I just don't think it's anyone's business The problem is that it is exactly that - business! While you have money to spend someone will *always* be looking at what you're doing, and trying to convince you to give them some of that luvverly moneys.
Pre-purchase: "Drinking that beer will get me laid." Post-purchase: "I like this beer because it has high alcohol content."
An ex-boss of mine used to tell me that even our (then-current) customers bought based on "how will this product help get me laid?" - and we weren't even selling a sexy product.
How about a special package (call it apt-repo or something) that is a list of somewhat-blessed unofficial repositories? This can be updated fairly frequently, with contributors (either debian project members, or other existing package maintainers) adding their own repositories. These then get built into sources.list - the package's only functional file. A simple apt-get install apt-repo merges the updated sources with the system's current copy. Presto chango! A neat debianesque way to preserve the existing set of packages while trimming down the core.
Of course, there will need to be some way to ensure only blessed repositories make it into the meta-package, but that shouldn't be hard to do - the existing maintainers/ mentors system is effectively just that, after all.
While this is a useful partial solution, it bypasses one of the reasons for robots.txt's existence, that of reducing load on the server. If apache has to stop and examine every request and look at the user-agent, that causes resource consumption that a well-behaved robot would not.
That said, these copyright-sniffing robots are likely to be extremely poorly behaved, and so your advice (or other equivalent server configs) may indeed be the only practical solution.
Ok, so I see that my three activities are all kinda large.. what does that tell me, exactly? how many more activities can I begin? how can I reduce the amount of memory each existing activity is using?
Without an actual figure attached to the display ("activity A is using 60% of your total memory... You may launch any new activity that uses 28Mb or less"), the memory indicator is somewhat useless. I'm not saying it's not important to display this information, just wondering at the logic of displaying it in a way that is not exactly intuitive or even meaningful.
I can think of several ways in which to notify the user that new activities cannot be begun due to memory contraints. Touting the chosen method as a feature does not seem in-line with the goals of the project, and the display could IMO be used to render something of more relevance to the user without sacrificing the ability to warn in low memory conditions.
For something that claims to abstract the details of processes, applications, etc from the user, I'm wondering why the designers chose to highlight activities on the home screen by memory usage. It seems like it would be more useful to map relative size to time-spent-in-activity, or some user-defined level of importance, than something as arbitrary (to the user) and irrelevant (again, to the user) as the amount of memory taken up by "an activity".
Perhaps memory usage could at a pinch be shown as a second dimension, such as colour (red background == lots of memory used), but the primary (size) should I think be something or more import to the user.
Hrm. Now that I think about it some, there are many more metrics that could be visualised on this page - number of friends in the same activity; number of times the activity was accessed, etc. Can anyone comment on why memory usage was selected?
Everyone is doing just fine...What is needed is.. Ah, the battle cry of meddling colonists everywhere. Those people over there are happy! How can we screw them up?
If they are truly doing "just fine", let alone "the happiest people I have ever met", what on earth makes you think they need *anything* else ?
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain what you mean by "aggregated a [good] group", what "aggregating a group" is, and how a group can be aggregated to a style.
Please tell us, specifically, which closed-source software you run that would have been of lower quality if open sourced.
almost everybody you know != 1 in 100 people.
Unless you personally know 60 million people.
So you're saying that if the closed-source software had been open source, it would have been lower quality?
Background craplets? Oh! you mean windows services!
People buy on emotion, and justify on fact.
Pre-purchase: "Drinking that beer will get me laid."
Post-purchase: "I like this beer because it has high alcohol content."
An ex-boss of mine used to tell me that even our (then-current) customers bought based on "how will this product help get me laid?" - and we weren't even selling a sexy product.
How about a special package (call it apt-repo or something) that is a list of somewhat-blessed unofficial repositories? This can be updated fairly frequently, with contributors (either debian project members, or other existing package maintainers) adding their own repositories. These then get built into sources.list - the package's only functional file. A simple apt-get install apt-repo merges the updated sources with the system's current copy. Presto chango! A neat debianesque way to preserve the existing set of packages while trimming down the core.
Of course, there will need to be some way to ensure only blessed repositories make it into the meta-package, but that shouldn't be hard to do - the existing maintainers/ mentors system is effectively just that, after all.
But that's not what happened.
While this is a useful partial solution, it bypasses one of the reasons for robots.txt's existence, that of reducing load on the server. If apache has to stop and examine every request and look at the user-agent, that causes resource consumption that a well-behaved robot would not.
That said, these copyright-sniffing robots are likely to be extremely poorly behaved, and so your advice (or other equivalent server configs) may indeed be the only practical solution.
arthrograms
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Ok, so I see that my three activities are all kinda large.. what does that tell me, exactly? how many more activities can I begin? how can I reduce the amount of memory each existing activity is using?
Without an actual figure attached to the display ("activity A is using 60% of your total memory... You may launch any new activity that uses 28Mb or less"), the memory indicator is somewhat useless. I'm not saying it's not important to display this information, just wondering at the logic of displaying it in a way that is not exactly intuitive or even meaningful.
I can think of several ways in which to notify the user that new activities cannot be begun due to memory contraints. Touting the chosen method as a feature does not seem in-line with the goals of the project, and the display could IMO be used to render something of more relevance to the user without sacrificing the ability to warn in low memory conditions.
For something that claims to abstract the details of processes, applications, etc from the user, I'm wondering why the designers chose to highlight activities on the home screen by memory usage. It seems like it would be more useful to map relative size to time-spent-in-activity, or some user-defined level of importance, than something as arbitrary (to the user) and irrelevant (again, to the user) as the amount of memory taken up by "an activity".
Perhaps memory usage could at a pinch be shown as a second dimension, such as colour (red background == lots of memory used), but the primary (size) should I think be something or more import to the user.
Hrm. Now that I think about it some, there are many more metrics that could be visualised on this page - number of friends in the same activity; number of times the activity was accessed, etc. Can anyone comment on why memory usage was selected?
If they are truly doing "just fine", let alone "the happiest people I have ever met", what on earth makes you think they need *anything* else ?