using anti-virus defences or (perhaps best of all) avoiding the temptation to trawl the web's lower depths."
The latter is nothing more than blaming the victim, and not appropriate.
"Presumably, Oracle is not letting any of the code in the extension pack out under the GPU license, but for now it is free"
As usual in these things, the chains are free; the keys will cost you.
To Mark C Casey, I've never used shared folders; scp and rsync work just dandy. Drag and drop of files seems like a really idiotic thing to waste time getting working.
I almost wish Oracle had done something scarier and provoked a fork of the open source version; I hate seeing oracle branding more and more each day.
Will this be the time it's finally worth the $ for someone to do away with U.S. software patents?
How much in campaign contributions would Google have to make? $10 million? $20m?
Compare that to the billions software patents end up costing end users every year. If we had an unbought government, it would be already done. Failing that, all it takes is one company to see more of the downside than the upside.
"The core of this patching issue is that the software industry has, so far, failed to come up with a unified patching solution that can help home users on a large scale; that is, encompassing all software programs."
*cough* sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude full-upgrade
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019