jake_the_third

> Godaddy is distancing themselves because they don't want to be associated with those things.

Would it also be reasonable for browsers also black list the website in question "because they don't want to be associated with those things"?

Ignoring the offending content in question: What does a registrar have to do with the content of the website the domain points to? They are not hosting the content themselves, nor are they even pointing to it (assuming private nameservers are used).

I don't see any grounds on which godaddy could reasonably claim policy jurisdiction over objectionable content they do not actively host themselves. To me, this seems like a conservative phone company bricking users phones because they've been used to watch porn. If the hosted content is illegal, they should be reported to authorities. If it is not, godaddy should act like the transparent utility service that it is and not intervene.

Am I wrong in my line of thinking?

I short while ago, I was surprised to find my tech-illiterate family members and friends using DuckDuckGo without me having the privacy talk with them (many of them cited that they feel Google has finally crossed the line).

The thing is that people (including those who don't use DDG) remember "the goofy-looking duck". DuckDuckGo would be extremely foolish to throw away the mind share they built so far.

Besides, for whatever it's worth, I happen to like the name and logo. I think it's very memorable and has character unlike generic startup name #13.

> Perhaps because they market to business leaders who could stand to lose a lot if Oracle unleashed the legal hounds?

I think so. But that doesn't seem like it's going to remain a viable business model for too long. Those who are forced by their bosses to work with Oracle today, are going to be the bosses of tomorrow. I personally know a company where anything oracle is explicitly blacklisted because of this reason.

Eventually, Oracle is going to run out of their oblivious- executive-type customers. (inc. govs)

why?

I wouldn't count degrading users' experience when using their previously-normal phones a decision for User UX.

> Apple shipping minimal security fixes to old OS versions has ripple effects that are really unfortunate and expecting every small app developer to support 5 major versions of the OS feature matrix isn't practical.

I think this is a case where Apple has to make a choice between their developers' convenience or their users' UX. I personally think developers should cater to multiple versions just like any other platform (targeting Android APIs, Windows releases, kernel versions).

Apple developers aren't special snowflakes. They can handle what other developers have been doing for as long as programmable computers existed.

In the future, please disclose your affiliation with apple prior to engaging in a discussion that involves your employer, regardless of whether you believe your opinions are unaffected by your employment.

Then again, I'm not convinced that these companies needed to be as specific as they were when denying bloomberg's story if they must comply with some court order.

That's not to mention the lack of evidence of an operation of this scale. Keeping that amount of people quiet for this long is something more newsworthy to me than spy chips.

F-Droid is a good option because they put users before developers.

> it's probably best for businesses to lease devices from Apple than to deal with all the nonsense around repairs.

Heh. Apple's stance on control and repair starts to make a lot of sense when you think of it as apple's transitioning phase to a device-renting business model. They want to make truly owning and repairing your device as inconvenient (and illegal) as possible so that people are more inclined to pay monthly for access to a device.

I just hope other OEMs aren't capable of following in their footsteps.

I run my(?) browsers in their own separate virtual machines. You loose copy and past and you'll need to set up folder sharing, but shit like this is a non-issue.

No major browser vendor (and I mean not a single one) puts users' privacy first. People should treat browsers as the privacy hazard they are.

I understand the point you're making, but I still stand by my opinion. Software that goes out of its way to subvert the wishes of the user is defective, malicious, or both.

That's why it should be disabled by default but also be overridable. Those users would have to mess with browser flags to re-enable older versions. And if a user is willing to mess with advanced browser settings without understanding them, there are far worse security settings to mess with than outdated tls protocols.

Users MUST have ultimate control over software and not the other way around; even if it such control is used to do something very stupid. Software deliberately designed to go against the wishes of its users is defective, malicious, or both.

PS: point (d) is a non-point.

> nothing should be executable in the home folder

Says who? The purpose of a home directory to contain user-specific files including executables. Developers compile their software and write their scripts in their home directory. Even if we made the absurd decision that no file may be executed from the directory, there are many ways to cause harm by simply editing user-specific configuration files (e.g. in ~/.config).

Arguing that the problem is with executables in $HOME rather than Flatpak is incredibly delusional.

A very important aspect of snap that should have been noted in the article is the lack of user control over the a snap's updating process; Users are not allowed to control when updates are applied, leading to a windows 10-like user experience: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...

From what I could understand, placing the update process under the control of snap app developers - rather that device owners - is deliberate design decision.

Assuming this is not an oversight and microsoft is purposefully withholding licensing their patents, why did Microsoft join the OIN?

My naive guess is either PR or to obtain a hard-to-get license grant from a competitor but I expect I'm wrong on both counts.

Not wittingly.

I agree. Regardless of what GP's feelings on the matter are, Open Source is a proper and well-defined term that was originally used as a way to sell open software business models to high-level execs.

I've never seen anyone advocate the term as open-but-not-free beyond those stating it to defend a point.

Not to mention that these back doors can be easily disabled, e.g intels high assurance mode, but normal "owners" are specifically not allowed to disable them.

The whole thing is a fucking mess.

I don't know why you're being downvoted, but what your saying is true.

Firefox activates limited telemetry for folks who turn off the heavy stuff. While your firefox browser shows that no telemetry is taking place, the browser will silently send information about your browser, os, and other information to Mozilla.

Personally, the privacy implications don't concern me as much as a browser that is deliberately lying to and deceiving it's users (though I can certainly see how it can be privacy concern).

If someone wants true and total control over their browsing experience, neither firefox or chrome are a good choice (imo).

>we will measure Telemetry Coverage, which is the percentage of all Firefox users who report telemetry. The Telemetry Coverage measurement will sample a portion of all Firefox clients and report whether telemetry is enabled. This measurement will not include a client identifier and will not be associated with our standard telemetry.

Telemetry for telemetry. Nice.

Well I'll be.. A parent-child relationship more odd than those found in os process hierarchies.

I've actually been hoping and waiting for this to happen.

I've been keeping an eye on bitcoin long before the bitcoin faucet dried up, and am a big believer in bitcoin as a practical currency rather than something to gamble with. Hopefully with this, bitcoin becomes usable again as means to transact in low-value trades with other people.

I'll be that deluded person here: we completely switched to using Linux at my workplace and never touched windows 10. Granted we're a software dev shop, but from what I've seen, realistic workable alternatives do exist.

Cheers.

I think it's a reasonable interpretation and I agree with GP. APIs used to be seen as fair use and a way to compete, in the similar way to how IBM-compatibles are seen. However, when it became clear to Oracle that there is money to be had, they changed the very definition of copyright to get their fill. What's to say they wont mutate some other aspect of IP law in the future just to make you liable like they did with google?

If you're big enough, they will come after you. I think it's perfectly rational - and i'd argue smart - to cut them off early before it's too late.

I'd take predictable slow software on some platforms over unpredictable fast software any day.

As long as it's not presented as secure to users, I think it's a good thing.

> Applying all of the changes at this list will harm users and increase the chances of threats compromising the browser.

How so?

And this move was made under the guise of improving ux for normal users and not users who know how subdomains work. What's the point you're trying to make?