Slashdot Mirror

http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/12/time-to-update-ol-larp-resume.html

Time to Update the Ol’ LARP Resumé

http://www.trollaxor.com/2001/12/linux-party.html

http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/11/linux-2012-real-disaster.html

There are some consequences.

This is a true story. A man lost his genitals in the war, so he took to freezing his poo and taking it out when getting hot and heavy with a lady. He always had to buy extra-thick condoms.

You think that's a problem? Get a load of this.

You think that's a problem? Get a load of this.

Ubuntu install hacked

what the fuck?

Did anyone see this? What the fuck?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2009/7/9/1112/97112
http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html

Ever since Apple, IBM, and Motorola jumped into bed together twelve years ago, tech media and Apple watchdogs especially have had a field day with speculation, rumors, and actual news regarding new PowerPC projects. Apple gave a familiar face and a flair of iconoclast to the affair while IBM lent a grave sobriety. This thing could really happen, then, someone to challenge the Microsoft/Intel duopoly. And the stories just kept coming, well into the next decade. But not all of them were so real.

So what were these projects that came and went faster than a Quad Xeon Mac? Handily enough, they're right below, broken down by project. Read on to find out what Apple, IBM, and Motorola had in store for us throughout the Nineties and what didn't make the cut. Through all the rumors, one thing was certain: AIM never had a lack of imagination, even if it didn't always end up in silicon.

Too Much Too Soon

IBM and Motorola jointly announced the 64-bit PowerPC 620 at the October '94 Microprocessor Forum nine years earlier than the Power Mac G5 and its PowerPC 970 processor. Designed for servers, the 620 supported up to 128 MB L2 cache(!) and was set to scale from 133 to 150 MHz. It eventually shipped, albeit briefly, in systems from Groupe Bull. Structurally it was nearly identical with the PowerPC 604, save for some nips and tucks and wider registers and data paths. Think of a PowerPC 604 with twice the lung capacity.

The 620's similarity to the PowerPC 604 was also its undoing. At this point in time, the 604 was clocking up, and because it was a 32-bit chip, it ran cooler and cheaper than its 64-bit brother and actually out-performed it. The PowerPC 604 was also getting upgraded to the 604e, which further blew the pants off the 620. That, plus the fact that no one really needed a 64-bit workstation at that point in time resulted in one dead-end PowerPC core. The chip supposedly reached 200 MHz with an enhanced core (the PowerPC 620e?) before the guillotine fell.

Oops, looks like we didn't need 64-bit that badly yet.

He Goes Both Ways

Talk about ambitious. In '96 sources started to talk the PowerPC 615 that ran x86 instructions natively. How it did this wasn't exactly clear: At first the chip had to boot in either PowerPC or x86 mode, then it gained the ability to run the other ISA's instructions after a five clock-cycle flush, then it decoded the instructions on the fly, and finally it was supposed to have a separate unit or co-processor that made them magic happen. On top of that it plugged into existing OverDrive sockets but also created enormous amounts of heat.

Whew, huh?

That's what Microsoft said when talking to IBM about it. The chip would need Windows NT to succeed and MS didn't think it was a good idea. With nothing else really wanting to run on it because why would you run x86 software on a chip that didn't do x86 as fast or as cheap as Intel, and who's going to use the PowerPC ISA? IBM found itself without an audience on this one. Big Blue actually taped out some test units, but they're probably collecting dust or jingling against a set of keys now. This hybrid beast wowed its engineers and no one else.

The So-Called Speed Demon

Exponential, Inc. took the PowerPC 604 design and stripped it bare in order to blast its clock speed into the stratosphere. Using BiCMOS technology that allowed for faster gate switching, the PowerPC X was slated to run at speeds of 533 MHz in late 1996 when AIM and Intel were toying with 200 MHz. Of course, Mac users ate it up: PowerPC was at least holding even with Intel's offerings and they were eager for more good news. Apple had even invested in the company, and

And then everyone woke up. The Mach V and PowerPC G3 were already hitting the marks claimed by Exponential, who had in the meantime only delivered a 410 MHz part that didn't so much run as it did that thing where you cross the street in front of a car and try to act l

I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately. The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits. I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th. (For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using Firefox 3.5.

