The two things I hear from HN about new gTLDs are that they're a pointless cash grab and that it would be really nice to have a .js domain for javascript projects.

In this case the majority of the easter egg code is running inside the VM sandbox. It's very unlikely but not impossible that the small amount of code needed to load the hidden disk image when a key combo is pressed would contain a major bug.

Personally I like it. It's a fun little touch

By this definition John sending an unexpected party invitation to his friend Dave is spam.

edit: I guess spam is by definition commercial email. Still, I think it's possible to have a business relationship with a company where it's acceptable for them to send an occasional email that you didn't specifically request.

Business relationships are different from personal relationships, and "solicit," in this case, does not mean literally request the email. It is perfectly reasonably to describe unexpected email from a friend as solicited and unexpected product email from a business as unsolicited (even if you've had contact with them previously).

It is unlikely that the business is your friend ;-).

Personally, there are a select few brands from whom I enjoy reading unsolicited emails.

They have proven themselves to me and I like them on an irrationally human level.

What bothers me, however, is when the other 99.9% of the brands I interact with automatically assume that they are the 0.1%.

Yes, it's possible and acceptable to have that kind of relationship between a client/business, but the problem becomes when a brand believes that they can control that relationship, or define it themselves, or simply assume that it exists.

"I guess spam is by definition commercial email"

That's only some definitions. There are more hardcore people who'd view anything they didn't explicitly request as 'spam', just some of it originating from people they know vs companies they know.

One one hand I'm happy to see the web able to do more and more. On the other hand, I worry that as we turn the browser into a platform with all these client side capabilities, browsers will become big complicated messes.

They already are, to one extent or another. Browsers are rivaling monolithic kernels and entire operating systems with userspace applications in size.

I wish we would see more browser features (cross-browser standards, app deployment style, ability to run random 3rd party code relatively securely, app interoperability) moved into the OS, rather than more OS features moved into the browser.

We already have them, it is just web devs tend to blindly ignore them.

I can't quite yet make a native, cross-OS app I can deploy by clicking a link and that anyone will trust not to eat their computer just by running it. It's also a lot more work to implement things like networking.

JNLP deployment of Java applications.

Click once deployment for .NET applications as another example.

Only nobody likes Java desktop applications. Including me, and I've programmed professionally in the language since 1998.

And they are non starters for demanding multimedia work, which is some of the most interesting stuff you want to do in the desktop as opposed as a web app.

.NET feels better (because MS didn't screw up as much, as Java did with the overengineered uncanny valley mess that is Swing), but it's not cross platform.

So, still, not comparable to deploying in the browser sandbox.

> So, still, not comparable to deploying in the browser sandbox.

That much is true, I haven't yet used so brain damaged set of programming tools as the HTML/JavaScript/CSS gimmick required to make the so called web applications in all browser versions required by our customers.

Mono can run .Net apps on lots of platforms. I'm running the same Tomboy (note-taking) binary on Linux and Windows.

The problem is then you're stuck with OS dependencies. Browsers are cross-platform.

Given how web development is "write once, debug everywhere, implement hacks everywhere" I have another understanding of cross-platform.

At least you have the chance to debug everywhere. Current native tools often are just fundamentally incompatible. Even if we just had hacky cross-os standards that'd be better than nothing.

> At least you have the chance to debug everywhere.

Good luck with mobile and set top box browsers.

> I worry that as we turn the browser into a platform with all these client side capabilities, browsers will become big complicated messes.

They aren't already?

I guess I don't understand how UEFI is inherently less free than BIOS. I assume most of of the opposition is due to secure boot, but every implementation I've used let the user manage keys for secure boot or disable it entirely. Are there other reasons that UEFI is a threat to computing freedom?

The Asus model 1015E does not let you disable Restricted Boot, nor does it allow you to re-enable Legacy Boot.

I don't have direct proof or experience, but I understand that many other models (and manufacturers) are similarly broken.

Buggy BIOS is nothing new.

Thanks for turning me on Grab and Drag. Firefox is one of the few things I want to touch scroll on Linux.

Seconded! Only used it for about 30 seconds and this is already one of my favorite add ons. :) I kind of wish it was only enabled for the touch or pen cursors, anyone know if that is possible?

I bought a refurbished ASUS Vivobook X202E and put Linux Mint on it. I was pleasantly surprised that everything worked out of the box (touchscreen, multitouch trackpad, wifi, etc). It's still important to have manufacturers standing behind Linux on their PCs, but hardware support on Linux is always getting better.

The Motorola blog says that the phone will have an unlockable bootloader (in the U.S) which means you should be able to install custom ROMs.