adrianmalacoda

And by "open source" they mean a proprietary product[0] with "personal" (stripped down and highly restrictive license) and "pro" versions[1], naturally.

The old version (which is on github) is GPLv3 apparently.

[0] http://xenko.com/legal/eula/

[1] https://store-dev.xenko.com/get-xenko

JavaScript can do whatever the environment lets it do. Obviously browser based JavaScript is extremely limited but JavaScript running outside of a browser (e.g. on a server, or in a desktop application) can and does do all of those things you say it can't do.

It's been a long time since I've ever done any AppleScript so I can't really compare, but it does seem like the JXA environment can do any of those things, since it has an Objective-C bridge[0].

[0] https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/Int...

> Why is "like $X but under a permissive license" something that people champion for? Are we not all in the same boat, trying to replace proprietary software so users can live in freedom? Permissive licenses simply do not help achieve this goal as effectively as copyleft licenses do.

In general, the people who champion for permissive licenses are not the same people who care at all about replacing proprietary software or "users living in freedom." The purpose of using a permissive license is indeed to aid proprietary software development, not hinder it - and I believe Apache OO was relicensed in this manner for the explicit purpose of being an upstream for proprietary end-user applications, rather than as an end-user application itself.

I got Uberio[0]: Uber for ubers. As a site which spits out "Uber for ____" is this somehow self-referential?

[0] http://www.launchnik.com/uberio

paint.net is not FOSS [1]. IIRC it used to be, but it was made proprietary at some point.

[1] http://www.getpaint.net/license.html

Most proponents of free software would argue that the difference between free software and open source is a philosophical one, not a technical one [0]. Copyleft is preferable, but not mandatory, for a free software license; the most widely used non-copyleft free software licenses are recognized by such by the FSF [1].

[0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Probably the same reason they're using Ubuntu and Chrome: the alternatives, while free, aren't fashionable enough.

I tend to think when people specifically claim to support "Ubuntu" (instead of "Linux") it means they actively tested it with Ubuntu and have determined that it is compatible with Ubuntu. I guess it's easier to just assume everyone uses Ubuntu rather than put in the time/effort to confidently assert that it works with any distro you throw at it.

> I don thinkt that makes any sense. Should we also use js to implement the OS for the server?

We don't normally develop the OS ourselves, so what language it was written in is irrelevant. Same goes for runtimes, libraries, etc. If we're not responsible for maintaining it, it should not matter what language it was written in. Naturally, the "same language on client and server" argument can only apply to code we develop and maintain.

Nah, Android is the other way around. The core Android platform (the AOSP) is free software, but the Google services are proprietary.

This looks like they're going to allow people to view the source code, but not actually use it. My impression is that it would be similar to Assembla's not-really-open-source license [1]

[1] https://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/breakoutdocs/Singleton_De...

North Korea is an interesting choice, because its citizens do not even have internet connectivity [1]. What they have is a North Korean national intranet which is tightly controlled [2]. I don't believe Tor would be useful for circumventing this.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/north-koreas-internet-what...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmyong_(network)

A copyleft license is actually more conductive to Open Core development because it allows the copyright holder to reserve the right to create proprietary addons while shutting the community out of that option [1]. Not trying to insinuate that Light Table specifically is going to do this, but the option is still available.

[1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.htm...

You might find Project Lombok [1] interesting. It's a library of annotations that can be used to generate boilerplate code.

[1] http://projectlombok.org/

One of the news articles the Wikipedia article cites [1] refers to Snowden explicitly as a "former CIA employee."

[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-09/news/chi-nsa-p...

However, he says he worked as a systems administrator, which I don't think is a "CIA agent" - I believe (although I'm not 100% certain) that "agent" refers specifically to a spy.

This is exciting, especially the CC licensing, which will encourage kids to expand the game themselves. As a kid I've made similar projects, and I know I'm not the only one. Good job! :)

That's Python running inside Ruby, while the OP was (ostensibly) Ruby inside Python.

Rython [1] purports to run Ruby inside Python, although it hasn't been updated since 2009. Unlike RubyPython it doesn't actually embed a VM. Instead, it looks like it starts up an XML-RPC server on the Ruby side and the Python side acts as a client.

