+5 insightful. That's what most journalists do today - just publish the press release word-for-word, minus a few edits to make it fit inside the available column space or 1-minute soundbite. It's reached the point where you assume the journalists are just mouthpieces for the corporate liars (aka marketers).
Don't forget the sensational headline that sells the nonsense. Journalism (or rather sensationalism) has become a real filthy profession, and it's a real shame if you ask me. But perhaps it's one of those occupations that are bound to die with the internet era. We no longer need anybody to report the news, the "news" is all around us, all the time -- everywhere, and I don't value hearsay from a journalist higher than hearsay from a peer on the net. Journalism is a method to bring the world closer to you, but so is internet, if you catch my drift.
A company has just promoted their own policies and products while at the same time demoting those of their competitors. People are in a state of shock, children are crying, students are demonstrating and the president is making an announcement later this evening. The UN has named this day the annual PR stunt day.
Troll? That was damn funny. Apparently some mods haven't heard of hyperbole.
Apple fanboys are sensitive creatures. Do I smell karma burning? No worries, I have enough to go around. Oh and they didn't even get the Seinfeld reference, but then again I overestimated their capacity once more.
Not quite true. Successful proprietary products can be bought by other companies and exchange 'DNA' that way. Very successful products let their owners buy other products so that they can choose their 'mate.' And, even without that, proprietary doesn't mean isolated. Proprietary code uses proprietary libraries all of the time; the successful libraries are licensed by a lot of people.
That is controlled by monetary demand, and not by actual demand. It's not darwinian as the fundamental force controlling is not what's best, it's what makes most money. In practice this means that if you market bad applications in the right way it will become a survivor. In OSS this isn't the case where the most adapted wins, and not the one with the richest big brother.
That's completely retarded. DRM is out of the picture on iTunes store and if you insist on purchasing there, nothing keeps you from syncing your music library to whatever device you have.
There was no requirement for Palm to highjack Apple's ID just so that they can benefit from cheap engineering. RIM made the right decision and that is to not rely on software they dont control for their syncing.
What Palm did is sell a device to their customers and provided no guarantee as to the usability of the product, because they hack another company's software solution.
Don't kid yourself, Apples intentions have never been to share anything with anyone. The way it is now is because people objected to the insane enviroment that Apple tried to push. Tell me how the user benefits from being forced to use iTunes with iPod for example? Isn't it merely just another way to screw the consumer over by exposing him to only one store, thus killing competition without providing anything better? I'm speaking from my own experiences, and I used to own an iPod mini, back in the days. There is nothing I regret more to have purchased in my entire life, and after having iTunes "synchronizing" my device (aka wiping it if it's plugged to another PC) numerous times I had enough. Instead I bought a sony player that acts as a removable disc. Sure, it's Apples every right to bundle the players with iTunes and it's my every right to tell people how it causes nothing but trouble. If iTunes was superior I would have chosen it. But yes, Palm was in it for a free ride and they had no right to do so, but that doesn't make Apple less consumer unfriendly.
Apple is bad as MS ever was - only difference is that MS was huge and Apple is only a small segment.
No no no no, MS is not even a fragment of what the the third reich of Apple is in that sense. MS hate in all honor, but Apple, there is no comparison to what extent they will go to fuck their customers over.
Apple: you want this shiny little music player? Huh? You want it? Huh? Well then you have to change everything you own to Apples version, don't take your eyes off the shiny music player! Look at it, look at it! No? NO!? NO APPLE FOR YOU!
Genetic alteration to make inedible things food (oh, sorry, got that backwards -- make food inedible) is so 1970s.
We've got to figure out how to turn this stuff into biodiesel.
Ah but you didn't let me finish. Here, let me explain by using this simple profit flow chart:
1. Mutate weed to create new and tasty weed, with dominant genes. 2. Spread it and wait until all bases are belong to them. 3. Commence operation goat rollout. 4. Turn goat into biodiesel. 5. Profit!
Mutate it to bring forth a strain which is tasty, and make those genes dominant. In 50 years time the goats will come around.
Alternatively mutate goats to have no sense of taste.
..... but then it won't spread so fast cos it's busy being eaten, and so unmutated strain will outcompete it leaving you back at square one....
Anything that is so undiscriminating about what it eats will probably eat everything else, posing another problem.