At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar. I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 test. Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11. What the fuck? I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.

Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla. The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version. I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.

In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript? The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else. When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.

Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate. This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory. But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it. Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.

The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area. Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it? Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.

And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!

I also have to mention memory use. On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open. 400 MB?! I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's Safari, which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)

Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open. I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future. No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.

With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on Wikipedia and then on the Mozilla Development Forums. It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs. The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.

For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.

Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too. Som

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

This post is lifted directly from trollaxor.

http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html

Please, when a post is as obviously a troll as this, mod it fucking troll.

You must eat it.

It has come to my attention that on May 12, 2003, Slashdot ran a story in which it solicited questions for one Fyodor, (in)famous author of Open Source hacker tool nmap. I am rarely roused to action anymore, but I could not let what I saw pass. Millions of innocent security hobbyists and computer enthusiasts are being duped by Slashdot into using tools and websites created by Fyodor without knowing all of the facts:

Fyodor is not a heroic "white hat" security expert, but a depraved, insidious hacker hell-bent on criminal intrusions into systems owned by minors!

Please read on and review some of the facts so that you may come to your own conclusions about Fyodor and nmap.

Beginning innocuously enough with this post by one electricmonk, supposedly a "Linux booth babe," several lonely Slashdot geeks were trolled into replying, both on Slashdot itself and privately by email. One of the individuals who replied privately by email was none other than the subject of this exposé, Fyodor, cruising for some hot geek-loving ass. Little did Fyodor know that electricmonk was none other than SumDeusExMachina, AKA SDEM, long-time trolling stalwart. Fyodor had let his hormones get the better of his common sense as he began an attempt to seduce electricmonk.

Not wanting to carry his charade on any further (and understandably so, with an over-excited Fyodor on his tail), SDEM explained politely and truthfully to Fyodor about the non-existant Linux booth babe who was really just a bored young man enrolled in college for the Summer. Fyodor's latest hantise femelle destroyed, he vowed revenge on SDEM no matter the cost. The word wanker echoed in his head as he decided not even the law would stop him in his unholy vengeance. In just over a week, Fyodor had owned SDEM's box and began posting about it in trolltalk.

Luckily, on one unbelievably hot, humid Kansas City day back in August of 2002, Dame Fortune guided my hand to save a copy of trolltalk complete with Fyodor gloating at his criminal victory over SDEM. Scroll down a bit and look for posts by fv and decide for yourself. We even have a statement from one of the two parties involved and a nice summary of events by a very dependable third party who witnessed the entire fiasco. And back in the present, we have several individuals raising questions about Fyodor's morality and legal status.

I now ask you, gentle sirs and madams, would you use a tool written by a known criminal, especially a known criminal who specifically attacks underage boys? Fyodor's endorsement by Slashdot is obviously a betrayal of simple journalistic integrity and ethics, with both the Slashdot staff and Fyodor standing to experience a significant financial windfall from their collaboration. I urge you to reconsider not only your patronage of Slashdot, but also any viewing or use of tools or websites created

It has come to my attention that on May 12, 2003, Slashdot ran a story in which it solicited questions for one Fyodor, (in)famous author of Open Source hacker tool nmap. I am rarely roused to action anymore, but I could not let what I saw pass. Millions of innocent security hobbyists and computer enthusiasts are being duped by Slashdot into using tools and websites created by Fyodor without knowing all of the facts:

Fyodor is not a heroic "white hat" security expert, but a depraved, insidious hacker hell-bent on criminal intrusions into systems owned by minors!

Please read on and review some of the facts so that you may come to your own conclusions about Fyodor and nmap.

Beginning innocuously enough with this post by one electricmonk, supposedly a "Linux booth babe," several lonely Slashdot geeks were trolled into replying, both on Slashdot itself and privately by email. One of the individuals who replied privately by email was none other than the subject of this exposé, Fyodor, cruising for some hot geek-loving ass. Little did Fyodor know that electricmonk was none other than SumDeusExMachina, AKA SDEM, long-time trolling stalwart. Fyodor had let his hormones get the better of his common sense as he began an attempt to seduce electricmonk.

