I'm not saying that all the problems people are having are made up, but I'm just not seeing any of them. Then again, I custom ordered my MacBook from Apple and I did not buy one from the Apple Store.
I bought mine at the beginning of July. It arrived on the 17th. I have been using it non-stop since then for software development, and I haven't seen any problems at all. No yellowing. No heat issues. No scuff issues (although I'm not tossing it in a backpack--I have a satchel I use with all sorts of nice padding). It works fine. As a matter of fact, I love it:-)
Does it run pretty hot? Sure. But no worse than my PowerBook (same really). Battery life? Same. Screen? Soooooo much more beautiful;-)
My understanding from talking with one of the store guys is that they had some assembly issues at first with the MBPs in terms of heat. They were apparently leaving the plastic on the parts even when they were put together--thus blocking the vents. But that was apparently resolved.
I have seen scuttle butt around about not getting machines direct from the Apple store and getting a custom build through Apple. The idea is that they have to assemble one fresh from China for you (well, that is where they ship from--I can dig up my shipping label from around here somewhere). I guess the thinking is that there were some kinks in the assembly line/supply chain, and that "fresh" systems don't suffer as bad.
In my case, that seems to have worked--no issues here.
"I'm gonna switch to a Mac laptop when my current one reaches its end of life..."
And you are going to be damn happy. I just bought a powerbook 12". I had been using an Dell Inspiron 5000 for four years along with various Linux workstations. OS X is absolutely unbelievable.
I love my powerbook. And now, when I look at how much it really cost me to make my workstation, I am chagrined to find I am almost at the cost of equivalent PowerMacs.
Oh, and my powerbook was the same as an equivalently featured Dell. The Apple hardware isn't as expensive as it used to be. You might be surprised to find your laptop not costing as much as you would expect.
I agree that AOL is screwed up and blocks email for utterly stupid and bogus reasons. I disagree that unrelated outside parties have the right to FORCE them to do otherwise. Let AOL's customers decide.
AOL blocks just as many innocent hosting companies as it does guilty ones. With not being able to send to AOL, hosting companies lose clients. Not being able to send to your server is just an annoyance. We could take it up with you directly or just throw up our hands and tell our clients, "Hey, he won't let us!"
But AOL is another matter. If AOL blocks your server, you are *screwed*. And if they do it for no good reason, and perhaps for even false reasons (i.e. that you are a spammer), one could argue a loss of revenue and business. And so we have maybe 50 clients affected, maybe 100. What does AOL care of 100 of our clients are injured? They don't--not a bit. They are enacting a spam policy for their clients, and they feel they have done a good job.
Just today we suspended an account owned by an AOLer who kept reporting the spam that was forwarding through his account with us. He was blacklisting our whole server single-handedly. What the hell? Isn't there some kind of consensus needed? More than one source?
No, there isn't. Enough complaints (valid or not) equals blacklisted.
But back to your "let people complain then". We do. We plead. We show our case. We give AOL proof that their system is black-listing us for no reason. Their response: "Sorry, there's nothing we can do."
So, I'm just supposed to sit back and accept that one of the largest ISPs in the country (or world) has black-listed me for no reason. I'm supposed to tell that to my clients?
Sorry man, I don't think you get it. Perhaps CI sucks, but AOL isn't listening to anyone. Suing them and dragging them through a media circus might be the only way to get their attention. Meanwhile, little hosting companies are getting the shaft twice: once from spammers and again from AOL. Fun, fun, fun.
Easy--the same reason we insist that MS and AOL have to open up their messenger networks. The sheer size of AOL's subscriber list makes them powerful.
As I said in the example, this is happening to hosts with zero-tolerance policies on SPAM because AOL's system sucks. It gets just as many false positives as it does the genuine spam havens.
So a shared server with 100 clients gets blacklisted because one client is an idiot. It takes almost two weeks or more to get unlisted (at least that has been my experience). How many of those 100 clients are going to leave because they can't send to any AOL users?
For the small, innocent hosting company this is the kiss of death. Again, AOL's system is designed in such a way that if a user reports a mailing list email as spam (a mailing list that they signed up for!), it is counted against the server.
SpamCop is a pain, but for goodness sake, at least you get a chance to defend yourself or explain mixups. AOL has no such forum or channel to report problems. Why?
Because they don't care. Because they are big and who cares if they play fair.
Sounds like other big companies that get blasted on slashdot. It's just that most slashdot readers have a knee-jerk reaction about spam. CI may suck, but there are a lot of innocents getting nailed.
Of course, if someone's blog got blacklisted, then this would be in YRO about how AOL is censoring the internet. What a bunch of foolishness.
I guess that you believe that the government should be dictating how people run their private networks, including accepting the additional costs of spamming just because it makes spam-friendly ISPs feel bad when their packets get dropped.
