It's a bad argument to compare the prices for one service in two distinct countries and then imply that the price difference must be due to regulation. There are a lot of other factors going into the price difference - from fuel prices, car prices, repairs, to taxes and other differentiating factors. Prices also always relate to the average cost of living in the area.
The average earning per km in Berlin is somewhere around or below 1,50 EUR before costs (anecdotal evidences but from a credible source). Nobody really gets rich from that - not even the cab company.
I don't think you realize how small a kilometer is! Or how valuable a Euro is (in terms of real money like dollars). That sounds to me like an incredible rate of profit.
These cities in the UK that cost three pounds to cross half of. Are they some kind of special, tiny city? Perhaps made out of lego? An awful lot of taxis charge a couple of quid as the minimum fare just to get in it, so where you're getting these taxis I don't know.
Here's a big list. Even allowing for the inherent unreliability of the internet (and some of those prices look a bit suspicious), just which city is it that costs three pounds to cross in a taxi?
Those prices look suspicious indeed. Most of my experience is from Glasgow around 2010.
I just entered a journey I made often (home in north-west Glasgow to the central station) and that website came up with £13.50. I clearly remember paying £5 with tip for that journey from a local taxi company.
Even with the dominant black cab company, I don't remember going home from the city centre late night for as much as that.
In Paisley, which is a bit smaller, I took taxis to the airport for £3 or £4.
It was nice of Microsoft to admit that their customers are moving to Linux:
"We’ve been working with customers and partners on the migration from Windows XP since we announced in September 2007 that support for Windows XP would end on April 8. 2014. As part of this effort, we’ve made custom support more affordable so large enterprise organizations could have temporary support in place while they migrate to a more modern and secure operating system."
I didn't even realise BitBucket wasn't originally an Atlassian product. What do you think makes it seem so seamless, or what makes Atlassian so good at integrating new products?
TBH I would say they are "ok" at integrating products. Until last year I worked at a company that used Atlassian products, and while they worked well together there were definitely a lot of points of integration that were missing which we felt should have been there. It's been getting better over time, but it's definitely not seamless.
BitBucket/JIRA/Confluence integration could be much tighter. BitBucket definitely feels like an island IME.
That said, it's most of what you want from Github at much more reasonable rates. So I'm very happy with it outside of the positive network effects of forking on Github (I rarely see a lib I want to fork on BitBucket).
Well, obviously it's not open source, but GH Enterprise is delivered as a running Ruby app, so you can take a look. Of course the TOS says you shouldn't read or reverse engineer or whatever.
But I know people fix bugs that GitHub won't fix in their enterprise product by patching the Ruby source after each new update.
Though as described here: http://op-co.de/blog/posts/mobile_xmpp_in_2014/#index2h2 -- Message Carbons don't help if your phone is out of coverage for a few minutes, as your desktop client will get the carbons, but when you come back online, you'll be oblivious to any messages sent during that time.
Be aware that push is very early. But there are two working implementations already - oTalk and Buddycloud (https://github.com/buddycloud/buddycloud-pusher). What's interesting is that we both came up with very similar solutions. So specing something official and then adapting our code to match the spec should be trivial (in the grand scheme of things).
