Fanboism? Don't be a douchebag. This is a post about a new Linux release. The people who comment on this post should naturally be expected to be Linux users, probably fans. Just as a post about a new OS X release would naturally be populated with Apple fans. It's the people who purposefully comment on threads about products they DON'T like that create a problem. Then there are people like you who just enjoy acting like a dick. Give it a rest.
I used to be the same way. Just on general principles - and out of good security habits - I never kept myself signed in to anything. Then I thought about it and realized I was wasting a ridiculous amount of time signing in to and out of various things. Now I just stay signed in to everything. I figure I'm sitting at my own desk in my own office in my own house - what's the risk? That I might die while signed in to everything? So what? I'll be dead.
As an individual, you may not give a crap. That's fine. But as a business, you owe it to yourself (as owner), or your shareholders (if publicly traded) to host your own mail. Google may not be competing with you now, but you do not know what the future will bring.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. As an individual who has signed on to use the free Gmail service, I have agreed to a vastly different TOS than that agreed to by a business that signs up for (and pays for) Google Apps for Business. There are many sound reasons for a business to concern themselves with the privacy and security of their email, and one very good method for dealing with these issues is to enter into a contractual agreement with another company that is better equipped to handle the details. It is not at all uncommon for businesses to farm out their email, and when they do so they enter into a legally clear relationship with the entity that provides the service. I don't see any reason to believe that it would be any different when Google is the entity providing the email service.
I think much of the fear surrounding Gmail stems from the TOS that individual users agree to when they sign up. The popular belief seems to be that businesses who use Gmail agree to the same terms. This belief strikes me as a rather absurd one.
Seconded. I know you Anonymous kids think you're pretty hot stuff, but you're not dealing with Microsoft here. These really aren't the kind of people you want to enter into a pissing contest with.
If you don't host the data, you don't own it. And Google has also demonstrated that they are more than happy to release your information to the Government without subpoena.
My, but I'm tired of hearing this mantra. So I don't 'own' the data that constitutes my email? Why on Earth should I give a crap? You're telling me that I should be upset that Google 'owns' all the dumb-ass jokes my brother-in-law uses to clog my inbox? What, exactly, is so damned sensitive about the 'data' in my email?
Absolutely nothing. Sure - there is data in my life that is sensitive, and I store it securely. I rarely need to share it, but on the occasion that I do, there is a plethora of secure, dependable methods to employ besides email.
Personally, I am happy to allow Google to use my so-called 'personal data' however they wish. I don't actually have a use for it myself, and I consider it a small price to pay for all the great apps and services they give to me in exchange.
"What your saying is that you believe human nature is a problem, and anonymity is a _symptom_ of that problem."
Um, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Please don't just throw catchphrases around unless you first understand their meaning. A symptom of a problem is something that is caused by that problem (RE: your ridiculous admonition to "Learn about causality"). Anonymity is most certainly NOT caused by human nature.
If you actually wanted to know what I was saying, all you had to do was read the words I wrote: "history has taught us that the average human being engages in a variety of negative behaviors if they think they can escape responsibility for them."
When you are having difficulty understanding what someone else is saying, an intelligent move would be to use a dictionary to look up the words you don't know. Another option would be to just ask the person in question to further clarify their point. Throwing inappropriate catchphrases around in an attempt to seem clever just makes you look foolish.
Anonymity IS a problem, and human society has long recognized this fact. If you doubt me, try walking through a shopping mall while wearing a ski mask. It is actually against the law in our society to conceal your identity. One reason for this is that history has taught us that the average human being engages in a variety of negative behaviors if they think they can escape responsibility for them. Anonymity allows people to act without fear of repercussion. I wish that human nature didn't make this a problem.
Aside from that, I'm all for people showing the rest of us their True Selves. At the end of the day, though, if your True Self isn't willing to take responsibility for what it says, it can keep its True Mouth shut.
Twitter will take a hit, but it will survive. It is enough different from G+ and FriendFace that it will continue to fit the needs of much of its user base. What I find most interesting is that nobody has mentioned Diaspora since Google+ launched. Is it a dead project?
Ubuntu has been making a spirited attempt at becoming the distro for the Linux newbie. And they have been largely successful at it, mainly because of decisions like this one. New-comers and "average Joes" shouldn't have to learn how to use Synaptic (which, frankly, has never been much fun to use). Similarly, there's a good reason for including a launcher out of the box. It doesn't surprise me in the least when Canonical makes decisions that create an Ubuntu that is closer to an OS my Mom could use (in fact, they may have arrived there already).
What does surprise me is the vitriol that's being spewed about it here. If you feel a compelling need to think of yourself as some sort of hardcore Linux geek, just get yourself another distro. As a hardcore Linux geek, you should know they're out there (you might even know where to get them). Ubuntu is not intended for the hardcore user (it's hardly a bare-bones distro) - quite the opposite, in fact.
And I have to admit I'm confused by all the Linux wizards here who are so hardcore they feel they must have Synaptic, but are simultaneously outraged by the fact that they have to type 'sudo apt-get install' into a terminal in order to get it.
And I get the desire, since location seems to be the latest 'thing'. Their methodology strikes me as being ridiculously overcomplicated, though. Since there are already a slew of open location-based services out there, why not just use one of them (OpenStreetMap springs to mind)?
