devcpp

Nineteen billion dollars for that. What an amazing piece of software. Worth every penny. Each of the 1,900,000,000,000 of them.

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon hard at work.

Corollary: Nominalism hard at work...

Jump ship? There is none on the horizon.

The only occurrences of the the word "Android" are in that paragraph:

>More apps than Android: Apple's App Store has more than 425,000 apps. The Android Market has 200,000. In May, Google (GOOG) announced its 4.5 billionth app download, compared with Apple's 15 billion as of July 7.

Where do you read that iOS users were paying more than Android users in that article?

They have always been hypocritical enough to sell a proprietary product for open source software.

Fishy practices, sounds like Apple. It checks out.

If it's "free" then you're the product (in this case, a promotion for Github).

And I think I have the right to refuse to be sold if there are better alternatives. They'll either have to step up their game (with FOSS) or lose me.

The Republican party is far from broke, so I'd say "many". Example: the Koch brothers. They're not very much upvoted on Reddit or HN though, and generally don't use social networks a lot, so we don't hear about them as much. They don't need popularity anyway: they have money.

Bill Gates is one of the few who really seems to want to give back, so we read about him a lot. It's a better news story than "Shocking! Another Rich Guy Turns Out to be Greedy" or "Wealthy Person Still Not Giving a Lot of Money".

You should build it yourself if you actually care about privacy. This is excellent practice, instead of encouraging you to trust some third-party website like their own.

It is released and 100% open source, unlike Hemlis, which is still under development behind closed doors and will be opened "as much as possible" (which tells us nothing about implementations, code quality, privacy features, openness or license).

Not being able to verify the source code destroys the purpose of using TextSecure.

They should have solved that issue then, not just consider it.

Who's talking about getting the death rate up? What about lowering the birth rate?

And don't get me started on Bill Gates' bullshit arguments. These are long-term trends, his recent "it's been getting better! (for the last 40 years)" cannot be extrapolated over the next centuries.

Agreed, memes are generally don't "live" that long, and while Doge was funny for a few weeks, its longevity and spread in every unrelated setting (so random!) are getting irritating.

Yet this gets upvoted. I suppose the people have spoken.

>By that logic you should should really love the hospital you were born in.

No, your family usually cares about and for you, unlike the hospital you were born in, which you cannot rely on for any favor.

About the country issue, it is simply a manner for many people to identify others on many traits using common associations (e.g Indians are poor, Eastern Asians are hard-workers, Swiss are meticulous), that sometimes relate to accurate correlations. And it's one of the few ways, other than age and salary, to do this kind of association in a neutral and non-controversial way.

Well, davexunit did say "Firefox is the only major browser that is free software". Chromium is arguably a very minor browser.

Besides, if you would like take a tiny amount of market share from Google (thereby weakening their ability to set standards such as the W3C's "EME" DRM, which they support), you know that using Firefox is the right thing to do.

It also shows Google that you're not buying into their free/nonfree paradigm that discourages developers from making apps/extensions not approved by Google's stores.

Also, Chromium OS, as distributed by Google, is not free of surveillance mechanisms such as the omnibar. You'd first have to audit, hunt and remove these features, or trust a third party to do this job for you.

Besides, in my experience, there are fewer good FOSS extensions in Chromium, in particular anti-surveillance ones, but that depends on what extensions you want.

Still not exactly ready for production environments. The lack of a decent and reliable word processor is a big argument against Linux in non-programming offices. That's too bad, because there's a lot of money and influence there and the privacy argument would otherwise be a strong advantage for Linux.

Same goes for sitting toilets though.

And we still don't have any arguments supporting either position. I do squat for a few minutes every day to facilitate my squat lifting workout but don't see an inherent benefit. I suppose one can argue that it has been a natural movement for so long that our bodies may be genetically designed for it.

As a French citizen who has visited UK and Germany, I prefer the pragmatic data-based discourse I see in European countries. It's still bullshit but at least it doesn't like it and all the promises are verifiable. I'm not particularly fond of Obama's "I ask rich people to give a bit of money to the poor" and hope that's sufficient. Hope...

No! We aren't talking about every property ever. Not your backyard, not your car and not your water bottles. Valuable properties. Nobody cares about @d7a8df74a98d or www.fe5461d77vvc.com. We're talking about crumbling buildings near a national monument, or in the technology field, m.com or @N. Domain squatting is awful. Is it genuinely that unintuitive to you?!