Not wanting to carry his charade on any further (and understandably so, with an over-excited Fyodor on his tail), SDEM explained politely and truthfully to Fyodor about the non-existant Linux booth babe who was really just a bored young man enrolled in college for the Summer. Fyodor's latest hantise femelle destroyed, he vowed revenge on SDEM no matter the cost. The word wanker echoed in his head as he decided not even the law would stop him in his unholy vengeance. In just over a week, Fyodor had owned SDEM's box and began posting about it in trolltalk.

Luckily, on one unbelievably hot, humid Kansas City day back in August of 2002, Dame Fortune guided my hand to save a copy of trolltalk complete with Fyodor gloating at his criminal victory over SDEM. Scroll down a bit and look for posts by fv and decide for yourself. We even have a statement from one of the two parties involved and a nice summary of events by a very dependable third party who witnessed the entire fiasco. And back in the present, we have several individuals raising questions about Fyodor's morality and legal status.

I now ask you, gentle sirs and madams, would you use a tool written by a known criminal, especially a known criminal who specifically attacks underage boys? Fyodor's endorsement by Slashdot is obviously a betrayal of simple journalistic integrity and ethics, with both the Slashdot staff and Fyodor standing to experience a significant financial windfall from their collaboration. I urge you to reconsider not only your patronage of Slashdot, but also any viewing or use of tools or websites created

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome. So what's with Google's Chrome?

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can mine our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And they're going to come out with their own operating system?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit trying to syphon off my personal data in between crashes!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7.

And they want my personal data to help make their browser better? They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, WebKit nightlies run circles around most websites with nary a freeze or crash. So what's with Google's Chrome?

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral students, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google search, Ads, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint pretty Trojans to try to mine our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And they're going to come out with their own operating system?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing, sneaking, spyware when my Mac has gone dead and cold and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit the crashing and quit syphoning off my personal data!

I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately. The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits. I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th. (For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using Firefox 3.5.

At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar. I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 test. Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11. What the fuck? I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.

Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla. The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version. I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.

In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript? The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else. When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.

Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate. This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory. But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it. Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.

The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area. Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it? Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.

And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!

I also have to mention memory use. On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open. 400 MB?! I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's Safari, which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)

Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open. I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future. No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.

With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on Wikipedia and then on the Mozilla Development Forums. It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs. The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.

For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.

Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too. Som

Every few months, the Mac web is bombarded with open pleas to Apple, askingnay, demandingthat Apple swap out the Mach-based kernel that Mac OS X runs on, XNU/Darwin, with Linux. This, of course, ends in with Apple stoically continuing development of XNU/Darwin while fanboys dry their eyes and limp home after their flamewars. The cycle then repeats itself again a few months later like clockwork. The truth of the matter, however, is that Apple will never replace XNU/Darwin with Linux.

Tearing XNU/Darwin out from OS X and replacing it with Linux would be winding the clock back almost twenty-five years. Mach, which comprises a large percentage of XNU/Darwin's XNU kernel, was a microkernel research project developed at Carnegie-Mellon University in the Eighties, overseen by Avie Tevanian, who usually worked on it while playing Depeche Mode and Tears For Fears and ushered it through various revisions at NeXT and, ultimately, Apple.

This continuity of development has given Apple a tight integration between the kernel, libraries, utilities, and higher-level frameworks. Linux would throw that synergy right out the window, making Apple dependent on an entirely unregulated development team, and forcing Apple to play catch-up with their specific needs after every major upgrade to Linux. Apple would have to hire Linus Torvalds in order to recreate the creator/creation dynamic they have now. And as Linus has stated several times, he'll never go work for a company doing Linux.

Perhaps one reason Linux users bleat so unceasingly for Apple to switch kernels stems from a pre-NeXT project the company ran called MkLinux. MkLinux was a version of Mach running Linux as a process. The project was sponsored by both Apple and OSF/1 and ran on Apple's first generation Power Macs and some early second-generation Power Macs. Performance was about 20% less than a native Linux would have been, but that wasn't the point; Apple was looking at different ways to create a modern operating system in the dark times of Copland before NeXT was even a gleam in their eyes.

