In an interview with Linux Format (issue 163) he says about Git "I'manegotisticalbastard,andInameallmyprojectsaftermyself.First'Linux',now'Git'."
And about his role in the kernel - "realistically what I maintain these days is not the code but the workflow for people. And that sometimes gets my goat in a big way when somebody does something stupid in a big way, and then I get really excited, and by excited I mean I curse at people."
Definitely detecting a tone of humour (and truth) in those statements.
As your faster-than-light ship sails through the cosmos, it’s not alone. Although we often think of space as empty, there are loads of high-energy particles shooting through the void. The University of Sydney research [PDF] indicates that these particles are liable to get swept up in the craft’s warp field and remain trapped in the stable bubble.
That's why you have a deflector dish! Don't these guys even _watch_ Star Trek?;)
P.s. we don't mind a few sacrifices. The kind of people who liked this type of Nokia phone (and I think you'll find there are quite a few) held onto their old monochrome 3310s for as long as possible like their lives depended on it so really, it's fine if it's not got a SuperMegaBrite(TM) Retina Display pushing 400ppi. It's okay if it's a bit thick and a bit ugly. Really:)
When I think Nokia, I think "phone that is reliable, built like a brick shithouse and with a battery that lasts all week or more, and can pick up the faintest whiff of a signal and make it work"
Never mind making "yet another smartphone that is only 2 molecules thick and with a battery that lasts a whole 4 hours!"
Do smartphones if you must, but make it the same way you used to make phones. Make it a rugged beastie that the highly destructive creatures known as "sales reps" won't keep handing back to the IT department with shattered screens knackered batteries broken buttons and chunks missing. Make a phone that can connect to Exchange but that our CEO won't brandish angrily at us while shouting about terrible battery life and dropped calls. Trust me, we'll love you for it and we'll buy lots.
I've just noticed this (having read up a bit more about how they're really in the belief of everyone involved there *not trying to be evil* but just kind of trying to raise funds, I decided to stop worrying and carry on, and heck, download the latest version)
Lo and behold, before the download it asked whether I'd like to donate something. In what I consider a stroke of sheer genius, they let you allocate it to whatever you consider the biggest concerns (I went for hardware support and upstream co-ordination plus tip) in quite a direct system of voting with your wallet. It's a brilliant idea because indeed it did entice me into donating which I think I last did about 5+ years ago. Money placed where mouth is, and I hope they'll find success with this and maybe not feel the need to stoop further into dodgy advertising territory.
Funny how everyone who wants to stop supporting Canonical ends up using Mint. Mint is derived from Ubuntu! So yes you're getting a desktop that you prefer... but you're still indirectly supporting Ubuntu/Canonical.
Interestingly I'm faced with the same dilemma as when I got into Apple stuff - while Canonical, much like Apple, are getting more and more evil... their OS is by far the most polished. Everything just looks and acts fantastic, from the fonts to the window borders to the dash to the "app store", it's just beautifully done. Other distros are clunky by comparison. So there's always this question of "how much of your freedom and privacy are you willing to give up for all this polish?". Very tricky indeed.
Tempting but the thing is Mint is based on Ubuntu. If you don't want to support Canonical (which I'm starting to wonder myself - they're starting to drift towards Facebook and Apple styles of evilness, pushing at boundaries, seeing what they can get away with) then running something that relies on them probably isn't the best idea. Better off with something Debian based, or Arch, or such like.
Ah right, I sit corrected. No minimum that I was affected by:)
There's also the Farnell-owned CPC, which is a lot more open to consumers (they even have a recently expanded shop now in Preston that you can wander around and browse in) and I note that they're using the "register to express an interest" model for those who prefer that to pre-ordering.
I pre-ordered from Farnell with no issue at all. No minimum amount, no company details (it's geared at that, but I ignored it), and "Home / Hobby" was even an option in the list of job roles.
Got to find it amusing that it takes in-depth research to prove the bleedingly obvious, and quite surprising that it triggered debate IMO
People rarely (if ever) get rich by being fair, honest and following the law to the letter. They get rich by being "go-getters" and not letting anything stand in the way.
It's all in getting away with it. The more someone can get away with trampling on people, breaking laws / morality etc without repercussions ("getting away with it" includes internal sense of guilt/remorse), by nature, the further they will succeed in getting what they want while others who get away with it less hold back.
You could go right the way back to cave men. The one who knocks everyone out and has the meat to himself isn't *nice*, but he's still the one who didn't go hungry.
And the reason everyone uses eBay is because everyone uses eBay (biggest audience - can't really get out of it because who wants a smaller audience for the thing they're trying to sell?)
