Exactly the same here. That, plus I search frequently on current social and political "hot button" issues and trust google even less than I trust Microsoft to provide an unbiased result. I've found that Bing works well, most of the time. If I'm disappointed with the search result then I'll try google, and, I admit, sometimes find something which Bing missed.

If it were thirty minutes I'd expect it have twenty seven minutes of "but first, let me introduce myself", but at only eight, you are probably right.

Me too, from the first time I used MS-DOS in 1989!

I'm surprised that in the list of days of significant loss of American lives, including famous battles, D-Day belongs at #13, and above Pearl Harbor (#15), but was omitted.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2Fnews%2Fd...

And I'm an Australian!

.. had to regularly remove the "Ask" toolbar from relatives' PC's because Adobe had pushed it with a Flash update, with an opt-in default.

Mum: I hate this thing in my google, how did I get it?
Me: You accepted an update without checking what you were clicking.
Mum: That's very annoying
Me: Yes

Repeat every six months for about ten years. I think it finally ended in about 2016.

I made a point of never having Adobe software of any kind on my PC, and never will.

Agreed. I hate the way "Save as" (which also has been renamed, at least once...) makes it hard to specify a folder. I hate this, and all the other symptoms of obscuring the actual file structure, which, as you say, people have understood and used for years.

Still, it's not only Microsoft who do this. You get the same problems in Android, iPhones, DropBox. You know exactly where you want to store something, and have to go through hoops to find it.

And when they fix it, please don't break it in the next update. I've just given up with Windows 10. The most basic things (eg. searching for a file by name, or right-clicking on a taskbar icon for ways to start it), work for a while, then are broken in the next update. In the first couple of years some updates would break all of the file associations, which was outrageous. At least that doesn't happen any more.

Yes, frameworks have made possible vast amounts of (nearly) working software. Granted that, the problem with them is that after using one comfortably for the first 90% you are stuck with corner cases which end up taking most of your time. Once the whole thing's working you have a mess which you barely understand and don't dare touch to "optimise" it, and also have no time left for optimisation.

IOW, when working with a framework, you don't have the luxury of exploring anything other than cajoling it into working for you.

But I'd still work with a framework, unless I have the luxury of spending months without pressure to get the application out economically.

---

Joel Spolsky's Law of Leaky Abstractions.

"All non-trivial abstractions, to some degree, are leaky."

Thankyou for the answers to my question, Antique Geekmeister, Sique, angel'o'sphere, Eravnrekaree.

Very helpful, and the question has been comprehensively answered.

Individual contributors retain the copyright to their code, as assigned by default in the relevant jurisdiction, and also possibly with their own copyright notice. In the Linux source tree they published under GPL 2.0, as required by Linux kernel licensing rules

ALL contributions to the kernel are published under the GPL, version 2.0. See Linux kernel licensing rules

I'm interested in whether contributors have the option of retain personal copyright on their contributions, just so long as they are published under the GPL, and can't find that in the rules.

Yes, but shouldn't your title be Why Pay for What You Can Get for Free?

In this case, the "pros" are the services you are suggesting are more than most people need.

Right reasoning, but you got the wrong end of the maxim.

Spot on - Harvard University is the pre-eminent university of Cambridge, Massachusetts. If there is also a "University of Cambridge" there, then it is not in the least well known. With MIT also there, there isn't much room in the global namespace for lesser known colleges in Massachusetts.

Someone who has never heard of "Miami" may well appreciate such a clarification.

Just as someone who's heard of Cambridge, Mass, but never of Cambridge University (UK), may appreciate some clarification.

Interesting point, but I disagree. Perhaps when one mentions "Cambridge" if it's not obvious from context whether it's the UK or Massachusetts, then one should clarify, but "Cambridge University" without qualification is normally taken as the original Cambridge University in the UK. I guess from your post that there is a university of Cambridge, Mass, but it is nowhere near as famous a Cambridge University in the UK.

When they say "We're tired of the dialogue, ,,," they seem to imply that "dialogue" was just one attempt to get what they want, and after that didn't work they'll turn to another method. Which puts a question mark over whether the dialogue was ever two way, as in the normal understanding of the term.

I guess that when you're right and it's a matter of critical social importance, "dialogue" doesn't have to be two way. In fact, it's better to not listen to anyone who disagrees with you. Even if it's you who's asking (telling) them to do something for *you*.