After Apple's operating system woes came to a head in 1997, MkLinux was all but forgotten by everyone except the long-time Apple engineers tasked with updating OPENSTEP alongside their NeXT counterparts. It was a non-starter, but it was the first taste of Linux anywhere near a Mac; it would be years later that Linux/PPC or the swatch of PowerPC versions of more popular distributions like Debian, Fedora, SUSE, and YellowDog came to Apple motherboards.

"But wait!" whine the Linux zealots, "Apple uses the BSD kernel in Mac OS X, and that's not under their control!" And so it is not. But the portions of the FreeBSD kernel are only used to fill out Mach, and as such does not constitute a significant portion of the kernel. In fact, Apple's use of BSD code is so minute that it amounts to being a charity project that allows Apple a way of keeping FreeBSD solvent. So Apple is simply not using the FreeBSD kernel, and asking to replace XNU with the Linux kernel is therefore asking something dispropor

Every few months, the Mac web is bombarded with open pleas to Apple, askingnay, demandingthat Apple swap out the Mach-based kernel that Mac OS X runs on, XNU/Darwin, with Linux. This, of course, ends in with Apple stoically continuing development of XNU/Darwin while fanboys dry their eyes and limp home after their flamewars. The cycle then repeats itself again a few months later like clockwork. The truth of the matter, however, is that Apple will never replace XNU/Darwin with Linux.

Tearing XNU/Darwin out from OS X and replacing it with Linux would be winding the clock back almost twenty-five years. Mach, which comprises a large percentage of XNU/Darwin's XNU kernel, was a microkernel research project developed at Carnegie-Mellon University in the Eighties, overseen by Avie Tevanian, who usually worked on it while playing Depeche Mode and Tears For Fears and ushered it through various revisions at NeXT and, ultimately, Apple.

This continuity of development has given Apple a tight integration between the kernel, libraries, utilities, and higher-level frameworks. Linux would throw that synergy right out the window, making Apple dependent on an entirely unregulated development team, and forcing Apple to play catch-up with their specific needs after every major upgrade to Linux. Apple would have to hire Linus Torvalds in order to recreate the creator/creation dynamic they have now. And as Linus has stated several times, he'll never go work for a company doing Linux.

Perhaps one reason Linux users bleat so unceasingly for Apple to switch kernels stems from a pre-NeXT project the company ran called MkLinux. MkLinux was a version of Mach running Linux as a process. The project was sponsored by both Apple and OSF/1 and ran on Apple's first generation Power Macs and some early second-generation Power Macs. Performance was about 20% less than a native Linux would have been, but that wasn't the point; Apple was looking at different ways to create a modern operating system in the dark times of Copland before NeXT was even a gleam in their eyes.

After Apple's operating system woes came to a head in 1997, MkLinux was all but forgotten by everyone except the long-time Apple engineers tasked with updating OPENSTEP alongside their NeXT counterparts. It was a non-starter, but it was the first taste of Linux anywhere near a Mac; it would be years later that Linux/PPC or the swatch of PowerPC versions of more popular distributions like Debian, Fedora, SUSE, and YellowDog came to Apple motherboards.

"But wait!" whine the Linux zealots, "Apple uses the BSD kernel in Mac OS X, and that's not under their control!" And so it is not. But the portions of the FreeBSD kernel are only used to fill out Mach, and as such does not constitute a significant portion of the kernel. In fact, Apple's use of BSD code is so minute that it amounts to being a charity project that allows Apple a way of keeping FreeBSD solvent. So Apple is simply not using the FreeBSD kernel, and asking to replace XNU with the Linux kernel is therefore asking something dispropor

Every few months, the Mac web is bombarded with open pleas to Apple, askingnay, demandingthat Apple swap out the Mach-based kernel that Mac OS X runs on, XNU/Darwin, with Linux. This, of course, ends in with Apple stoically continuing development of XNU/Darwin while fanboys dry their eyes and limp home after their flamewars. The cycle then repeats itself again a few months later like clockwork. The truth of the matter, however, is that Apple will never replace XNU/Darwin with Linux.

