Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2208 > unrolled thread

[CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-02 10:55 +0000
    Re:[CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-04 20:19 +0000
      Re: [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-04 23:17 +0200
      Re: [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-04 21:41 +0000
        Re: [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-05 10:31 +0000
          Re: [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-04-05 16:56 +0000
            Re: [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-04-05 20:03 +0000
              Re: [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-06 01:47 +0200

#2208 — [CM] WebOS betrayal costs HP $57M in class action lawsuit

From the «opensource the OS and we'll call it even» department:
Title: WebOS Betrayal Costs HP $57 Million in Class Action Settlement
Author: The Verge
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:09:15 -0400
Link: http://www.linux.com/news/biz-os/legal/768519-webos-betrayal-costs-hp-57-million-in-class-action-settlement/

It may have been overshadowed by pricier acquisition deals in subsequent
years, but HP's 2010 takeover of Palm remains a milestone event. It was a
seemingly perfect combination of a highly competitive mobile operating system
with a deep-pocketed hardware juggernaut. HP promised it would fund the
future development of webOS and...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2252

RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> Wrote in message:
> From the «opensource the OS and we'll call it even» department:
> Title: WebOS Betrayal Costs HP $57 Million in Class Action Settlement
> Author: The Verge
> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:09:15 -0400
> Link: http://www.linux.com/news/biz-os/legal/768519-webos-betrayal-costs-hp-57-million-in-class-action-settlement/
> 
> It may have been overshadowed by pricier acquisition deals in subsequent
> years, but HP's 2010 takeover of Palm remains a milestone event. It was a
> seemingly perfect combination of a highly competitive mobile operating system
> with a deep-pocketed hardware juggernaut. HP promised it would fund the
> future development of webOS and...
> 

Here's the final sentence:


... and instead dropped the project in an abrupt turnabout, to the
 chagrin of shareholders.  

Interesting that the affected party in need of indemnification
 isn't the users or people running webOS devices but rather the
 stockholders.  Doesn't that tell you in a sentence what's wrong
 with the tech world today?

This makes an interesting comparison between WWW and Usenet
 though.  Turns out the RSS feed article I posted to Usenet
 contained 95% of the content already.  But fire up a web browser
 and navigate to the web page and you'll use 100X the bandwidth to
 see:
1 sidebar twitter feed of drivel
2 one stock photo
3 a couple of banner ads
4 a bar of social media buttons
5 a link to the Verge, who I guess wrote the article.
6 a comment form that no one has used, so no dialogue, no
 community, no threaded discussion.

Useless!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2253

On 2014-04-04, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> Wrote in message:
>> From the «opensource the OS and we'll call it even» department:
>> Title: WebOS Betrayal Costs HP $57 Million in Class Action Settlement
>> Author: The Verge
>> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:09:15 -0400
>> Link: http://www.linux.com/news/biz-os/legal/768519-webos-betrayal-costs-hp-57-million-in-class-action-settlement/
>> 
>> It may have been overshadowed by pricier acquisition deals in subsequent
>> years, but HP's 2010 takeover of Palm remains a milestone event. It was a
>> seemingly perfect combination of a highly competitive mobile operating system
>> with a deep-pocketed hardware juggernaut. HP promised it would fund the
>> future development of webOS and...
>> 
>
> Here's the final sentence:
>
>
> ... and instead dropped the project in an abrupt turnabout, to the
>  chagrin of shareholders.  
>
> Interesting that the affected party in need of indemnification
>  isn't the users or people running webOS devices but rather the
>  stockholders.  Doesn't that tell you in a sentence what's wrong
>  with the tech world today?

I read elsewhere that those indemnified were those who bought the stock
between two specific dates; those who already owned HP stock didn't get
anything.

-- 
Paul Sture

"In that case," said Napoleon, "let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy
is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2255

On 2014-04-04, RS Wood wrote:
> This makes an interesting comparison between WWW and Usenet
>  though.  Turns out the RSS feed article I posted to Usenet
>  contained 95% of the content already.  But fire up a web browser
>  and navigate to the web page and you'll use 100X the bandwidth to
>  see:
> 1 sidebar twitter feed of drivel
> 2 one stock photo
> 3 a couple of banner ads
> 4 a bar of social media buttons
> 5 a link to the Verge, who I guess wrote the article.
> 6 a comment form that no one has used, so no dialogue, no
>  community, no threaded discussion.
>
> Useless!

Agreed.  That's why I do more than half of my browsing in a terminal
browser like elinks ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2264

Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> Wrote in message:
> On 2014-04-04, RS Wood wrote:
>> This makes an interesting comparison between WWW and Usenet
>>  though.  Turns out the RSS feed article I posted to Usenet
>>  contained 95% of the content already.  But fire up a web browser
>>  and navigate to the web page and you'll use 100X the bandwidth to
>>  see:
>> 1 sidebar twitter feed of drivel
>> 2 one stock photo
>> 3 a couple of banner ads
>> 4 a bar of social media buttons
>> 5 a link to the Verge, who I guess wrote the article.
>> 6 a comment form that no one has used, so no dialogue, no
>>  community, no threaded discussion.
>>
>> Useless!
> 
> Agreed.  That's why I do more than half of my browsing in a terminal
> browser like elinks ;)
> 