If it was evolution, yes, but one could simply "spread the seeds."
we will see if doctors are willing to [use] it on subjects that have injuries coming from physical injuries like diving accidents.
First you have to convince crazy religious idiots, then you have to convince the crazy government idiots, and yet you still have to convince the crazy doctor idiots!? Is there no end to this insanity?!
No, but funny you should mention it. The funny part is that Google is beating MS in their own game. They are actually improving the MS browser so that users can properly and smoothly use Google products, and when the user is tied in he will notice not only Google Wave, but also the Google Chrome banners or "suggestions", and later on Google Chrome OS. Instead of trying to act as the bigger predator as traditional software wars, they act as the symbiotic bacteria "infecting" the host. Today IE, tomorrow the world!
Seems to me that there is simply no room for anything else than genious inside Google, but perhaps I'm giving too much credit. Still -- well played Google, well played.
The thing is, that normal software life should go like this:
(The *second* number is the one, that you would use as the 1 in 1.0. the first one is one level higher. More like a new product.)
1.0.0: First good release. here we go.
1.0.9: OK, now it's actually stable and reasonably bug-free.
1.1.x: Add a big function.
1.x.1: Fix some bugs, tweak some things.
1.9.x: Oh boy, this is starting to get messy, let's not develop this anymore, just patch it, and in parallel start a total rewrite.
1.9.9: Allright, the rewrite is done, let's make this the last patch set.
GOTO 1.0.0: Yay, all new, completely redesigned interior, let's go!
This goes no as long as there is a purpose for the software.
The problems start, when someone drags one "product" on for too long, without starting the complete rewrite. Examples of what that results in, are Windows ME, and unfortunately (in my eyes) the current Linux kernel.
But also unfortunately, I guess that a complete redesign and review of the major principles of the kernel, and all its architecture, is far beyond the abilities of the open source community, and that that is the cause for the problems.
And we blame closed hardware specs for this very problem. But as you say: the next best thing? The Linux kernel as it is now. It evolved this way, even Linus had no real control over what it became, he merely guided it in his direction. Thus it is a product of evolution, which makes it fit for its environment. But Linus is a perfectionist, and that's why he's a great project leader. However evolution never bred perfection, because perfection is an illusion. Still -- everyday evolution, just like Linus, gives it another shot.
Precisely. The grandparent is forgetting that, in the proprietary world, the scenario you described can't happen. I can't go to my boss and tell him, "Screw this, I'm going to spend the next month refactoring our messy code, rather than adding new functionality." However, I can do that in an open-source project.
That's right. OSS plays by Darwinian rules, and this is the single most important attribute that proprietary software will never have.
In FreeBSD, you chose to accept a project. If you fail to perform, you are replaced with another volunteer. It doesn't matter if you're a core committer or a port maintainer, it all works that way. There are occasional problems but overall a successful approach. Many other opensource projects do the same. That's why hierarchies work in opensource--they hold people accountable just like in a proprietary project.
What if the VOLUNTEERUNvolunteers?
So no, open source projects can NOT "hold people accountable just like in a proprietary project."
You do realise that you can build a good resume or a nasty reputation if you act like a douche? OSS is not Vegas, what happens in OSS stays everywhere. Why are people so delusional when it comes to OSS? It's like they think it derives from another galaxy.
But when its open source, it's easier to think that maybe I cant be bothered to look at this now, someone else can do it. When its proprietary software and you get the assignment to look at it, you pretty much have to do it.
What? No. There's a project leader assigning tasks in OSS, just as in closed source. In this aspect there's absolutely no difference when the leadership is equally competent. Why do people think that OSS project is like a pool where people can just dump code however they want?
If the content is premium content, something that I know is more valuable or interesting than elsewhere, then I have no problem paying for it. This is the reason people for pay for Wall Street Journal and the likes too - they get more out of it and the writers are specialized in the area.
For everyday news, no. I want opinions and better writing than just simply telling the news.
On the contrary, I want news -- instead of this ridiculous sensationalism. And I don't want it filtered through anybody in terms of opinions. If Jimmy, 5, falls down the well I want the news to report: 5-year-old Jimmy falls down the well, and not: WELLS SLAYING OUR CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT IGNORING.
I cannot believe, even for a second that you post got a score of 5.....