Spam friendly? What part of the scenario that I listed above did you not understand? That was from a hosting company that has a zero-tolerance policy. They have had an entire shared server of 100 clients get blacklisted because one client kept reporting forwarded SPAM. Where the emails spam? Yes. Did they come from the shared server (was it the source)? No. Did it matter to AOL? No.
When you are a company as big as AOL and you put a system in place that black-lists crap companies like CI and innocent bystanders, you should be held accountable. People have complained. People have begged for a solution.
Of course, as you say, AOL can do whatever the hell they want, right? Then why are people so pissed about MS kicking off old clients on their network? How is AOL, as an ISP, any different from MS as an OS vendor? Why shouldn't they be made to put a better system in place that doesn't kill innocent businesses?
I stand by my first sentence--if you run a hosting company, you know the score. Sure, CI sucks, but *everyone* else is getting nailed right along with them.
If you don't run a webhosting company or an ISP, shut up. If you run a webhosting company or an ISP, you know how crappy AOL's system is.
Consider if you have an AOL client who has a site on your hosting server. They forward their site mail to their AOL account. Their site account gets spam. What happens? Well, the spam gets forwarded, the clueless AOLer reports it as SPAM, and AOL's system sees your hosting server as a spam source. There is nothing you can do to protect your hosting server. Nothing.
This really happens. If you call AOL, they basically say it isn't their problem. If an AOL client thinks a mailing list email they signed up for is spam, then AOL thinks it is spam. They tell you to setup a feedback loop where they send spam reports, but you have no way to respond to AOL. You just get flooded with tons of reports by clueless AOL users with no way to tell AOL, "Hey, this isn't SPAM!"
Only on two occasions where a client had an exploited formmail script did the AOL system work as it should (i.e. spam was reported, we saw the report and found the problem). Every other day of the week, it is a massive time-sink that you get nothing out of.
AOL wanted to make up for sucking on the SPAM front. So they become complete asses and made the job that much harder for the rest of us. Bravo!
I hope the class-action suit makes them stop. I don't expect anyone will see any money, but at least AOL will be held accountable for being such idiots.
Are you afraid of being remembered as the man who killed open source?
McBride: People ask why we haven't sued Red Hat. We haven't sued Red Hat becase then the GPL grinds to a screeching halt, and all shipping distributions of Linux must stop. This whole process is going to make Linux and open source stronger with respect to intellectual property. Today there is no vetting process to make sure the code that goes into open source is clear. We're trying to work through the issues in such a way that we get justice without putting a hole in the head of the penguin.
So they say they don't want to bring the GPL to a screeching halt, but we can see that a) that was bull and b) that was their intent the whole time--to claim the GPL was invalid. Despite all the nice-talk, that has been their intent all along--to bring the GPL to a screeching halt and to stop mainline distributors in their tracks.
This was in September's Wired, so when did this interview take place to get published? At least a month to two months earlier. These guys have a long and detailed game plan. We may think they are idiots and wrong, but they are by no means "winging it".
I personally think these guys are going to lose, but anyone who thinks they are not skilled and very dangerous lawyers is fooling themselves. Thank goodness IBM (with lots of money and good lawyers) is taking them on and not some ragtag OpenSource or FSF outfit. We'd get crushed.
Yes, anyone with some sense and normal social skills will feel the isolation of only using IM and email to communicate. But the real problem, the real source of frustration and stress are, well, the "true jerks".
This may seem obvious, but think about it. If you work remotely, is it that working remotely sucks or that the one real jerk you have to work with is empowered by IM and email to be even a greater jerk than he would normally be. Even real, genuine idiots and losers have no guts and will rarely treat you horribly to your face. But add some remoteness and the sense of safety that comes with email or IM, and you have a horrible working situation.
Sure, the tech can be isolating if you don't have any sense of balance. But what makes it intolerable and a real source of stress are these jerks. Yes, they would still be a jackass in person, but deep down you know they wouldn't have the guts to say what they are saying in email to your face.
Is it technology's fault? No. These people are jerks no matter what--they just use the technology that the rest of us enjoy to be even greater jerks. They are the genuine trolls and the losers who infest USENET--except they act this way in real life. They are everywhere you go--they just are more bold when they can hide behind a computer.
Your reading too much into a tongue and cheek statement.
What my friend meant was that it usually takes a good amount of bitterness to make anyone consider contracting. It's a scary step and most are intimidated by their manager's comments about "contractors have no benefits".
That's all it meant--i.e. "perhaps you are now bitter enough to take a risk". But what you said still applies. I had many friends who were bitter enough to give it a try. Only one friend of mine did and is still doing it.
My comment was the same thing: if you feel that betrayed, realize there are other options.