You know which site almost requires elinks or equivalent? 
 LinuxToday.com.  That website is so choked with shit it's almost
 unreadable and takes a LOT of time to download.  On Lynx it's
 something like 15 KB since none of the images, banner ads, or
 crap-scripts gets read.  I can scarcely read that site on any
 other browser.
-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2266

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> Wrote in message:
> > On 2014-04-04, RS Wood wrote:
> >> This makes an interesting comparison between WWW and Usenet
> >>  though.  Turns out the RSS feed article I posted to Usenet
> >>  contained 95% of the content already.  But fire up a web browser
> >>  and navigate to the web page and you'll use 100X the bandwidth to
> >>  see:
> >> 1 sidebar twitter feed of drivel
> >> 2 one stock photo
> >> 3 a couple of banner ads
> >> 4 a bar of social media buttons
> >> 5 a link to the Verge, who I guess wrote the article.
> >> 6 a comment form that no one has used, so no dialogue, no
> >>  community, no threaded discussion.
> >>
> >> Useless!
> > 
> > Agreed.  That's why I do more than half of my browsing in a terminal
> > browser like elinks ;)
> > 

> You know which site almost requires elinks or equivalent? 
>  LinuxToday.com.  That website is so choked with shit it's almost
>  unreadable and takes a LOT of time to download.  On Lynx it's
>  something like 15 KB since none of the images, banner ads, or
>  crap-scripts gets read.  I can scarcely read that site on any
>  other browser.

Loading it with "NoScript" set to block the crap-scripts and AdBlock
set to block the ads in Firefox results in reasonably decent
performance.

Testing it just now with the Firefox network monitor running, Firefox
says:

  5 requests, 57.36 KB, 0.80s 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2270

Rich <rich@example.com> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> > On 2014-04-04, RS Wood wrote:
>> >> This makes an interesting comparison between WWW and Usenet
>> >>  though.  Turns out the RSS feed article I posted to Usenet
>> >>  contained 95% of the content already.  But fire up a web browser
>> >>  and navigate to the web page and you'll use 100X the bandwidth to
>> >>  see:
>> >> 1 sidebar twitter feed of drivel
>> >> 2 one stock photo
>> >> 3 a couple of banner ads
>> >> 4 a bar of social media buttons
>> >> 5 a link to the Verge, who I guess wrote the article.
>> >> 6 a comment form that no one has used, so no dialogue, no
>> >>  community, no threaded discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Useless!
>> > 
>> > Agreed.  That's why I do more than half of my browsing in a terminal
>> > browser like elinks ;)
>> > 
> 
>> You know which site almost requires elinks or equivalent? 
>>  LinuxToday.com.  That website is so choked with shit it's almost
>>  unreadable and takes a LOT of time to download.  On Lynx it's
>>  something like 15 KB since none of the images, banner ads, or
>>  crap-scripts gets read.  I can scarcely read that site on any
>>  other browser.
> 
> Loading it with "NoScript" set to block the crap-scripts and AdBlock
> set to block the ads in Firefox results in reasonably decent
> performance.
> 
> Testing it just now with the Firefox network monitor running, Firefox
> says:
> 
>  5 requests, 57.36 KB, 0.80s 
> 

Loads in a few seconds on this AA1 netbook.  Like Rich I'm using
noscript, but not Adblock.  I find noscript makes web browsing *much*
more pleasant, and much less dangerous. If you're using FF I highly
recommend it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2271

On 2014-04-05, Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.com> wrote:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> You know which site almost requires elinks or equivalent? 
>>>  LinuxToday.com.  That website is so choked with shit it's almost
>>>  unreadable and takes a LOT of time to download.  On Lynx it's
>>>  something like 15 KB since none of the images, banner ads, or
>>>  crap-scripts gets read.  I can scarcely read that site on any
>>>  other browser.
>> 
>> Loading it with "NoScript" set to block the crap-scripts and AdBlock
>> set to block the ads in Firefox results in reasonably decent
>> performance.
>> 
>> Testing it just now with the Firefox network monitor running, Firefox
>> says:
>> 
>>  5 requests, 57.36 KB, 0.80s 
>> 
>
> Loads in a few seconds on this AA1 netbook.  Like Rich I'm using
> noscript, but not Adblock.  I find noscript makes web browsing *much*
> more pleasant, and much less dangerous. If you're using FF I highly
> recommend it.

Prior to discovering NoScript I'd been surfing for years with Javascript
turned off unless really needed.  When I had to configure some Windows boxes
at work it was a real shock discovering how awful an experience it could be
just to download a few basic add-ons for Windows.  

Many of the download sites made it difficult to download the software I
was after without collecting junk such as browser toolbars, registry
cleaners or device driver checks on the way.

While installing FF and NoScript as the first step improved that experience,
not being a regular Windows user I hadn't realised how many download sites
there are out there competing for top spot in the search engines; these
sites obviously make their money out of getting you to install other junk.

Lesson number one is to choose the software author's official download site,
but it's no surprise that so many consumer Windows boxes end up full of
junk.

-- 
Paul Sture

"In that case," said Napoleon, "let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy
is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him."

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web