How you ever used Hyper-v? The technology is astoundingly great, and makes VM ware look like a $5 product. It provides seemly integration before hardware and any guest system regardless of the OS. It does not require it drivers, it just takes over and handles everything, without any issues. It allows you to set some images (Like your server) to have higher priority over other images (Like a desktop).
Its not a zune of anything, its actually very revolutionary. Most VM solutions require that you dedicate a single piece of hardware to a single image at a time, and does not take care of all of the administrative work (Like, teaming network connections together) for you.
The Mods should read up on how things work before they give a uninformed post a 5 for Insightful.
Trolling aside, but so what you're saying is that it's a perfect solution for incompetent personnel? I get paid for administrative work, what the hell do you get paid for? Dusting off the racks?
Exactly. My entire attitude has changed. I still provide my input at work, do what I can to guide the decision makers toward what I think are the right decisions. But then if they make the wrong decision, I move on and keep doing my job. Maybe they could have done things better, but who cares? I'm still working.
I completely agree. Everybody does better off by adopting the cover-your-ass principle. When asked for my opinion I'll give it, I'll even throw in a proposition or two at times but what goes for decision: if you want to take it boss, I'll be happy to execute it. Hopefully the decision is a good one, and if not then I'll be first in line for the upcoming promotion.
"Linux" a trademark of Linus Torvaldes and that's it. As long as you don't use it as a trademark of *your* product it will be fine.
Unless your product is a Linux dist. Initially he had no interest in trademarking it but because William R. Della Croce, Jr. (AKA whore face) tried to steal it, thus forcing him to play along the flawed American market rules. You can find the brand Linux printed anywhere, and Linus hasn't bothered to do anything about it (he doesn't want to). I'd bet that he wouldn't even care if someone made a Linux sex toy. He has a sense of humor that way.
Slashdot Mirror
+5 insightful. That's what most journalists do today - just publish the press release word-for-word, minus a few edits to make it fit inside the available column space or 1-minute soundbite. It's reached the point where you assume the journalists are just mouthpieces for the corporate liars (aka marketers).
Don't forget the sensational headline that sells the nonsense. Journalism (or rather sensationalism) has become a real filthy profession, and it's a real shame if you ask me. But perhaps it's one of those occupations that are bound to die with the internet era. We no longer need anybody to report the news, the "news" is all around us, all the time -- everywhere, and I don't value hearsay from a journalist higher than hearsay from a peer on the net. Journalism is a method to bring the world closer to you, but so is internet, if you catch my drift.
A company has just promoted their own policies and products while at the same time demoting those of their competitors. People are in a state of shock, children are crying, students are demonstrating and the president is making an announcement later this evening. The UN has named this day the annual PR stunt day.
Troll? That was damn funny. Apparently some mods haven't heard of hyperbole.
Apple fanboys are sensitive creatures. Do I smell karma burning? No worries, I have enough to go around. Oh and they didn't even get the Seinfeld reference, but then again I overestimated their capacity once more.
Not quite true. Successful proprietary products can be bought by other companies and exchange 'DNA' that way. Very successful products let their owners buy other products so that they can choose their 'mate.' And, even without that, proprietary doesn't mean isolated. Proprietary code uses proprietary libraries all of the time; the successful libraries are licensed by a lot of people.
That is controlled by monetary demand, and not by actual demand. It's not darwinian as the fundamental force controlling is not what's best, it's what makes most money. In practice this means that if you market bad applications in the right way it will become a survivor. In OSS this isn't the case where the most adapted wins, and not the one with the richest big brother.
That's completely retarded. DRM is out of the picture on iTunes store and if you insist on purchasing there, nothing keeps you from syncing your music library to whatever device you have.
There was no requirement for Palm to highjack Apple's ID just so that they can benefit from cheap engineering. RIM made the right decision and that is to not rely on software they dont control for their syncing.
What Palm did is sell a device to their customers and provided no guarantee as to the usability of the product, because they hack another company's software solution.