Tearing XNU/Darwin out from OS X and replacing it with Linux would be winding the clock back almost twenty-five years. Mach, which comprises a large percentage of XNU/Darwin's XNU kernel, was a microkernel research project developed at Carnegie-Mellon University in the Eighties, overseen by Avie Tevanian, who usually worked on it while playing Depeche Mode and Tears For Fears and ushered it through various revisions at NeXT and, ultimately, Apple.

This continuity of development has given Apple a tight integration between the kernel, libraries, utilities, and higher-level frameworks. Linux would throw that synergy right out the window, making Apple dependent on an entirely unregulated development team, and forcing Apple to play catch-up with their specific needs after every major upgrade to Linux. Apple would have to hire Linus Torvalds in order to recreate the creator/creation dynamic they have now. And as Linus has stated several times, he'll never go work for a company doing Linux.

Perhaps one reason Linux users bleat so unceasingly for Apple to switch kernels stems from a pre-NeXT project the company ran called MkLinux. MkLinux was a version of Mach running Linux as a process. The project was sponsored by both Apple and OSF/1 and ran on Apple's first generation Power Macs and some early second-generation Power Macs. Performance was about 20% less than a native Linux would have been, but that wasn't the point; Apple was looking at different ways to create a modern operating system in the dark times of Copland before NeXT was even a gleam in their eyes.

After Apple's operating system woes came to a head in 1997, MkLinux was all but forgotten by everyone except the long-time Apple engineers tasked with updating OPENSTEP alongside their NeXT counterparts. It was a non-starter, but it was the first taste of Linux anywhere near a Mac; it would be years later that Linux/PPC or the swatch of PowerPC versions of more popular distributions like Debian, Fedora, SUSE, and YellowDog came to Apple motherboards.

"But wait!" whine the Linux zealots, "Apple uses the BSD kernel in Mac OS X, and that's not under their control!" And so it is not. But the portions of the FreeBSD kernel are only used to fill out Mach, and as such does not constitute a significant portion of the kernel. In fact, Apple's use of BSD code is so minute that it amounts to being a charity project that allows Apple a way of keeping FreeBSD solvent. So Apple is simply not using the FreeBSD kernel, and asking to replace XNU with the Linux kernel is therefore asking something dispropor

I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately. The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits. I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th. (For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using Firefox 3.5.

At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar. I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 test. Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11. What the fuck? I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.

Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla. The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version. I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.

In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript? The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else. When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.

Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate. This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory. But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it. Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.

The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area. Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it? Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.

And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!

I also have to mention memory use. On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open. 400 MB?! I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's Safari, which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)

Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open. I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future. No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.

With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on Wikipedia and then on the Mozilla Development Forums. It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs. The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.

For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.

Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too. Som

The ATM hack in question.

Can't say who the op was, but the author of the content is http://www.trollaxor.com/

Eric Raymond usually sticks with his JÃgermeister, straight up and ice cold. But every so often, when our hero is out and about giving important talks to Linux fans across the globe, he'll have a mixed drink. Here are a few of his favorites.

Chocolate Milk

Perfecting a concoction initially invented by Emad and friends, Eric says it's a favorite of new Linux users. "It's got that young taste."

Served: On the rocks with novelty penis straw.

Garnish: n/a

Ingredients:

• 2 parts vodka
• 1 part diarrhea
• 1 part semen
• Chocolate powder to taste

Preparation: Shake and serve. Alternately, may blend with ice.

Golden Shower

On the go most of the time, Eric said this drink has everything needed to give him a stiff kick in the pants. "And you can keep recycling it too, perfect for traveling."

Served: On the rocks.

Garnish: Lemon wedge.

Ingredients:

• 2 parts GoldschlÃger
• 1 part Red Bull
• 1 part urine

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Jamaican Cum

Eric was first introduced to this drink while speaking at a JaLUG meeting and he still orders it every time he's in the Bahamas. If you're at the right bar, you'll get the right kind of "cream."

Served: On the rocks.

Garnish: Two maraschino cherries.

Ingredients:

• 3 parts spiced rum
• 1 part "cream"

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Kernel Dump

As Eric told the story, he made this drink one night while bored in bed with dysentery. "It might have been cholera," he said, "but either way it kicks."

Served: Straight up.

Garnish: n/a.

