hvis

27 ms·

241.
by hvis 7y ago
The question of freedom comes when a user then comes to your software and then wants to: - Use the program for any purpose, - Freely examine the source code, - Make improvements and distribute them to others (in the spirit of being a good n
242.
by hvis 7y ago
It's probably correcting people's typos, as well as saving a crap-ton of money this way (search results are undoubtedly cached).
243.
by hvis 7y ago
Ubuntu has been fairly solid for me, over several laptops and almost a decade of releases. Freezes due to graphics drivers (on Intel) is something from ~3-5 years ago, I'd say. And let's be realistic, when people are just trying G
244.
by hvis 7y ago
The marketshare might not be great, but it's doing just fine technology-wise. No problem in "maintaining a working web browser" there.
245.
by hvis 7y ago
You are not disagreeing. The grandparent is saying that H1 isn't great for researchers . For companies, it might as well be very good, both for honest ones, and ones just looking to "cover their ass".
246.
by hvis 7y ago
> if Google ever decides to change this it will cripple the org Not really. They do have a rainy-day fund, and they have experimented with partnering with other search providers in the past (such as Microsoft, or country-local search eng
247.
by hvis 7y ago
> believe that browsers will come out as the winners, and that's a good thing for privacy Even if I agree with you on the rest, we're back to Firefox not having a majority marketshare. Mozilla could make a choice to only ser
248.
by hvis 7y ago
> hiding the type of user agent you're using from the site means less finger printing opportunities There are other (maybe a bit more complex) ways to tell what browser you're using, and whether you block ads. > I've ne
249.
by hvis 7y ago
It's a difficult problem. Unless a majority-marketshare browser does that as well (and we know that Chrome certainly won't), a lot of websites might choose to block all Firefox users instead. And perhaps you and I know how to disa
250.
by hvis 7y ago
Being a non-profit doesn't imply any of that. And nobody has ever demonstrated that this ostensible "dependence" has any adverse effects on Mozilla's policy.
251.
by hvis 7y ago
What could one find disgreeable in a company being a non-profit?
252.
by hvis 7y ago
No, I am allowed to criticize a corporation which is obviously acting against public good. Even if I'm not paying them anything.
253.
by hvis 7y ago
I've seen "gobble up" and "devour" used in reference to books before.
254.
by hvis 7y ago
These same arguments can be applied to GCEx 100x more. So the point stands.
255.
by hvis 7y ago
No, these "new owners" wouldn't own these contributions. But since the project is under BSD license, they could make a case that they are allowed to use your changes (under that license). I'm not sure how that would even
256.
by hvis 7y ago
Looking into it, it was more of a campaign. Letters of intent, etc. And it was only for mobile phone chargers.
257.
by hvis 7y ago
And the manufacturers would have never agreed on which ones to use. Starting with the zoo of power connections out there. It's a miracle I can charge my Dell XPS15 laptop using the work-provided Apple USB-C charger. Really.
258.
by hvis 7y ago
Thank you for outlining this. Maybe someone from Mozilla's community outreach can comment and ultimately make some improvements. Specific examples of said bug reports would probably help, though.
259.
by hvis 7y ago
It's actually documented that Firefox does have outside contributors, even people writing code: https://blog.mozilla.org/community/2019/04/30/firefox-67-new... So yes, that happens, and if that&#x27
260.
by hvis 7y ago
> then again I didn't hear someone from Google saying ... Is that a good thing?
261.
by hvis 7y ago
> In any case, seeing as RMS is, to all accounts, determinedly heterosexual, I'd say that it falls neatly into the category of "sexist remarks based on gender", the sixth bullet in that second document. Aren't sexist
262.
by hvis 7y ago
> an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly would be considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law Sorry, I couldn't find the definition for "sexual harrassme
263.
by hvis 7y ago
Really? He did? Anyway, he hasn't done much in Emacs development for years now, I think. As a maintainer, his actual tenure was very brief. Eli Zaretskii is the acting maintainer now.
264.
by hvis 7y ago
That's the thing: "open source" is not a movement. And ESR wouldn't be a particularly charismatic leader (he's more of a controversial one). Open Source would never be where it is now without the Free Software movem
265.
by hvis 7y ago
I agree. Or at least it could have been worded better. "behavior over the years" sounds like scolding a child. Either way, I think a lot of it is social posturing, as part of individual distancing from the transpired scandal. E.g.
266.
by hvis 7y ago
> that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to participate in projects whose leaders engage in it I don't doubt that. And you're right to point that out. You'd be even more right if you didn'
267.
by hvis 7y ago
I wouldn't find it too surprising that all of those 20 people left at the mere mention of words "might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you", since the joke was in poor taste. That doesn't necessarily support your
268.
by hvis 7y ago
I don't really have to quote the dictionary definition in full to be correct about misogyny being the wrong charge.
269.
by hvis 7y ago
So? It's clearly beneficial for the average user. As long as the people who don't want it can easily opt out, I'm not seeing the problem.
270.
by hvis 7y ago
> It's obvious from any charitable reading Where was that charitable reading when the original accusation occurred? > that the FSF appears unsympathetic to the victims of harassment, unwilling to apologize for Stallman's beh

More ›