[1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/rython/

There are various bugs in the game that can be exploited to achieve this, without the need of an emulator or cheating device. The creator of the thread demonstrates how to obtain the special "item" in the game that makes it possible in a YouTube video [0] and has a video demonstration of actually running a program here [1]

[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD_GVaQwn8o

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3EvpRHL_vk

I'm subscribed to HN's RSS feed using a feed reader app on my phone, and when I saw this item the title was truncated at around "written." Somehow I just knew it would be Go.

I entertained the idea that maybe it would have been written in JavaScript, but I think a JS interpreter written in JS has already been done at least once.

Since then they've shied away from selecting "controversial" figures. Hence why bin Laden didn't get it in 2001, for example.

If it's voluntary on the user's part, then I'd be all for it. I was more concerned about the "in the background without attracting attention" part, which implies that it is done behind the user's back. I could see users opting into distributed computing tasks if given the choice.

I sure hope this doesn't become a thing, and if it does, that existing ad blocking and/or anti-malware tools pick it up and warn the user against it.

When you start appropriating other peoples' computers for your own purposes, secretly, without their approval, that's called a bot net.

Linux is not quite so anti-commercial as people make it out to be. Many contributions that go into the kernel come from paid developers working at the behest of a company, and there are companies offering support contracts and services for Linux.

Proud user of Trisquel[1] since 2010. It's a fork of Ubuntu that adheres to GNU's Guidelines for Free System Distributions[2].

While I'm aware that the general opinion of the free software movement ranges from "extreme" to "considered harmful," it is a nice feeling knowing that the creators of the distro have some ethical guidelines in place to prevent things like this - as it turns out, the free software types also tend to be some of the louder privacy advocate types as well.

Mint is probably a better option unless you know your system does not require proprietary drivers, as GNU/FSF kosher distros use a version of the kernel that lacks those proprietary drivers.

[1] http://trisquel.info/

[2] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...

Thanks. I'm not a fan of the whole Unity Amazon integration deal myself, but I think there's a clear difference between a site critical of Ubuntu using their name in the domain and their logo in the header image versus a passing remark in documentation or code.

Mind you, I think the original case was a clear attempt at abuse of trademark law against legitimate criticism. I do feel, however, that the distro-that-can't-be-named remark sounds petty. If they want to avoid mentioning Ubuntu they could just say something like "Debian derivatives."

I take it the Debian derivative from Canonical that cannot be named is sort of like a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor[0] for the average user?

I'm curious if there's some sort of backstory to this.

[0] http://www.pnaelv.net/

What exactly is that, though? None of the social links in the bottom right corner go anywhere. The only thing on that page is an email submission form.

The wording leads one to conclude that it must be some alternative to YouTube, but I don't see anything else on that site.

FAQ[1] implies this is not the case, and that the source will correspond to the binary. The only thing the binary will bring that the source itself will not is the MPEG LA licensing.

> Q. Why is Cisco making both source and binary versions available?

> A: The source code is available so that an implementation of H.264 is available for the community to use across any project, and to leverage the community to make the codec better for all. We will select licensing terms that allow for this code to be used in commercial products as well as open source projects. In order for Cisco to be responsible for the MPEG LA licensing royalties for the module, Cisco must provide the packaging and distribution of this code in a binary module format (think of it like a plug-in, but not using the same APIs as existing plugins), in addition to several other constraints. This gives the community the best of all worlds - a team can choose to use the source code, in which case the team is responsible for paying all applicable license fees, or the team can use the binary module distributed by Cisco, in which case Cisco will cover the MPEG LA licensing fees.

[1] http://www.openh264.org/faq.html

Most likely the FBI would just demand that they return it.

http://boingboing.net/2010/10/09/student-finds-gps-bu.html

It's an interesting idea for sure, but in my opinion the objections are justified. The problem I (and some others here) have with this is

"I easily could have hidden it. In fact, I could install this on every site you visit, and you'd hardly notice."

Personally, I think even with the assumption that the overall goal (finding prime numbers, for example) is a worthy use of crowd sourced CPU, sneakily co-opting visitors' CPUs without their knowledge or consent in order to do it is essentially building a bot net.

"The cool thing is that I could be solving a real problem, and someone or some company could be paying me for all the work that people's computers are doing when they visit my site."

I'm not sure I'd be willing to let someone sell my computer without my consent or knowledge. If this was an opt-in thing it would actually be kind of neat, I think.