Ingredients:

• 1 part JÃgermeister
• 1 part diarrhea

Preparation: Pour diarrhea first, then JÃgermeister. May be served shot-glass-in-tumbler for effect.

Slip'N'Slide

Eric calls this "the summer drink" (italics his).

Served: In an Old-fashioned glass over shaved ice.

Garnish: half banana.

Ingredients:

• 1 part 99 Bananas
• 1 part semen

Preparation: Shake and serve.

Used Motor Oil

Eric got the idea for this drink after an argument with Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda. "It's really simple," Eric quipped, taking a mason jar out of his refrigerator. "You just have to save up ahead of time."

Served: Straight up.

Garnish: Sprig of mint.

Ingredients:

• 1 part JÃgermeister
• 1 part semen

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Eric Raymond usually sticks with his JÃgermeister, straight up and ice cold. But every so often, when our hero is out and about giving important talks to Linux fans across the globe, he'll have a mixed drink. Here are a few of his favorites.

Chocolate Milk

Perfecting a concoction initially invented by Emad and friends, Eric says it's a favorite of new Linux users. "It's got that young taste."

Served: On the rocks with novelty penis straw.

Garnish: n/a

Ingredients:

• 2 parts vodka
• 1 part diarrhea
• 1 part semen
• Chocolate powder to taste

Preparation: Shake and serve. Alternately, may blend with ice.

Golden Shower

On the go most of the time, Eric said this drink has everything needed to give him a stiff kick in the pants. "And you can keep recycling it too, perfect for traveling."

Served: On the rocks.

Garnish: Lemon wedge.

Ingredients:

• 2 parts GoldschlÃger
• 1 part Red Bull
• 1 part urine

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Jamaican Cum

Eric was first introduced to this drink while speaking at a JaLUG meeting and he still orders it every time he's in the Bahamas. If you're at the right bar, you'll get the right kind of "cream."

Served: On the rocks.

Garnish: Two maraschino cherries.

Ingredients:

• 3 parts spiced rum
• 1 part "cream"

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Kernel Dump

As Eric told the story, he made this drink one night while bored in bed with dysentery. "It might have been cholera," he said, "but either way it kicks."

Served: Straight up.

Garnish: n/a.

Ingredients:

• 1 part JÃgermeister
• 1 part diarrhea

Preparation: Pour diarrhea first, then JÃgermeister. May be served shot-glass-in-tumbler for effect.

Slip'N'Slide

Eric calls this "the summer drink" (italics his).

Served: In an Old-fashioned glass over shaved ice.

Garnish: half banana.

Ingredients:

• 1 part 99 Bananas
• 1 part semen

Preparation: Shake and serve.

Used Motor Oil

Eric got the idea for this drink after an argument with Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda. "It's really simple," Eric quipped, taking a mason jar out of his refrigerator. "You just have to save up ahead of time."

Served: Straight up.

Garnish: Sprig of mint.

Ingredients:

• 1 part JÃgermeister
• 1 part semen

Preparation: Mix and serve.

From: emad.elharaty@gmail.com
To: esr@catb.org
Date: JUN 20 2009 16:27
Subject: IRANIAN HACKER COMMUNIQUÉ

Eric,

It's Emad.

I know we haven't spoken since that whole Michael incident, but I think we should put our heads together about these Iranian hackers.

Meet me at the Carney's Point Flying J at 10 PM. Get shower stall 16 and wait for me. I'll be wearing a Slashdot t-shirt and drinking Bawls.

Don't be late. The future of Iranian hackers depends on it. So does the security of America too I guess, and gun ownership or something.

Emad

Read more

From: emad.elharaty@gmail.com
To: esr@catb.org
Date: JUN 20 2009 16:27
Subject: IRANIAN HACKER COMMUNIQUÉ

Eric,

It's Emad.

I know we haven't spoken since that whole Michael incident, but I think we should put our heads together about these Iranian hackers.

Meet me at the Carney's Point Flying J at 10 PM. Get shower stall 16 and wait for me. I'll be wearing a Slashdot t-shirt and drinking Bawls.

Don't be late. The future of Iranian hackers depends on it. So does the security of America too I guess, and gun ownership or something.

