In regards to the 180 degree spin, this demonstration shows exactly the opposite of what you say. At about 1:34 (elevator in portal 2) he performs a 180 with a single swipe from left to right.
That is not true. The people who contributed the original Shunway code own the copyright to it. They are choosing to license it under Apache. You cannot change that since you do not own the copyright.
They may choose to "relicense" it under GPL if all the contributed agree.
What you suggest cannot legally be done. However, Apache is GPL compatible, so it can still be used in a GPL project, though its license will not change.
It's shorthand for an end result that is in practice similar. If I fork the project, add new features, and license my new code under the GPL, a user of the forked version needs to abide by the copyleft provisions. They could, of course, continue to use the original Apache v2 code without my GPL'd additions, on a non-copyleft basis, since I cannot relicense the existing code.
Lack of support for Linux is a consequence of not being a webapp, and that is what I really don't like (even if this was supported on Linux, OpenBSD and Solaris). Is expecting that Google can deliver cutting edge web-based apps really weird?
It's pretty simple - Apple owns the hardware and software they're pushing updates for. Sure, they don't own the carriers, but that's not the problem.
In Google's case they neither own the hardware nor all the software because each third party phone manufacturer slaps in its own stuff and maintains its own fork of android.
Microsoft might own the software, but they don't fully own the hardware. Microsoft is a lot closer to managing it than Google though.
This isn't that Apple has more power over carriers and it isn't hard to understand - it's simply that they have more ownership of all the devices and there are far fewer types of devices (very limited set of software/hardware combinations).
> In Google's case they neither own the hardware nor all the software because each third party phone manufacturer slaps in its own stuff and maintains its own fork of android.
Which is a problem because these forks take substantial time to update to the newest version of each OS. And then they take more time because sometimes vendors make modifications to the core OS that breaks Google or other core apps (see e.g. EVO and Gmail) so the whole system has to be QA'd rigorously to prove that nothing is broken.
SpiderOak does have one problem. It has no arm build for linux (and they apparently have no plans to make one soon). If you frequently use a Raspberry Pi or linux on an arm Chromebook then you'll be out of luck on syncing your files.
I wish they'd release simple sourcecode for a headless sync client or that someone would reverse engineer it enough for that to happen. As it is, you can sshfs mount a folder synced by one of your x86 computers, but that's definitely not ideal.
Other than that complain I've enjoyed using SpiderOak and it's a great piece of software.
I personally use keepass and keepassx (the alpha compatible with keepass2.x) and sync my passwords with SpiderOak. That's worked pretty well for me, and I don't actually have to trust a website with my passwords. Even if there's an insecurity in SpiderOak, they'd only get my encrypted keepass database which they'd then have to also decrypt.
I used to use z, but I've since switched to fasd. It's much like z, but also so much better. In addition to being able to do "z <part of directory>" you can do "f <part of file>". So, for example, if I've got a rails project I've worked on a lot recently I know its config.ru is high on frecency, so I'll just do "vim `f config`" to edit that file. If I want a file that's not so recent I can always do "vim `f -i config`" to pick from a list of files.
fasd is leaps and bounds above z in functionality, and I've thoroughly enjoyed using it.
I put z and fasd through their paces, and out of the box z works very intuitively. I like it. fasd takes a little more to get used to, but I'm going to put it through a full try out. Let's see if the additional features make it worth the while. In either case, thanks all for a great thread.
Vertical space on linux? That's simply not true. Exhibit 1: The default firefox and chromium running on my linux (ubuntu, i3wm). http://i.imgur.com/paE173H.png . 6 pixels by default in favour of firefox.
The real problem though is chrome's interface really is completely inflexible. I like a thinner browser than either of those. Hence, my firefox setup: http://i.imgur.com/XAyc8Tu.png .. 17 pixels more space than chrome can be gained easily (firefox with only the extension 'pentadactyl'). And further more, since firefox's appearence is all just XUL it can be styled to be as thin or thick as I like.
So yeah, firefox you can change the ui to be vertically thin. It's simply impossible to do that with chrome.
When I start up Firefox on Ubuntu running Gnome 3.6 classic or whatever they call it, I got the traditional firefox and definitely no tabs in the title bar, a bunch of vertical space used for the menus, address field and search field and the list goes on. I was able to customize the bars in order to move everything onto one line but couldn't make it the same line as the menu, and could only find bugzilla entries about not being able to move tabs to the title bar on Linux.
I've always felt ghostery is the poor-man's noscript. If he wants to know about all external calls (which he presumably does) then noscript will actually do that while ghostery will let 'good' ones by untouched.
I use RequestPolicy[1] to prevent cross-site requests. If only NoScript is used and a user has allowed javascript on a domain, then NoScript allows cross-site requests and javascript from that domain to run on any domain.
I've read up on AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery. I have no idea what differentiate's them. Some people run two or more. I have no idea if more means better.
I don't have the gumption to splunk the code.
I kinda wish either they'd declare each other competitors or embrace each other as compliments.
AdBlock blocks ads, Ghostery blocks "trackers", and NoScript blocks all JavaScript (and a few other dangerous potentials). NoScript doesn't necessarily block ads but it does block "trackers" by default.
I used Ghostery for a while but found it redundant and onerous since I also run NoScript. I agree with the parent that said Ghostery was a poor man's NoScript, though Ghostery only blocks known trackers (analytics tools) and will let random evil scripts through. NoScript allows you to whitelist script sources by domain, so you usually see "Enable example.com; Enable analytics.google.com; Enable quantcast.com;", etc., and you can just enable example.com if you don't like the trackers.
NoScript is really important and useful I think. Less convinced on Ghostery. AdBlock is useful but I don't know if I'd call it "important" really; it provides a great visual convenience to be able to read sites without being bombarded by ads, but one can live safely without it if necessary.
Good summary!
And just shows how much current web "stinks". There's a bunch of tools that advanced users can use to make the web experience more or less safe and tolerable. But I suspect (and sorry, I don't have any source to back up my suspicions) that the majority of the users have no idea that they are being tracked and targeted by bunch of nasty scripts, and more importantly how to fight against this.
Makes one think that tools like Ghostery and NoScript should be built into the browsers and enabled by default.
I think they do compliment each other. Both Ghostery and Adblock come with something NoScript doesn't have by design: A wide array of predefined filters (for trackers and ads, respectively).
However, NoScript is still very useful for (imho) two things: disabling extra functionality that you don't use in exchange for faster loading time, and for browsing on potentially dangerous websites.
AdBlock: Blocks requests with a url match in the filter list.
NoScript: Blocks JavaScript.
Ghostery: Blocks webbugs (JavaScript and hidden tracking elements, such as small/transparent images).
AdBlock appears to be the simplest, and NoScript the most complex (e.g., ABE).
