Promising to “find someone” is not a threat much less a restriction of rights. Maybe OP is compiling a list of locked-down devices to avoid, that’s perfectly in their rights, and it’s also in their rights to inform people of such an endeavour.
Promising to “find someone” is not a threat much less a restriction of rights. Maybe OP is compiling a list of locked-down devices to avoid, that’s perfectly in their rights, and it’s also in their rights to inform people of such an endeavour.
Donations are a tiny fraction of Mozilla’s income. Firefox and related projects are their money earners for their actually charitable projects, pulling in at least half a billion or so a year.
Not saying that the CEO pay is adequate or something, but your take is literally ignoring the article you yourself quoted.
Giving you, if you were lucky, VESA graphics and maybe a mouse pointer because XFree86 somehow insisted on being told whether you have a PS/2 or USB mouse. 3d acceleration only with nvidia and that required manual installation because nvidia never provided anything but blobs. IIRC ATI drivers were simply non-existent (didn’t have an ATI card back then), that only changed when AMD bought them. Whippensnappers won’t believe it but once upon the time, nvidia was actually the company to go with when running linux. And Epic didn’t hate Linux yet, UT2004 came with linux binaries on the dvd.
Should all be in place. Even nvidia driver support. It’s one of the rare cases where I actually support nvidia on a technical level, that is, having explicit sync is good. I can also understand that they didn’t feel like implementing proper implicit sync (hence all the tearing etc) when it’s a technically inferior solution.
OTOH, they shouldn’t have bloody waited until now to get this through. Had they not ignored wayland for a literal decade this all could’ve been resolved before it became an issue for end-users.
Counsel concedes that the statement may have been humorously threatening. That, however, does not affect the issue of said action not constituting any form of tort that could be reasonably considered a restriction of rights opposing counsel’s client may hold.