As for me, I did it because I was fed up with flushing my life down the drain in salaried positions. When I get paid by the hour, I find I get more equitable treatment. Employers *think* about what they want me to work on. And usually they are more serious--since my time equals money in a very easy to use formula. And I don't feel like I am being cheated when I get a heavy work load--more hours equals more compensation.
Less pay or not, salary is for suckers. Even if contracting is making half the money, right now pay is down across the board and salaried employees are being asked to work twice the hours. So do the math.
(OTOH, during the dotcom days, I made some serious money. Ah, things will never be like that again *g*)
For me, contracting is about quality of life--as in, I have one now.
You are now ready to be a contractor/mercenary. When I embarked on being a contractor, my friend who was a long-time contractor (20+ years) said after talking with me, "I think you are bitter enough now to become a contractor."
Which is to say, most people who went into contracting did so just because of stories like you told. They got tired of being jerked around and decided a little uncertainty and paperwork was worth getting little freedom from the corporate brain washing about team and loyalty.
Granted, many went into it because of money during the dot-com boom. They are no longer contractors now;-)
I'm loyal--to getting the job done, according to contract, as long as I'm getting paid. I produce results, give advice, and let the customer go his own way--even if they insist on taking themselves to hell in a handbasket.
It beats getting all worked up over stupid stuff at work.
I always loved the "We're a family" line I got when people tried to get me on as a FT employee. I don't know about you, but it is usually true--and they have all the problems that families have too. They can keep them;-)
Intelligence and Wisdom
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Could you comment on the difference between intelligence and wisdom? You seem to hint at some ideas in Ringworld Throne when Wu chooses to depose the Vampire Protector because he was not wise enough.
In these Pak Protectors, we have unbelievably intelligent and clever beings, but wisdom does not seem implied. What are your thoughts on wisdom, and what points were you trying to make? Considering the audience for most of your books (geeks, "smart folk"), it's an interesting point to include.
Side question: where did you come up with the idea of the Pak, especially as human ancestors? It has to be one of the more original conjectures about affects of old age that I have ever read:-)
Listen, creationist may be a pain, but you aren't seriously blaming the rise in AB resistant bacteria strains on the creationist dogma, are you?
Don't be an idiot. Where's the evidence (real or anecdotal) that the average guy who doesn't finish his antibiotics says to himself, "Well, golly, since evolution is just atheist propoganda, there is no reason for me to fear antibiotic resistance developing in bacteria--THEREFORE, I will now stop taking my antibiotic regime."
And for my own favorite test, just like chiropractric, colloidal silver users make some wide, sweeping, and exagerated claims for what silver "can cure". I mean crap, that's a huge list of things it will cure or alleviate. You just have to wonder when you see that many claims of a miracle medicine/tonic.
According to this site, she was helping this guy put together PocketPC solutions for use on his Africa biking trip. Sounds like she was a little more in the MS fold than the article said. I'm surprised she even still used Macs, being a PocketPC "solutions troubleshooter" and all!
I plan to set up a wireless ISP on the Washington state peninsula. Maybe they'll buy me eventually;-)
I don't really want to run an ISP, but when you are 5 miles up a mountain road with no hope of cable or DSL, you have to start getting creative. As it is, some guy down the street tried to convert his cabin (burned down and then rebuilt as a much nicer place) into an executive retreat. As a part of his master plan, he had QWest drag up some lines for high speed access (probably a T1 capable line). His plans fell thru, but they might be my hope for something better than 33.6;-)
I know conclude that despite all of CmdrTaco's talk about anime and such, he is clearly a sci-fi poser. Lexx is the bottom of the barrel, below even all those bad Mark Hamill movies (which at least have the fact that they document the plummeting career of a scifi beloved going for them).
Lexx is crap. Not Andromeda crap (i.e. sketchy scifi/science) which is still fun. Lexx is crap-crap. Utterly iredeemable. It is the TV equivalent of Battlefield Earth.
I hope Exodus stays open (I had a lot of clients collocate there, but then most of them are gone). I'd hate to see that pretty Andover/Slashdot cage go at Exodus in Waltham.
Why the hell didn't VALinux take a shot of that and put it up somewhere? It was the best add for VALinux hardware I had ever seen. How many boxen is in that cage? 16 1Us? How many run slashdot? It was impressive to see in action. It was even more fun to surf slashdot during lulls--since I was 4 cages down working for the ill-fated Voter.com.
I hope you guys have pictures to remember it by. But then, you might be sick of the cage (I got sick of mine pretty quick). They don't call 'em cages for nothing.
Did anyone else read the supposed "PR snafu" link? The author was good enough to link to it, but I think his summary was a bit off. PR snafu makes it sound like dotGNU screwed up or did something wrong.
All I have to say is read the link. Really.
