Re: domain name system
Even if it's no longer being actively managed it might still be being hit for downloads and hence of wider interest. Don't devalue stability.
40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
The benefit of separating desktop layer from the underlying OS is that the user can continue using whatever it is that they think works best for whatever it is they need to do. Where the desktop is integrated users have to accept whatever brain farts the vendor inflicts on them, whether it works or not. I see no indication that this in any way inhibits proprietary vendors from fixing what wasn't broken to any degree at all. In the FOSS world we can just ignore it.
I read that when Apple designed the original Mac UI they tested it with new office hires. At that time few would have had much experience with computers and none with GUIs so they were able to find out what worked best without the subjects having prior expectations.
My protocol for conducting a test would require three people for each test.
A tester who has no experience of the product being tested and a list of things to be achieved.
An expert from the design/development team. The tester is only allowed to ask and the expert is only allowed to answer questions of the pattern "Where does it tell me how to xxxxx?"
The third person is an invigilator whose nominal role is to enforce that rule but in fact is there to prevent violence between the other two.
"routers are often key components for the ISP's service so can't be easily switched out"
PlusNet's can be switched out. I've recently done this after discovering that they'd reconfigured theirs from their end (itself a worry) with the net effect of me not being able to configure my DHCP as I wish.
As the original setup had a separate VDSL modem a combined unit has actually taken the box count down.
"(?Benign)"
Bind9, maybe.
In the UK that might be the situation. What were the requirements in ancient Greece where the name, if not the role, originated? Applying your own definition, even by law, does not give you the rights you might think you have over language. ISTR a US state discovering that the hard way in respect of "engineer".
"Corporations should never be allowed to use someone's work without payment."
Could you quote any of the open source licences which say this? Because unless the licence makes that stipulation they are allowed to do so. They're allowed by the developers who release the code that way. It might personally offend you your opinion only counts if you're one of the developers and somehow I don't think they care about taking advice from you.
Do you even know why the GPL came about? It was because RMS got pissed off with his work being taken closed by a corporation for no payment. He devised the GPL so that no corporation could do that again - not the "without payment" bit, but the taking it closed. That's what matters in the open source world.
How many times do we have to say this? By far the greatest part of the Linux kernel comes from the contributions of these companies. Intel, Red Hat/IBM, Google etc.
The practicalities are not tricky. For Intel, for instance, they're helping to create a market for cores. For others they're able to help create something better then they could if they worked independently. It's collaborative development that benefits everyone. They can see the benefits even if you can't. If it didn't work like that it wouldn't exist.
"projects that are exterior to Google"
Given that they're contributors to Linux this doesn't really make sense. It's like saying Linux is exterior to Intel, Red Hat and all the others. There seems to be a mind-set that doesn't grasp that the Linux kernel is to a large extent a shared project between a number of large corporations who compete at one level and yet gain by collaborative development.
It may help that the gatekeepers such a Linus and Greg K-H aren't employees of any of them and can thus be even-handed about what goes in.
"Detailed diagnosis of tech industry delusion falls short of prescribing a cure"
Not necessarily to be held against it. Zeroth law of problem solving: in order to solve a problem you've got to know there is one. 1st law of problem solving: In order to solve a problem you've got to know what it is.
It still makes no sense. The shareholders are the company - it's a company of shareholders. Unless there are different classes of shares the value they say was being directed to the shares of large shareholders was also directed to the shares of smaller shareholders. The crash in share values that affected them also affected the large shareholders.
A successful suit involves shareholders' funds being paid to shareholders to compensate them for loss of value plus lawyer's costs. Without the expenses it's shareholders shifting the remaining money from one pocket to another. With the costs..... Can anyone spot who actually makes money out of this?
That's one that's always struck me as trying to duck the issue, pretending to ignore what it doesn't want to say but not really doing so.
In fact Dionysius seems to have been somewhat arbitrary in his designation. It's also a pity he was using Roman numerals, one reason why he couldn't incorporate a year zero which is apt to introduce either off-by one errors or make the results look odd when expressing C14 dates in both years BP [before Present] and BC. C14 dating, BTW, takes 1950 as its reference year.
For a start the one in Firefox wouldn't be much use when I'm using Palemoon (which is, BTW, set up to forget all its history when closed) and the one in Palemoon wouldn't be much use when I'm using Seamonkey and none of them on this laptop would be much use when I'm using one of the others. The separate keepassxc database can be synced as and when needed between systems.