papachito

I think the most widely used database is sqlite.

That could be said for any artwork.

"Rich" countries have tiny birth rates compared to others, you can't ignore that fact by saying "people love making babies everywhere" (I live in Peru btw).

Fossil SCM does not do one thing that does it right, it does many things actually, ticketing, wiki, scm and more I think.

As a matter of fact, the digital economy play a huge role in the 60% abot poverty rate. So it should matter to them.

Have you kept at what KDE's done with WebKit before 2002 and what Google and many others have done with WebKit?

> or like one of Apple's arch-competitors is using Apple's open source code to compete with them

WebKit is based on KHTML though from KDE, so not entirely Apple's. Not to mention that chrome uses V8 which is not JScore from Apple but full Google's code.

Gruber is that you?

What are you talking about? Those backgrounds are beautiful especially those by Yann Arthus-Bertrand. As for Chrome's themes, they look fine to me.

Even Googlers agree with Eran, xauth is just a temporary solution, the real solution should go into the browser, maybe with a API that is xauth compatible. Mozilla is already working on those ideas.

edit, from another googler: http://www.google.com/buzz/dclinton/RcW6X3EjKj1/John-Panzers...

> John Panzer's take on the XAuth project is pretty much spot-on. It's not that XAuth is what anyone wants for the ultimate answer in this space. > Rather, XAuth is a short-term way of pushing for any momentum in this direction.

> There are a number of companies leading it, btw:

> MySpace: http://xauthdemo.myspace.com/

> Microsoft: http://xauthdemo.mslivelabs.com/

> Yahoo: http://developer.yahoo.net/blog/archives/2010/04/xauth_oauth...

> Etc., etc. (Eran suggested this was Google-led, which didn't quite strike me as accurate, given that Yahoo, Microsoft, MySpace, etc., were all as involved as Google was.)

> For more background on XAuth, I did a round-up of the various announcements and responses during the XAuth launch:: http://www.google.com/buzz/dclinton/CYgLcs24yqP/

.cl is for Chile.

> So, SaaS is okay so long as the "risks" are sufficiently small? Who defines that risk, me? So that makes it okay for me to use Google Docs, since I deem the risk of Google doing something evil with my documents to be small?

Yes, if you don't put anything too private in there, it's ok (according to him), he also said in another interview that it's ok to use Facebook as long as you don't put any private stuff there.

> ...thus violating the "essential freedoms" of anyone who uses your thin clients?

Could you explain why it violates "essential freedoms"?

Yes, because Admob doesn't work on Android which will soon have more market share than the iPhone ;)

Here is his full opinion on SaaS http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...

> why is this TLD being allowed?

Colombia?

I just type Ctrl+Enter to append the .com, works in chrome, ff and IE at least.

> Finally, we never let geography get in the way. We hire the best we can no matter where they are. We're based in Chicago, but we have programmers in Idaho and California, system administrators in North Carolina and downstate Illinois, designers in Oklahoma and Colorado, a writer in New York City, and others in Europe. This obviously wouldn't work for customer-facing folks, but for most everyone else, it does. The best are everywhere. It's up to you to find them.

This is so true, I don't understand tech companies from London or Miami or whatever that do not accept telecommuting and require someone from their own city. They're missing out on the best just so they can have face to face? Face to face is not required in programing!

Froyo is already much faster.

It does do browser sniffing, it works on his ubuntu because he's using firefox with the mplayer plugin that can read h264.

I'm on Linux too, I can't view Quicktime unless I install illegal codecs.

> They seem to use the video-tag in some cases (Safari, maybe Chrome) but not in others

Not chrome, only Safari. So yes, this is basically the same thing as forcing flash as you either have to change the browser, get a new OS if you're on linux, install a plugin, download the file manually or cheat your user agent. Not very "standard" friendly to say the least.

Pretty ironic that their announcement about HTML5 on the download page is broken on most browsers:

http://www.apple.com/safari

screenshot: http://grab.by/4O3f

Except these demos were not HTML5 http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/06/intellectual-honest...

> This age limit only matters if parental controls are enabled. You can then pick which apps can be used, based on their age limit (all of them, only 17+, …). Some OS apps like Safari get extra switches – you can explicitly decide whether Safari and a few other things can be used or not.

Thanks I know how it works, no matter how you put it, limiting browsing the net to +17 year old is ridiculous and actually bad, the internet is the greatest resource for students.

> By the way, how do parental controls work on Android? I’m really curious!

There is none, and that's the way it should be, parental control should be done by... parents, not Steve Jobs. If you have porn addictions like this guy you can still remove the browser, youtube and marketplace apps though: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?...

Edit: parental control is password protected on the iPhone, but it can be undone by a reset of the phone, which any kid can do, so it's pretty useless anyway.

> So, if I understand you correctly, Apple should decide what constitutes good parenting?

It looks like they do actually, forbidding +17 year old to access the web.

> It just seems so completely absurd and ridiculous to claim that bad design must imply that Apple doesn’t want teenagers to surf the web.

How is that bad design? It clearly states that you must be more than 17 year old to access the web.

It's dumb because a web browser should not be considered as something allowed only to people of +17 year old.

Why don't firefox and chrome have such a warning then?

> If they're based in the US, maybe, but there is more to the Internet than just the US.

I just think it's Apple acting overly prude like banning US political cartoons etc. Being sued because your web browser has access to adult web sites doesn't make sense. Countries where those sites are illegal are already censoring those sites (China, Malaysia etc).

Really? Enabling parent control on the iPhone blocks both Safari and Opera which means no access to wikipedia and other amazing sources of education just because they may stumble on porn which can be found everywhere anyway? There's nothing to feel good about this. In the meantime, I guess the iFart app is not forbidden, it looks more like "dumbing down kids" than "parental control" to me.

Forbidding teens to get access to the internet is considered good parenting now?