Don't kid yourself, Apples intentions have never been to share anything with anyone. The way it is now is because people objected to the insane enviroment that Apple tried to push. Tell me how the user benefits from being forced to use iTunes with iPod for example? Isn't it merely just another way to screw the consumer over by exposing him to only one store, thus killing competition without providing anything better? I'm speaking from my own experiences, and I used to own an iPod mini, back in the days. There is nothing I regret more to have purchased in my entire life, and after having iTunes "synchronizing" my device (aka wiping it if it's plugged to another PC) numerous times I had enough. Instead I bought a sony player that acts as a removable disc. Sure, it's Apples every right to bundle the players with iTunes and it's my every right to tell people how it causes nothing but trouble. If iTunes was superior I would have chosen it. But yes, Palm was in it for a free ride and they had no right to do so, but that doesn't make Apple less consumer unfriendly.
Apple is bad as MS ever was - only difference is that MS was huge and Apple is only a small segment.
No no no no, MS is not even a fragment of what the the third reich of Apple is in that sense. MS hate in all honor, but Apple, there is no comparison to what extent they will go to fuck their customers over.
Apple: you want this shiny little music player? Huh? You want it? Huh? Well then you have to change everything you own to Apples version, don't take your eyes off the shiny music player! Look at it, look at it! No? NO!? NO APPLE FOR YOU!
That's not how it works. Just because the gene is dominant, doesn't mean that it will spread.
[whisper]It was a joke. Try to enjoy it.[/whisper]
Genetic alteration to make inedible things food (oh, sorry, got that backwards -- make food inedible) is so 1970s.
We've got to figure out how to turn this stuff into biodiesel.
Ah but you didn't let me finish. Here, let me explain by using this simple profit flow chart:
1. Mutate weed to create new and tasty weed, with dominant genes.
2. Spread it and wait until all bases are belong to them.
3. Commence operation goat rollout.
4. Turn goat into biodiesel.
5. Profit!
Mutate it to bring forth a strain which is tasty, and make those genes dominant. In 50 years time the goats will come around. Alternatively mutate goats to have no sense of taste.
..... but then it won't spread so fast cos it's busy being eaten, and so unmutated strain will outcompete it leaving you back at square one.... Anything that is so undiscriminating about what it eats will probably eat everything else, posing another problem.
If it was evolution, yes, but one could simply "spread the seeds."
Mutate it to bring forth a strain which is tasty, and make those genes dominant. In 50 years time the goats will come around.
Alternatively mutate goats to have no sense of taste.
First they ignore you..
Then they laugh at you...
Then you make plugins for their browser.
It's like the three stages of high school relationships, isn't it? Ignore, laugh, plugin.
i guess some of us haven't been paying attention.
No, you're right. I guess some of us haven't.
we will see if doctors are willing to [use] it on subjects that have injuries coming from physical injuries like diving accidents.
First you have to convince crazy religious idiots, then you have to convince the crazy government idiots, and yet you still have to convince the crazy doctor idiots!? Is there no end to this insanity?!
and IE?
No, but funny you should mention it. The funny part is that Google is beating MS in their own game. They are actually improving the MS browser so that users can properly and smoothly use Google products, and when the user is tied in he will notice not only Google Wave, but also the Google Chrome banners or "suggestions", and later on Google Chrome OS. Instead of trying to act as the bigger predator as traditional software wars, they act as the symbiotic bacteria "infecting" the host. Today IE, tomorrow the world!
Seems to me that there is simply no room for anything else than genious inside Google, but perhaps I'm giving too much credit. Still -- well played Google, well played.
The thing is, that normal software life should go like this:
(The *second* number is the one, that you would use as the 1 in 1.0. the first one is one level higher. More like a new product.) 1.0.0: First good release. here we go. 1.0.9: OK, now it's actually stable and reasonably bug-free. 1.1.x: Add a big function. 1.x.1: Fix some bugs, tweak some things. 1.9.x: Oh boy, this is starting to get messy, let's not develop this anymore, just patch it, and in parallel start a total rewrite. 1.9.9: Allright, the rewrite is done, let's make this the last patch set. GOTO 1.0.0: Yay, all new, completely redesigned interior, let's go!
This goes no as long as there is a purpose for the software.
The problems start, when someone drags one "product" on for too long, without starting the complete rewrite. Examples of what that results in, are Windows ME, and unfortunately (in my eyes) the current Linux kernel. But also unfortunately, I guess that a complete redesign and review of the major principles of the kernel, and all its architecture, is far beyond the abilities of the open source community, and that that is the cause for the problems.