And if seizing it is too "communist" for you, then enormous taxes should be close enough to socialism.

Instead they played that same game and are now part of the big software patent companies. In a selfish perspective, it does make sense.

I fear Google one day understands that they should join this mafia and start suing for their patents, under the pressure of their shareholders.

In order to enable the enormous societal changes that you suggest Stallman should focus on (in what way? revolution?), you first have to secure freedom. With proprietary software, you never know what happens, whether you are being watched, if someone has access to your system. Eventually, governments can just require software companies to implement censorship and surveillance. In Stallman's vision, the only way out of this is to have complete control over your software. This means no nonfree software whatsoever.

In parallel, he's very aware of the problem of user adoption, but accepting nonfree software in FOSS environments destroys the purpose. Therefore, the only way to achieve total freedom is to turn to the users. And this is done the following way: (1) make excellent FOSS alternatives, and (2) tell everyone the benefits of FOSS and point them to the excellent free software that was made.

>I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free.

Sounds like every politician who tries to justify the current methods of the wars against terrorism, against drugs, against pedophilia and the general move towards censorship and surveillance.

Look, safety is good, but if you believe in freedom, you should leave the choice. Just like the root user in Linux and Android, I should be able to unlock superuser abilities in iOS.

The same applies in real life. There should indeed be certifications for food and drinks, but it's not a reason to remove rat poison or bleach and ammonia from supermarkets. Just put the proper notices and safeties.

Choice is key.

The fallacy-pointing was just an explanation of why the poster above may be wrong. But if you look closely, there is a paragraph above the one with the fallacies. And, lo and behold, that paragraph contains arguments which are not of the "argument from fallacy" type.

Please review them, prove them wrong, and then we'll speak.

Indeed, with today's $940 Bitcoin, a $1 Dogecoin would that the Dogecoin market would be worth over 5 times the current Bitcoin market.

I don't see it happening, and I don't even see the Dogecoin market cap even reaching the Bitcoin market cap, at least not unless Bitcoin itself becomes a major currency, and Dogecoin becomes the official joke currency.

Precisely. Keep proprietary software out of Linux. The main reason we can get people to switch to Linux is freedom. If it becomes as full of closed programs as Windows, we won't get anyone to switch because there's no reason to (and no benefit). It's FOSS or nothing.

Well, it seems to me like they have only been implementing closed mechanisms instead of standardizing stuff, using public resources and/or opening their code. I hope that I'm wrong and it's just my pessimism talking.

As a firm believer that overpopulation won't be solved by throwing money at it, and that the people who are having children are the ones who shouldn't, I see most of this as irrelevant. Of course money solves poverty in the short term, no one should be surprised by that. But notice how he keeps comparing one generation with only the previous, and never making long-term assertions.

Besides, I doubt Gates can go from the CEO of Bad Guys Corp. (among the companies with the most evil business practices in history, up there with Nestle) to Superman just because he has always been a modern Robin Hood, establishing an OS monopoly to give our money to the poorest. I'd expect some public guilt or something. I'll keep taking whatever his foul mouth says with an enormous grain of salt until he explains his post-MS enlightenment and endorses Linux.

Closed source, no thanks. I'm going to follow their approach of "trust no one" and not trust them and warmly recommend everyone to do the same. If you actually mind about security, use GPG.

Most people I know, including older persons, are annoyed by Google+. So, it's not just an HN thing. Google lost its image.

Well, the way I understand RMS's fomulation of the 4 basic freedoms is that the right to keep your code secret is a freedom of the individual, not of the software, because no one can enjoy software that they couldn't have had if that right hadn't been granted. On the other hand, removing this right "frees" the software. You see, the FSF is all about "free software", not free people. Only indirectly do the people benefit from the software being free.

More practically, history has shown us that the GPL is necessary in order to ensure that companies don't short the community, suddenly improve everything and leave us with 99% of people using the proprietary fork. To illustrate my point, the clearest example (and the only large one) is the free distributions of BSD, mainly used by companies developing proprietary forks for it and contributing back very little. On the other side is Linux, used by companies for its freedom, security and reliability. The companies using it contribute back because they have to, continually making it stronger and always remaining free (unlike BSD, which can have many proprietary and untrusted libraries which cannot be used with security or reliability in mind). Linux is therefore getting larger only thanks to the GPL and its strong enforcement.

And this example can be applied to the entire copyleft vs permissive license debate, showing how software being free benefits the people more than people being free.