After reading the link, unless you are socially brain-dead, you will see that Martin Coxall (the "banned" member) was being a total ass. No really--read it yourself. Keep going until you get to the end of the thread. You'll see. Unfortunately, the dotGNU people felt they needed to defend themselves on the mono list--and with people like this guy, that is only adding fuel to the fire. He's definitely a Tireless Rebutter.
Note of clarification: he was put on manual moderation after stiring up trouble on the dotGNU list. Not banned, moderated. Now before you cry "Oppression!", remember that this is exactly what moderation is for. If you don't understand what I am talking about, read the thread and imagine a constant onslaught of email coming from Martin Coxall sniping and being a jerk--as a developer, it would make you pretty upset.
Moderation is in place on lists to keep flame wars to a minimum. Martin Coxall was just sounding off and got moderated--that's internet life, kids.
So, after purchasing Tandem computers in 1997 and DEC in 1998, Compaq has now decided that they are not in hardware. Instead, they plan to build on their incredibly foresighted purchase of Altavista in 1998 and become more about software and services.
Poor DEC. They will never live again. Most of us knew that when Compaq acquired them after Tandem (remember, they bought Tandem and then phased out all Tandem stuff in favor of Compaq hardware) that it was probably not a good thing for DEC. Now it appears that it has happened. Granted, it took 3 years, but still--DEC is the stuff of Legends. I still have a DEC VT plugged in to my Linux servers via serial cables. It's like using a piece of history for daily needs.
I never got to use an Alpha chip. I always wanted one, but I just never got around to it. Now it appears to be too late (what are the real odds of Intel not doing what Compaq did with Tandem?).
But for me the distinction between object and component is important. For me, a component should be directly manipulable, and could be combined with other components to make apps without coding, or almost without coding. That's what I thought when I saw that sentence.
Hehe. Many would argue that a properly designed object is a component, according to that definition:-)
As it is, GNOME is all object based (even though it is in C, which takes some discipline [grin]) with the idea that it would be a component framework. All well-designed CORBA objects should function just like you said. But that's pretty tough stuff to wrap your brain around. Thus bonobo--it takes the "assumption" and makes it more concrete. Inherit/use bonobo, and you get all those nifty CORBA-based component services with no coding. It makes building components much easier for beginners. Most CORBA people start by building base classes that do all the hookups and lookup upon server instantiation. The guts live in the subclasses. Bonobo provides that. Additionally, bonobo, along with other GNOME libs, provides services used by apps and components (DnD, etc).
I think the intent was always that GNOME would be component based. The problem (IMO) was in that most GNOME developers were GTK developers--and all of their apps are monolithic (i.e. static or dynamic linking, but ONE app space) and weren't experienced in component/CORBA development. So the GNOME team had to build infrastructure to make GNOME component based apps easier to develop. That being said, bonobo (et al) are very useful, since 95% of the component base stuff is almost always the same. So it's a good thing all around.
GNOME was always component based--it's just that many are trying to make that much, much easier by including basic component services in the GNOME core infrastructure. How to build those services and what APIs should be there and what they should look like is the whole source of the argument (two or more differing opinions on how to build a piece of that infrastructure).
The problem (and I know very little about these arguments so take this with a few grains of salt) seems to be that gnome has no "leader".
I'm sure that someone will be pissed about me saying this, but it is pretty true. That person is Miguel. Now granted, he is not the only developer, but many people see him as the leader--even if it is unofficially. He helped start the whole project (with others), and he has been at the forefront from the beginning.
As to final say, I'm not so sure. ESR has long held Linux as THE example of the bazaar--but how? It still comes down to a cathedral like decision--i.e. Linus says yea or nay. In this case, Miguel is very loath to come out and say "Your right and you are wrong, now do what I say." I for one like it.
Is it as efficient? Probably not. But it is the true essence of Open Source software. Which has nothing to do with the GPL, but more to do with the democratic approach.
OTOH, I am a firm believer that my code is my code--if I am the sole starter of a project, I have a certain level of say in what happens to it. But then I release under the LGPL--anyone who doesn't like what I'm doing can fork;-)
"Originally, the GNOME project's goal was to create a component architecture".
First time I hear it, but seems to me like a wonderful idea.
GNU Network Object Model Environment--as shown by the title of this page. It's kind of in the name. I know it doesn't just leap out and say "component!", but for the component people, "network object" is kind of a dead-giveaway. Then there is the fact that it is built on CORBA--which is all about objects working separately from one another and interacting and cooperationg via network wire protocols. ORBit is the key piece gluing GNOME together.
So it has been there from the beginning. Maybe it has been forgotten (I still have my orginal GNOME foot shirt from the Red Hat Linux conference in 98), but it was the original intent. Many, when it began, remarked it was like OS/2's presentation manager--which was all components and CORBA.