And we blame closed hardware specs for this very problem. But as you say: the next best thing? The Linux kernel as it is now. It evolved this way, even Linus had no real control over what it became, he merely guided it in his direction. Thus it is a product of evolution, which makes it fit for its environment. But Linus is a perfectionist, and that's why he's a great project leader. However evolution never bred perfection, because perfection is an illusion. Still -- everyday evolution, just like Linus, gives it another shot.
Precisely. The grandparent is forgetting that, in the proprietary world, the scenario you described can't happen. I can't go to my boss and tell him, "Screw this, I'm going to spend the next month refactoring our messy code, rather than adding new functionality." However, I can do that in an open-source project.
That's right. OSS plays by Darwinian rules, and this is the single most important attribute that proprietary software will never have.
FreeBSD is a distro. Linux is a kernel. Try comparing FreeBSD with Debian. Oops, that's not what Torvalds was talking about.
The concept of open source development in this sense is equal, even if you don't understand something you can try being less of a douche.
In FreeBSD, you chose to accept a project. If you fail to perform, you are replaced with another volunteer. It doesn't matter if you're a core committer or a port maintainer, it all works that way. There are occasional problems but overall a successful approach. Many other opensource projects do the same. That's why hierarchies work in opensource--they hold people accountable just like in a proprietary project.
What if the VOLUNTEER UNvolunteers?
So no, open source projects can NOT "hold people accountable just like in a proprietary project."
You do realise that you can build a good resume or a nasty reputation if you act like a douche? OSS is not Vegas, what happens in OSS stays everywhere. Why are people so delusional when it comes to OSS? It's like they think it derives from another galaxy.
But when its open source, it's easier to think that maybe I cant be bothered to look at this now, someone else can do it. When its proprietary software and you get the assignment to look at it, you pretty much have to do it.
What? No. There's a project leader assigning tasks in OSS, just as in closed source. In this aspect there's absolutely no difference when the leadership is equally competent. Why do people think that OSS project is like a pool where people can just dump code however they want?
If the content is premium content, something that I know is more valuable or interesting than elsewhere, then I have no problem paying for it. This is the reason people for pay for Wall Street Journal and the likes too - they get more out of it and the writers are specialized in the area.
For everyday news, no. I want opinions and better writing than just simply telling the news.
On the contrary, I want news -- instead of this ridiculous sensationalism. And I don't want it filtered through anybody in terms of opinions. If Jimmy, 5, falls down the well I want the news to report: 5-year-old Jimmy falls down the well, and not: WELLS SLAYING OUR CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT IGNORING.
I cannot believe, even for a second that you post got a score of 5..... How you ever used Hyper-v? The technology is astoundingly great, and makes VM ware look like a $5 product. It provides seemly integration before hardware and any guest system regardless of the OS. It does not require it drivers, it just takes over and handles everything, without any issues. It allows you to set some images (Like your server) to have higher priority over other images (Like a desktop). Its not a zune of anything, its actually very revolutionary. Most VM solutions require that you dedicate a single piece of hardware to a single image at a time, and does not take care of all of the administrative work (Like, teaming network connections together) for you. The Mods should read up on how things work before they give a uninformed post a 5 for Insightful.
Trolling aside, but so what you're saying is that it's a perfect solution for incompetent personnel? I get paid for administrative work, what the hell do you get paid for? Dusting off the racks?
Exactly. My entire attitude has changed. I still provide my input at work, do what I can to guide the decision makers toward what I think are the right decisions. But then if they make the wrong decision, I move on and keep doing my job. Maybe they could have done things better, but who cares? I'm still working.
I completely agree. Everybody does better off by adopting the cover-your-ass principle. When asked for my opinion I'll give it, I'll even throw in a proposition or two at times but what goes for decision: if you want to take it boss, I'll be happy to execute it. Hopefully the decision is a good one, and if not then I'll be first in line for the upcoming promotion.
Hey! I checked it up and it's not the same fucking guy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Yahooters.
"Linux" a trademark of Linus Torvaldes and that's it. As long as you don't use it as a trademark of *your* product it will be fine.
Unless your product is a Linux dist. Initially he had no interest in trademarking it but because William R. Della Croce, Jr. (AKA whore face) tried to steal it, thus forcing him to play along the flawed American market rules. You can find the brand Linux printed anywhere, and Linus hasn't bothered to do anything about it (he doesn't want to). I'd bet that he wouldn't even care if someone made a Linux sex toy. He has a sense of humor that way.