Emad

Read more

First, there was a plan: how to bring together the two different development groups at work? My boss said there was a sort of tension he thought could be eased by some social interaction. Not easy. Both the different development groups despised one another, each thinking its "art" was more important and eloquent than the others'.

First there was the XML group. They worked on our website, documentation and formatting, and simple configuration apps and some front-ends to Java stuff. They also did our web sites. They used CSS, HTML, XSL, JavaScript, and a bit of Java. They typically dressed casually, drank coffee and tea, and liked to work straight from the spec: no "Learn XSL in 30 Days" books were to be found in their cubicle farm.

Then we had the Linux developers. They worked "special hours," coming in at one and staying late, supposedly, until seven or eight at night. They enjoyed Bawls and had a penchant for ThinkGeek t-shirts and cracking jokes about Win32 API calls and the dreaded Blue Screen of Death. They all had beards or mullets or long, unwashed hair. Some had penguin or C code tattoos. Their cubicle farm was known for the bleating laughter that exploded when one of them found a silly bug on someone else's code, and for the rotten, fetid stench that could only be compared to three-day-old shit reeking from inside a rotting corpse's abdominal cavity.

So, in order to get the guys to get to know each other, my boss had asked me to organize a during-hours, alcohol-friendly party. My ideas ranged from a keg or two to live entertainment, AKA strippers. But as to what to get them to actually talk to each other in a human manner I had no clue. So I let it go til the last minute and decided to let my inherent creativity mull it over in the back of my head.

When the day of the party had arrived, the catering company brought in a few trays of lunch meat, chicken, pizza, and side dishes, I had picked up the four kegs from the local brewery, and the big-screen TV and DVD were set up ready to blast the Matrix into the eyes and ears of my co-workers. The eagerness in the the air was encouraging and I thought that loosening up and smiles going on even now were a good sign. I even saw some of the guys who'd known each other previously begin to bunch up, bringing along the co-workers they knew from everyday work.

The first thing everyone did was hit the food line, loading up their plates and grabbing a cup for beer to wash it down with. A few approached me and thanked me for the food; it seems appeasing the belly really did tame the beast. After a few minutes of silence and eating and a few second and third courses, they guys were ready to sit down and be entertained. After asking if anyone needed anything else before the movie started, the lights went out and the Matrix began playing. I heard a few enthusiastic comments and jokes being told.

About half-way through the movie I noticed a lot of the Linux guys getting up and presumably going to the restroom. No suprise, as the second keg was history by now and the third was probably half-way gone. I also noticed some of the guys bumping into things and stumbling. Alcohol's the social lubricant, eh? Well, not long after, my bladder beckoned and I answered. As I made my way to the restroom, I had a self-satisfied smile on my face: my little plan was working, my boss would be happy, and it might even a Christmas bonus or a promotion (even if in title only).

Well, as soon as I pushed the restroom door open, I knew something was wrong. The smell of vomit was pretty strong and I hoped that it'd only been the work of one guy. But the smell was so pungent! After standing at the urinal, waiting for the golden flow to commence, I stood in silence. It was then that I heard grunting. Listening intently for a few seconds, I hoped whoever was upchucking their beer and munchies wasn't leaving a huge mess for the cleanup crew. After pissing and still hearing the noise, I approached the stal

Eric & Emad: Iranian Hackers & Cyber-Buddies

I think these days the code only goes one way (to Apple) but if some Apple fanboy wants to point me to their recent BSD contributions, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Since all the code is downloadable from http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/, the FreeBSD team is free to take whatever they like.

I'm not sure what official contribution Apple makes these days in 7.x, but I think the entire FreeBSD 5.x release was mostly centered around what Apple brought back to FreeBSD after the first few MacOS X releases, including quite a bit of SMP work. According to Trollaxor, though, there continues to be significant bi-directional work on file system journaling, gcc modifications, and DTrace.