The fact that you haven't heard it could be seen as success or failure (since components are supposed to be seamless to end users). Bonobo is the bulk of the component work. By component, we mean objects that inherit useful, common functionality that allows them to team up with other GNOME apps. Bonobo provides those services. It's very cool stuff.
After starting with you can flame me, I am full of love I read the threads, and this appears to be a little more than simple disagreement over which feature to use. It appears that the maintainers want to have the right to make decisions for themselves (i.e. what to accept and what to reject) and that others want a process for change.
Miguel makes the point again and again throughout the threads that most of the flaming is from people making statements based on little or no information--i.e. people who did not write the code making statements about the code that are misinformed or just false. If you read it, you'll see that most of the arguments are started with developers and only worsened by non-maintainers crying for process. Most of the maintainers are coming to consensus (albeit slowly and with much replying back and forth).
For the "Is this why GNOME is [so slow/sucks/isn't as cool as KDE]?" people, this has nothing to do with GNOME really. How many times have people on the kernel lists gotten into these arguments? We have the basic thing happening here: people who write the code don't want to have to go through a committee to enact changes, and people who don't know a whole lot about what they are talking about are making very passionate claims in all sorts of directions.
I'm not on the list. I just read the list. I'm not taking sides, since I clearly don't know enough to say anything one way or the other. But for the GNOME naysayers and the prophets of doom, just read the threads. This is typical Open Source/Bazaar/Free Software conflict. It's pretty easy to see if you read the mailing list. But of course, that requires some time and forethought as well;-)
It will work itself out eventually. The developers will come to a consensus. But people need to calm down and quit clammoring for committee rule. That's the whole reason people develop this stuff--personal freedom. It's like free speech: if you want it, you have to take the good and the bad. Same with free software--or so we claim ("software is speech", etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that all the problems people are having are made up, but I'm just not seeing any of them. Then again, I custom ordered my MacBook from Apple and I did not buy one from the Apple Store.
:-)
;-)
I bought mine at the beginning of July. It arrived on the 17th. I have been using it non-stop since then for software development, and I haven't seen any problems at all. No yellowing. No heat issues. No scuff issues (although I'm not tossing it in a backpack--I have a satchel I use with all sorts of nice padding). It works fine. As a matter of fact, I love it
Does it run pretty hot? Sure. But no worse than my PowerBook (same really). Battery life? Same. Screen? Soooooo much more beautiful
My understanding from talking with one of the store guys is that they had some assembly issues at first with the MBPs in terms of heat. They were apparently leaving the plastic on the parts even when they were put together--thus blocking the vents. But that was apparently resolved.
I have seen scuttle butt around about not getting machines direct from the Apple store and getting a custom build through Apple. The idea is that they have to assemble one fresh from China for you (well, that is where they ship from--I can dig up my shipping label from around here somewhere). I guess the thinking is that there were some kinks in the assembly line/supply chain, and that "fresh" systems don't suffer as bad.
In my case, that seems to have worked--no issues here.
And you are going to be damn happy. I just bought a powerbook 12". I had been using an Dell Inspiron 5000 for four years along with various Linux workstations. OS X is absolutely unbelievable.
I love my powerbook. And now, when I look at how much it really cost me to make my workstation, I am chagrined to find I am almost at the cost of equivalent PowerMacs.
Oh, and my powerbook was the same as an equivalently featured Dell. The Apple hardware isn't as expensive as it used to be. You might be surprised to find your laptop not costing as much as you would expect.
AOL blocks just as many innocent hosting companies as it does guilty ones. With not being able to send to AOL, hosting companies lose clients. Not being able to send to your server is just an annoyance. We could take it up with you directly or just throw up our hands and tell our clients, "Hey, he won't let us!"
But AOL is another matter. If AOL blocks your server, you are *screwed*. And if they do it for no good reason, and perhaps for even false reasons (i.e. that you are a spammer), one could argue a loss of revenue and business. And so we have maybe 50 clients affected, maybe 100. What does AOL care of 100 of our clients are injured? They don't--not a bit. They are enacting a spam policy for their clients, and they feel they have done a good job.
Just today we suspended an account owned by an AOLer who kept reporting the spam that was forwarding through his account with us. He was blacklisting our whole server single-handedly. What the hell? Isn't there some kind of consensus needed? More than one source?
No, there isn't. Enough complaints (valid or not) equals blacklisted.
But back to your "let people complain then". We do. We plead. We show our case. We give AOL proof that their system is black-listing us for no reason. Their response: "Sorry, there's nothing we can do."
So, I'm just supposed to sit back and accept that one of the largest ISPs in the country (or world) has black-listed me for no reason. I'm supposed to tell that to my clients?
Sorry man, I don't think you get it. Perhaps CI sucks, but AOL isn't listening to anyone. Suing them and dragging them through a media circus might be the only way to get their attention. Meanwhile, little hosting companies are getting the shaft twice: once from spammers and again from AOL. Fun, fun, fun.