Slashdot Mirror
Fanboism? Don't be a douchebag. This is a post about a new Linux release. The people who comment on this post should naturally be expected to be Linux users, probably fans. Just as a post about a new OS X release would naturally be populated with Apple fans. It's the people who purposefully comment on threads about products they DON'T like that create a problem. Then there are people like you who just enjoy acting like a dick. Give it a rest.
I used to be the same way. Just on general principles - and out of good security habits - I never kept myself signed in to anything. Then I thought about it and realized I was wasting a ridiculous amount of time signing in to and out of various things. Now I just stay signed in to everything. I figure I'm sitting at my own desk in my own office in my own house - what's the risk? That I might die while signed in to everything? So what? I'll be dead.
I played 7 out of these 10 when they were cutting edge. I wonder if this makes me old or just "classic".
What's GitHub?
Is there some one (or some body) that controls the internet? If so, did they at some point in time promise us that the internet is a private place?
They all treat us like cattle. The difference is that Google realizes that happy cows make better hamburger.
As an individual, you may not give a crap. That's fine. But as a business, you owe it to yourself (as owner), or your shareholders (if publicly traded) to host your own mail. Google may not be competing with you now, but you do not know what the future will bring.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. As an individual who has signed on to use the free Gmail service, I have agreed to a vastly different TOS than that agreed to by a business that signs up for (and pays for) Google Apps for Business. There are many sound reasons for a business to concern themselves with the privacy and security of their email, and one very good method for dealing with these issues is to enter into a contractual agreement with another company that is better equipped to handle the details. It is not at all uncommon for businesses to farm out their email, and when they do so they enter into a legally clear relationship with the entity that provides the service. I don't see any reason to believe that it would be any different when Google is the entity providing the email service.
I think much of the fear surrounding Gmail stems from the TOS that individual users agree to when they sign up. The popular belief seems to be that businesses who use Gmail agree to the same terms. This belief strikes me as a rather absurd one.
Seconded. I know you Anonymous kids think you're pretty hot stuff, but you're not dealing with Microsoft here. These really aren't the kind of people you want to enter into a pissing contest with.
Read the article. Please?
If you don't host the data, you don't own it. And Google has also demonstrated that they are more than happy to release your information to the Government without subpoena.
My, but I'm tired of hearing this mantra. So I don't 'own' the data that constitutes my email? Why on Earth should I give a crap? You're telling me that I should be upset that Google 'owns' all the dumb-ass jokes my brother-in-law uses to clog my inbox? What, exactly, is so damned sensitive about the 'data' in my email?
Absolutely nothing. Sure - there is data in my life that is sensitive, and I store it securely. I rarely need to share it, but on the occasion that I do, there is a plethora of secure, dependable methods to employ besides email.
Personally, I am happy to allow Google to use my so-called 'personal data' however they wish. I don't actually have a use for it myself, and I consider it a small price to pay for all the great apps and services they give to me in exchange.
And Mel Gibson is an expert on Christ because he made one crappy film about him.
Welcome to America, where it doesn't take actual knowledge to become an expert on any given subject.
All it takes is exposure.
Wow. You never actually listen to a word anyone else says, do you?
Um, not using a resource makes it not a resource.
Really? Cause I'm pretty sure the money in my savings account falls under the heading of 'resource'.
Find a flaw and send us an email describing it. We'll pay you $500, then we'll make $600 selling your email address.
Um, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Please don't just throw catchphrases around unless you first understand their meaning. A symptom of a problem is something that is caused by that problem (RE: your ridiculous admonition to "Learn about causality"). Anonymity is most certainly NOT caused by human nature.
If you actually wanted to know what I was saying, all you had to do was read the words I wrote: "history has taught us that the average human being engages in a variety of negative behaviors if they think they can escape responsibility for them."
When you are having difficulty understanding what someone else is saying, an intelligent move would be to use a dictionary to look up the words you don't know. Another option would be to just ask the person in question to further clarify their point. Throwing inappropriate catchphrases around in an attempt to seem clever just makes you look foolish.
Aside from that, I'm all for people showing the rest of us their True Selves. At the end of the day, though, if your True Self isn't willing to take responsibility for what it says, it can keep its True Mouth shut.
Read the first comment here: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/25/2132238/The-Internets-Age-of-Rage
If they can't keep a civil tongue in their head while they express it, I don't give a rat's ass about what they actually think.
Twitter will take a hit, but it will survive. It is enough different from G+ and FriendFace that it will continue to fit the needs of much of its user base. What I find most interesting is that nobody has mentioned Diaspora since Google+ launched. Is it a dead project?
So what you're saying is that an iPhone can't read the ink?
It's spelled Eric Idle, but it's pronounced Michael Palin.
Oh, wait.... Maybe I'm thinking of BFG.
Natural Interaction With Flying Robots Via Kinect
Am I the only one seeing everything that's wrong with this statement?
What does surprise me is the vitriol that's being spewed about it here. If you feel a compelling need to think of yourself as some sort of hardcore Linux geek, just get yourself another distro. As a hardcore Linux geek, you should know they're out there (you might even know where to get them). Ubuntu is not intended for the hardcore user (it's hardly a bare-bones distro) - quite the opposite, in fact.
And I have to admit I'm confused by all the Linux wizards here who are so hardcore they feel they must have Synaptic, but are simultaneously outraged by the fact that they have to type 'sudo apt-get install' into a terminal in order to get it.
And I get the desire, since location seems to be the latest 'thing'. Their methodology strikes me as being ridiculously overcomplicated, though. Since there are already a slew of open location-based services out there, why not just use one of them (OpenStreetMap springs to mind)?