Mobile Safari is the new IE. Random idiosyncrasies that are poorly documented dictated by the whims of a single corporation. Apple has broken stuff multiple times in the past few years.
I was thinking more of every web app needing one or more "if isIE() {} else {}" blocks somewhere in its codebase. Now we have the wondrous pleasure of doing the same for Apple.
Microsoft stopped developing IE when the government sued them for simply including IE with Windows, the same thing Apple does with Safari. But Apple is far more abusive and forbids any other browser engine on iOS, all browsers on iOS are forced to use Safari under the hood.
> Microsoft stopped developing IE when the government sued them for simply including IE with Windows
They weren't sued for simply including IE with Windows (bundling IE and business arrangements to prevent OEMs from replacing was one of several means of leveraging the Windows desktop OS monopoly to monopolize other markets in the antitrust suit), and they didn't stop developing IE when that suit was initiated.
> But Apple is far more abusive and forbids any other browser engine on iOS
Bundling wasn't the offense, illegally leveraging the desktop OS monopoly to monopolize other markets was the offense. Bundling was part of the means but the means itself want illegal, the ends to which the means were employed were.
> "The central issue was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its IE web browser software with its Windows operating system."
> "the DOJ built upon the allegation that Microsoft forced computer makers to include its Internet browser as a part of the installation of Windows software."
It's the same exact situation with MacOS/iOS and Safari, but it's actually far worse with Apple and iOS Safari because people have no choice to install another web browser on iOS, all web browsers on iOS are Safari.
Now, finally, the DOJ is rightly going after Apple for doing this, and many, many other abusive business practices.
IIRC, America's weird relationship with sex is rooted in our Puritan history.
Idk about our comfort with depictions of violence. We definitely have a history of "cowboy & indian" films, so it could come from the glorification of our genocidal past (or the genocidal past itself). The Vietnam War on the TV every night for a couple decades is another good option.
Actually this is open source. This is what the term refers to. What you mean is that it's not free (libre) software, which is most certainly is not. They do not respect you and your rights: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
sigh OSI was established specifically because they just wanted to share code and didn't care about GNU's 4 freedoms, so don't be surprised when the proponents of open source give you projects you can't even fork.
OSI was established specifically because companies got queasy over free software's quasi-religious rationale behind the "four freedoms" and wanted something that sounded a lot more pragmatic while effectively being the same thing.
Don't get facts twisted, it was never "if you happen to peek at the code, it's open"; it's the full freedom backing behind it. That's exactly what the OSD is about, which was linked int the parent, if you bothered to read it.
We're probably just talking past each other. The reason GNU comes off as religious is because they frame the whole issue in terms of human rights and moral imperatives (it is wrong to hide the source and we have the right to share). OSI prefers to frame it in terms of capabilities and transactional relationships (it's a win-win!).
The OSD is compatible with GNU licenses; I've read it before. That doesn't change the reality that by reframing the issue from rights to abilities, the OSI created the very environment where Winamp can be released as "open-source" while making forking illegal.
They are directly complicit in propagating the lie of open-source AI. If you can't inspect how it was made, including the actual training the data, you don't have the ability to understand how the AI was made. The choice of the lumber is part of how a chair is made.
Without the "I have the right to know what my computer is doing", there is nothing backing point 2 of the OSD. Without "I have the right to share", there is nothing backing point 1.
Not a lot of communication with your colleagues when you die on Friday and nobody notices until Tuesday. People came in and worked an entire day while she was in her cubicle decomposing.
I also love Clean Code and think it unfairly gets a bad rap, but here's a great, sometimes hostile, conversation with the author that touches on the issues:
Just for context, this was posted to Github by the author of Clean Code himself, Robert C. Martin, while exchanging messages with Casey Muratory [0]. They talk about performance, about testing, and maybe other stuff (I'm at less than half of it)
reply