As I said in the example, this is happening to hosts with zero-tolerance policies on SPAM because AOL's system sucks. It gets just as many false positives as it does the genuine spam havens.
So a shared server with 100 clients gets blacklisted because one client is an idiot. It takes almost two weeks or more to get unlisted (at least that has been my experience). How many of those 100 clients are going to leave because they can't send to any AOL users?
For the small, innocent hosting company this is the kiss of death. Again, AOL's system is designed in such a way that if a user reports a mailing list email as spam (a mailing list that they signed up for!), it is counted against the server.
SpamCop is a pain, but for goodness sake, at least you get a chance to defend yourself or explain mixups. AOL has no such forum or channel to report problems. Why?
Because they don't care. Because they are big and who cares if they play fair.
Sounds like other big companies that get blasted on slashdot. It's just that most slashdot readers have a knee-jerk reaction about spam. CI may suck, but there are a lot of innocents getting nailed.
Of course, if someone's blog got blacklisted, then this would be in YRO about how AOL is censoring the internet. What a bunch of foolishness.
Spam friendly? What part of the scenario that I listed above did you not understand? That was from a hosting company that has a zero-tolerance policy. They have had an entire shared server of 100 clients get blacklisted because one client kept reporting forwarded SPAM. Where the emails spam? Yes. Did they come from the shared server (was it the source)? No. Did it matter to AOL? No.
When you are a company as big as AOL and you put a system in place that black-lists crap companies like CI and innocent bystanders, you should be held accountable. People have complained. People have begged for a solution.
Of course, as you say, AOL can do whatever the hell they want, right? Then why are people so pissed about MS kicking off old clients on their network? How is AOL, as an ISP, any different from MS as an OS vendor? Why shouldn't they be made to put a better system in place that doesn't kill innocent businesses?
I stand by my first sentence--if you run a hosting company, you know the score. Sure, CI sucks, but *everyone* else is getting nailed right along with them.
Consider if you have an AOL client who has a site on your hosting server. They forward their site mail to their AOL account. Their site account gets spam. What happens? Well, the spam gets forwarded, the clueless AOLer reports it as SPAM, and AOL's system sees your hosting server as a spam source. There is nothing you can do to protect your hosting server. Nothing.
This really happens. If you call AOL, they basically say it isn't their problem. If an AOL client thinks a mailing list email they signed up for is spam, then AOL thinks it is spam. They tell you to setup a feedback loop where they send spam reports, but you have no way to respond to AOL. You just get flooded with tons of reports by clueless AOL users with no way to tell AOL, "Hey, this isn't SPAM!"
Only on two occasions where a client had an exploited formmail script did the AOL system work as it should (i.e. spam was reported, we saw the report and found the problem). Every other day of the week, it is a massive time-sink that you get nothing out of.
AOL wanted to make up for sucking on the SPAM front. So they become complete asses and made the job that much harder for the rest of us. Bravo!
I hope the class-action suit makes them stop. I don't expect anyone will see any money, but at least AOL will be held accountable for being such idiots.
This was in September's Wired, so when did this interview take place to get published? At least a month to two months earlier. These guys have a long and detailed game plan. We may think they are idiots and wrong, but they are by no means "winging it".
I personally think these guys are going to lose, but anyone who thinks they are not skilled and very dangerous lawyers is fooling themselves. Thank goodness IBM (with lots of money and good lawyers) is taking them on and not some ragtag OpenSource or FSF outfit. We'd get crushed.
This may seem obvious, but think about it. If you work remotely, is it that working remotely sucks or that the one real jerk you have to work with is empowered by IM and email to be even a greater jerk than he would normally be. Even real, genuine idiots and losers have no guts and will rarely treat you horribly to your face. But add some remoteness and the sense of safety that comes with email or IM, and you have a horrible working situation.
Sure, the tech can be isolating if you don't have any sense of balance. But what makes it intolerable and a real source of stress are these jerks. Yes, they would still be a jackass in person, but deep down you know they wouldn't have the guts to say what they are saying in email to your face.
Is it technology's fault? No. These people are jerks no matter what--they just use the technology that the rest of us enjoy to be even greater jerks. They are the genuine trolls and the losers who infest USENET--except they act this way in real life. They are everywhere you go--they just are more bold when they can hide behind a computer.
What my friend meant was that it usually takes a good amount of bitterness to make anyone consider contracting. It's a scary step and most are intimidated by their manager's comments about "contractors have no benefits".
That's all it meant--i.e. "perhaps you are now bitter enough to take a risk". But what you said still applies. I had many friends who were bitter enough to give it a try. Only one friend of mine did and is still doing it.
My comment was the same thing: if you feel that betrayed, realize there are other options.