Safari vs. WebKit v. Chrome vs. IE8

http://www.trollaxor.com/2003/05/nmaps-fyodor-security-expert-or.html

HTH

Michael Sims: Gay Nazi Conspirator
Why Slashdot Fired Michael
Ein Tag im Leben von Michael Sims

Michael Sims: Gay Nazi Conspirator
Why Slashdot Fired Michael
Ein Tag im Leben von Michael Sims

Michael Sims: Gay Nazi Conspirator
Why Slashdot Fired Michael
Ein Tag im Leben von Michael Sims

Now Fyodor, the author of nmap. There's a hacker.

Fyodor is more of a "cracker", to use the proper term. A few years ago, Fyodor got caught breaking into a Windows PC owned by somebody who had humiliated him online.

Just desserts? Maybe. Ethical? Not a chance. Somebody with that level of skill should be using his abilities for good, not evil.

Child molesters? Zing!

Wow. This guy was a visionary!

NTITE

perhaps trollaxor is right, they are trying to get mach to run on a wristwatch.

From http://www.trollaxor.com/2007/05/ein-tag-im-leben- von-michael-sims.html

05:45 The first strains of Das Lied der Deutschen surranged from Michael's speakers, shaking the headboard of his waterbed. Opening a bloodshot eye, Michael peeled the comforter off and crawled to the edge of his bed where he reached out and slapped the space bar of his keyboard. iTunes stopped the nationalistic hymn, leaving the room in a vacuumed silence. Turning to the window, Michael opened his Venetian blinds and inhaled as the sunlight hit him. It was going to be a fine day.

06:00 Michael was still damp from his shower. He'd had just fifteen minutes to soap, scour, and shave before he was due in front of his computer. Michael's rigorous routine was self-imposed as a method of keeping rigid discipline and utter efficiency. Otherwise, he would become soft and weak. He itched his scalp where he'd nicked himself shaving. The blood would stop eventually, Michael thought. The shallowest wounds always bled the most.

Michael loaded Safari and watched as his RSS feeds filled with new posts. He sneered as he proceeded to read the latest from Censoreware.net.

07:45 Michael stretched and cracked his neck. After almost two hours of scouring every site, blog, and post by Seth Finkelstein, Jamie McCarthy, and the entire Slashdot staff, he was stiff. He always tensed when he read the meandering lies of the poisonous vipers that had taken his rightful place on the Internet away from him.

In fact, he noted as iCal alerted him, he had an appointment at the dentist today to address his bruxism. Michael had been told he sounded like a trash compactor at night as he slept, slowly chewing his teeth apart. He only remembered his dreams of vengeance.

08:30 Reading the latest issue of Time magazine, Michael sneered at the media's latest attempt to besmear Adolf Hitler by likening Saddam Hussein to him. Hussein was just an amateur, Michael thought. Germany would have marched through Iraq and taken it without a shot if it hadn't been for the inept Italians losing North Africa.

His fantasy was interrupted by the cute blonde receptionist as she called him to follow her back to his exam room. As he clomped to the back of the building in his jackboots, he saw that her roots were just as blonde as her ends. Michael paid close attention to people's hair and clothes. How rare a thing real blonde hair was in New York nowadays, Michael mused. Too bad she was female.

11:00 Michael looked at the mouthguard his dentist had given him and recounted his bad luck. He blamed Finkelstein and Malda, the traitorous bastards that had backstabbed him so many times. Were it not for them, Michael deduced as he clenched the steering wheel of his VW bug, he wouldn't have to use this mouthguard. Or the testosterone shots. Or the Viagra. Or the special, embarrassing combo cock-ring condoms. He was worked up now, breathing hard and near tears.

Michael reached for his mobile phone and called Eric Raymond.

12:37 "This is not what you trained me for. Sitting and waiting while our own people disavow me was not part of the plan!" Michael whined into his phone at Eric

Michael was crying, tears streaming down his cheeks. He couldn't believe how even Eric Raymond, his mentor and commander, was shitting all over him. Any other time that would be just fine but not now. Not when Michael's fragile ego was taking a beating.

"Listen, Michael, I'm speaking at a Linux conference this weekend," Eric said. "If you can just settle your ass down and wait a couple days we can get together and talk things out. I know this must be hard for you."

Michael perked up, happy to hear his Teutonic gas-master would be in town soon. "Can- can we go out?" Michael asked, a tremble of hope in his voice.

"Sure, Michael, anywh