Open source is a well-defined term with a well-defined meaning. In fact, it was coined precisely because "Free Software" was considered to be too ambiguous.
Words have meaning. You can't just change the meaning of a well defined term to suite your views.
Firefox already has code to determine your location, since it supports the Geolocation API for JavaScript (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation...). I’m not sure how Firefox implements it, but on a device without a GPS, programs could determine your location from the list of nearby Wi-Fi access points or from your IP address.
Not to turn this into a contest but Rust officially supports windows 7. In fact I believe Rust fully supported windows XP too until very recently when they decreased platform support to supported-but-unbuilt-and-untested.
Another benefit of a community-driven language as aposed to a corporate-controlled one.
Or more likely because Rust was developed to support Windows 7 before it was deprecated; Swift never targeted Windows 7. Swift was open sourced in 2015, the year when Windows 7's mainstream support ended; at that time, Swift only targeted Mac OS X and Ubuntu.
Rust began as a project in 2010, Windows 7 was released in 2009.
I think GP's comment is fair. The portability of Rust is of a completely different order of magnitude than Swift. I mean, people have actually gotten it running on Windows 98 SE. And on Windows, Rust has access to a rich winapi surface, nice COM wrappers (including semi-official support through Microsoft's com-rs), a WinRT projection. Not to mention that crates basically just work. Maybe it isn't a first-class supported language for Windows just yet, but it's starting to feel pretty close.
This Rust/WinRT translation is the key for Windows maturity now. C translation is the everywhere basic but Windows support is achieved with eh WinRT translation.
And right now, that is C++, JS, Rust and .NET. Not more not less.
I still have a hard time accepting this happened. Sovereignty doesn't seem to exist anymore: We have a single government, 10% privileged human beings that have some rights and say in what it does, and 90% who don't.
GP is rightfully pointing out that political discourse is far often centered on identity politics to the exclusion of more important topics such as human rights.
No one is saying that one precludes the other except you.
Like someone else said, which rights are being displaced by "identity" politics? Once again, this is nothing but white anxiety about the public discourse concerning race. Nothing more.
Which will encourage courts to render these "agreements" invalid. I think there was a study that showed that it would take the average user 40 man-years to read and understand each software or serive legal agreements they "agree" to.
Software legal agreements are a farce, and it's only a matter of time before governments step in and regulate the shit out of it.
Note that Google's consent form is already invalid and completely useless from the GDPR's point of view.
As per the GDPR, consent should be freely given (you are not penalized for declining) and it should be as easy to decline as it is to agree (something as simple as pre-ticked checkboxes is already in breach). The ICO's (UK privacy regulator) website provides more details: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
The current Google consent prompt fails the second test. There is an easy "I agree" button but no "I decline". The "See more" button leads you to some more filler text and turns the button to "Other options". Clicking that gives you more filler text and some links to Google/YouTube history and ad settings, but setting those doesn't actually dismiss the modal and you are still supposed to click "I agree". Furthermore the Google personalized ad opt-out says the setting can take hours to apply, which would also not comply with the GDPR as ad tracking should be opt-in to begin with.
5% is pocket money. By the time the get sued, lose, appeal, lose the appeal, etc. they'll have made that money many times over. At this scale fines are just the cost of doing business.
The only way to act as an actual deterrent is to put executives behind bars or dismantle the company.
I have no insider knowledge of how well it’s been managed so I’ll leave that to other commentators.
However I’d say that their vision for openness is part of their curse.
Google in developing Chrome are not held to the same community expectations.
It’s expensive to build and maintain a modern day browser and the competitors have deep pockets to the extent of it being worth completing even at a loss due to the benefits of controlling the platform (being the browser platform).
Mozilla have to extract value somewhere. But where should it be?
I think the challenge is to reframe that Mozilla are maintaining an open commons that all are welcome to visit for free without access fees while also metaphorically “selling cool drinks nearby for a price”.
If the community won’t let them charge for anything they do, and claim “extraction/extraction!” with every move they are destined to go under.
I think the most useful framing for Mozilla fans is:
What here should be part of our global commons and needs to be freely available and what would I/we be willing to pay Mozilla for that extends or compliments these core offerings?
I think I should add part ( if not majority ) of the reason Google started developing Chrome was because the initial Firefox 4 vision, e10s, and its expected performance improvement didn't deliver.
Google was forced to do it by themselves.
>If the community won’t let them charge for anything they do, and claim “extraction/extraction!” with every move they are destined to go under.
I dont ever see that from Mozilla community. No one is bashing them for starting side business or charging for something other than the Browser. The problem is none of their side project were successful in business terms.