As for me, I did it because I was fed up with flushing my life down the drain in salaried positions. When I get paid by the hour, I find I get more equitable treatment. Employers *think* about what they want me to work on. And usually they are more serious--since my time equals money in a very easy to use formula. And I don't feel like I am being cheated when I get a heavy work load--more hours equals more compensation.
Less pay or not, salary is for suckers. Even if contracting is making half the money, right now pay is down across the board and salaried employees are being asked to work twice the hours. So do the math.
(OTOH, during the dotcom days, I made some serious money. Ah, things will never be like that again *g*)
For me, contracting is about quality of life--as in, I have one now.
Which is to say, most people who went into contracting did so just because of stories like you told. They got tired of being jerked around and decided a little uncertainty and paperwork was worth getting little freedom from the corporate brain washing about team and loyalty.
Granted, many went into it because of money during the dot-com boom. They are no longer contractors now ;-)
I'm loyal--to getting the job done, according to contract, as long as I'm getting paid. I produce results, give advice, and let the customer go his own way--even if they insist on taking themselves to hell in a handbasket.
It beats getting all worked up over stupid stuff at work.
I always loved the "We're a family" line I got when people tried to get me on as a FT employee. I don't know about you, but it is usually true--and they have all the problems that families have too. They can keep them ;-)
In these Pak Protectors, we have unbelievably intelligent and clever beings, but wisdom does not seem implied. What are your thoughts on wisdom, and what points were you trying to make? Considering the audience for most of your books (geeks, "smart folk"), it's an interesting point to include.
Side question: where did you come up with the idea of the Pak, especially as human ancestors? It has to be one of the more original conjectures about affects of old age that I have ever read :-)
Don't be an idiot. Where's the evidence (real or anecdotal) that the average guy who doesn't finish his antibiotics says to himself, "Well, golly, since evolution is just atheist propoganda, there is no reason for me to fear antibiotic resistance developing in bacteria--THEREFORE, I will now stop taking my antibiotic regime."
Don't be stupid.
And for my own favorite test, just like chiropractric, colloidal silver users make some wide, sweeping, and exagerated claims for what silver "can cure". I mean crap, that's a huge list of things it will cure or alleviate. You just have to wonder when you see that many claims of a miracle medicine/tonic.
According to this site, she was helping this guy put together PocketPC solutions for use on his Africa biking trip. Sounds like she was a little more in the MS fold than the article said. I'm surprised she even still used Macs, being a PocketPC "solutions troubleshooter" and all!
I don't really want to run an ISP, but when you are 5 miles up a mountain road with no hope of cable or DSL, you have to start getting creative. As it is, some guy down the street tried to convert his cabin (burned down and then rebuilt as a much nicer place) into an executive retreat. As a part of his master plan, he had QWest drag up some lines for high speed access (probably a T1 capable line). His plans fell thru, but they might be my hope for something better than 33.6 ;-)
Lexx is crap. Not Andromeda crap (i.e. sketchy scifi/science) which is still fun. Lexx is crap-crap. Utterly iredeemable. It is the TV equivalent of Battlefield Earth.
Why the hell didn't VALinux take a shot of that and put it up somewhere? It was the best add for VALinux hardware I had ever seen. How many boxen is in that cage? 16 1Us? How many run slashdot? It was impressive to see in action. It was even more fun to surf slashdot during lulls--since I was 4 cages down working for the ill-fated Voter.com.
I hope you guys have pictures to remember it by. But then, you might be sick of the cage (I got sick of mine pretty quick). They don't call 'em cages for nothing.
Yeah, that was real helpful. What a dork. And he wonders why he is marginalized so often. Restraint could get him much further in this world.
Scifi Channel, Friday's at 9:00p and 12:00a.
All I have to say is read the link. Really.
After reading the link, unless you are socially brain-dead, you will see that Martin Coxall (the "banned" member) was being a total ass. No really--read it yourself. Keep going until you get to the end of the thread. You'll see. Unfortunately, the dotGNU people felt they needed to defend themselves on the mono list--and with people like this guy, that is only adding fuel to the fire. He's definitely a Tireless Rebutter.
Note of clarification: he was put on manual moderation after stiring up trouble on the dotGNU list. Not banned, moderated. Now before you cry "Oppression!", remember that this is exactly what moderation is for. If you don't understand what I am talking about, read the thread and imagine a constant onslaught of email coming from Martin Coxall sniping and being a jerk--as a developer, it would make you pretty upset.
Moderation is in place on lists to keep flame wars to a minimum. Martin Coxall was just sounding off and got moderated--that's internet life, kids.
Poor DEC. They will never live again. Most of us knew that when Compaq acquired them after Tandem (remember, they bought Tandem and then phased out all Tandem stuff in favor of Compaq hardware) that it was probably not a good thing for DEC. Now it appears that it has happened. Granted, it took 3 years, but still--DEC is the stuff of Legends. I still have a DEC VT plugged in to my Linux servers via serial cables. It's like using a piece of history for daily needs.
I never got to use an Alpha chip. I always wanted one, but I just never got around to it. Now it appears to be too late (what are the real odds of Intel not doing what Compaq did with Tandem?).
Hehe. Many would argue that a properly designed object is a component, according to that definition :-)
As it is, GNOME is all object based (even though it is in C, which takes some discipline [grin]) with the idea that it would be a component framework. All well-designed CORBA objects should function just like you said. But that's pretty tough stuff to wrap your brain around. Thus bonobo--it takes the "assumption" and makes it more concrete. Inherit/use bonobo, and you get all those nifty CORBA-based component services with no coding. It makes building components much easier for beginners. Most CORBA people start by building base classes that do all the hookups and lookup upon server instantiation. The guts live in the subclasses. Bonobo provides that. Additionally, bonobo, along with other GNOME libs, provides services used by apps and components (DnD, etc).
I think the intent was always that GNOME would be component based. The problem (IMO) was in that most GNOME developers were GTK developers--and all of their apps are monolithic (i.e. static or dynamic linking, but ONE app space) and weren't experienced in component/CORBA development. So the GNOME team had to build infrastructure to make GNOME component based apps easier to develop. That being said, bonobo (et al) are very useful, since 95% of the component base stuff is almost always the same. So it's a good thing all around.
GNOME was always component based--it's just that many are trying to make that much, much easier by including basic component services in the GNOME core infrastructure. How to build those services and what APIs should be there and what they should look like is the whole source of the argument (two or more differing opinions on how to build a piece of that infrastructure).
Thanks for taking time to answering me. :)
Never a problem :-)
I'm sure that someone will be pissed about me saying this, but it is pretty true. That person is Miguel. Now granted, he is not the only developer, but many people see him as the leader--even if it is unofficially. He helped start the whole project (with others), and he has been at the forefront from the beginning.
As to final say, I'm not so sure. ESR has long held Linux as THE example of the bazaar--but how? It still comes down to a cathedral like decision--i.e. Linus says yea or nay. In this case, Miguel is very loath to come out and say "Your right and you are wrong, now do what I say." I for one like it.
Is it as efficient? Probably not. But it is the true essence of Open Source software. Which has nothing to do with the GPL, but more to do with the democratic approach.
OTOH, I am a firm believer that my code is my code--if I am the sole starter of a project, I have a certain level of say in what happens to it. But then I release under the LGPL--anyone who doesn't like what I'm doing can fork ;-)
First time I hear it, but seems to me like a wonderful idea.
GNU Network Object Model Environment--as shown by the title of this page. It's kind of in the name. I know it doesn't just leap out and say "component!", but for the component people, "network object" is kind of a dead-giveaway. Then there is the fact that it is built on CORBA--which is all about objects working separately from one another and interacting and cooperationg via network wire protocols. ORBit is the key piece gluing GNOME together.
So it has been there from the beginning. Maybe it has been forgotten (I still have my orginal GNOME foot shirt from the Red Hat Linux conference in 98), but it was the original intent. Many, when it began, remarked it was like OS/2's presentation manager--which was all components and CORBA.
The fact that you haven't heard it could be seen as success or failure (since components are supposed to be seamless to end users). Bonobo is the bulk of the component work. By component, we mean objects that inherit useful, common functionality that allows them to team up with other GNOME apps. Bonobo provides those services. It's very cool stuff.
Miguel makes the point again and again throughout the threads that most of the flaming is from people making statements based on little or no information--i.e. people who did not write the code making statements about the code that are misinformed or just false. If you read it, you'll see that most of the arguments are started with developers and only worsened by non-maintainers crying for process. Most of the maintainers are coming to consensus (albeit slowly and with much replying back and forth).
For the "Is this why GNOME is [so slow/sucks/isn't as cool as KDE]?" people, this has nothing to do with GNOME really. How many times have people on the kernel lists gotten into these arguments? We have the basic thing happening here: people who write the code don't want to have to go through a committee to enact changes, and people who don't know a whole lot about what they are talking about are making very passionate claims in all sorts of directions.
I'm not on the list. I just read the list. I'm not taking sides, since I clearly don't know enough to say anything one way or the other. But for the GNOME naysayers and the prophets of doom, just read the threads. This is typical Open Source/Bazaar/Free Software conflict. It's pretty easy to see if you read the mailing list. But of course, that requires some time and forethought as well ;-)
It will work itself out eventually. The developers will come to a consensus. But people need to calm down and quit clammoring for committee rule. That's the whole reason people develop this stuff--personal freedom. It's like free speech: if you want it, you have to take the good and the bad. Same with free software--or so we claim ("software is speech", etc.).