Since eBay own Paypal and receive some nice additional fee payments from it, they tend to ban other payment methods (try even saying you accept Google Checkout - they will block your listing) and so Paypal thrives.
Now, why they don't get bitten by some sort of anti-competitive law of monopoly abuse like MS with IE I don't know, but there you go.
... as like the things that fly through them (planes).
On average and statistically, the safest (it's got true industry experts in safety and security behind it precisely because their business relies on it - in-house usually hasn't)
But when something does go wrong, it affects a lot of people and makes a mess.
Yeah it's that point about lack of demo for me. That seems to be the norm now that we have all the "app store" distribution models (iTunes Store, Steam etc). You're supposed to just "know" if a game is any good, that it will work well on your PC properly etc and gamble £30-50 on it. No thanks - if they can't be arsed to make a demo, I'll make my own.
Of course, once you've got a pirated version working it's up to discipline and morals to buy it. I would, but tend to be in the minority (I'm the sort of person who drives the speed limit. Almost no one does that). Maybe writing demos would help reduce it a little, or maybe there's not enough "pirated it for a demo and now I have it I might as well keep it" activity to justify the cost of making one which is their choice.
Whether this is the "real" Anonymous or not (how can something that has no set identity be real or not?), they're kind of getting out of hand.
Sometimes they have an agreeable cause (in my opinion, but that's just the thing, it's an opinion) but all the people calling for regulation and full traceability of the internet will be pointing at this "Anonymous" lot and saying "That's why".
They like to make themselves feared, but it's just going to drive more people towards wanting to do anything to protect the internet / their children / etc from them.
Is to search for what I actually ask for. Don't search for what you *thought* I meant. Don't search for all those synonyms unless I ask you to. Just. Search. For. What. I. Typed. In. Dammit.
I shouldn't have to force that by putting quotes around everything - it should be default, or at the very least a cookie.
And also ban boardreader.com and all these other crappy sites that overtake the real discussion search results with their ads and middle man tactics. And those spam sites that somehow read your query and come back with "searching for {whatever I typed in}? Click here!"
Please and thank you, and I will stop with my increasing habit of resorting to Bing (though that suffers from some of these things too but seems marginally better) to get my work done.
I recently said on another story's comments that brands are important because you can tell known good stuff from bad, but that some just abuse the fame of a brand (which got to where it was by being great) to produce overpriced crap.
The new Amiga is one of those cases.
Go on, how much will this Atom based netbook be... £1500? No thanks. Frankly, shove it.
Good points on both sides... the thing is, it's all about knowing *which* brand truly is quality, and which is cheap tat sold high just for the name.
You can't do this without some sort of brand/label.
What I think happens in a lot of cases is, a brand does become famous due to quality. But later in life they lower the quality and cash in on the fame.
Apple are increasingly doing this, but do still produce some great quality (such as the unibody MacBooks) which keep them there as the BMW of computing, for now.
Don't know about others, but all this pinching and flicking and scrolling inertia etc seemed really clever to me at first when Apple did it. It seems incredibly obvious in hindsight of course...
I did thank you, and before you go swearing and shouting at me, consider that I addressed that assumption: the fact that it's an assumption and may not be the case is the entire point of my post.
No, I haven't chosen to provide evidence as it's a casual comment, not a submission to Wikipedia.
I would suggest that it's up to the person disagreeing with a comment to submit evidence to the contrary, should they insist upon a more academic approach.
Yeah yeah okay guys... I don't post enough on/. to remember to account for the site's high levels of pedantry. I'm making a casual comment on a news site here, not writing an article for Wikipedia, but here we go:
The general understanding by the non-pedantic is that when someone is said to be "dying" it means they have a terminal illness such as cancer* (the risk of which is greatly increased around 60/65 - source: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/age/). To call age-related illness "dying" is exaggerating I guess, but only slightly as it's around the same age and the same sort of illness that I have in mind.
If you look at it technically (and quite pessimistically) then yes, we are dying from the moment we are born but very few people use the term in that manner.
Now, it's quite possible that the age of dramatically increased cancer risk (and similar) would increase along with our lifespan, but my comment was in context with the summary's comment of "That assumes that the life extension is all 'good years', and not a prolonged period of dementia and physical decline."
{*} In before "not all cancer is terminal": I mean cases where it has been diagnosed as terminal, and also cancer is just an example but a very common problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah pretty sure he would.
In an interview with Linux Format (issue 163) he says about Git "I'manegotisticalbastard,andInameallmyprojectsaftermyself.First'Linux',now'Git'."
And about his role in the kernel - "realistically what I maintain these days is not the code but the workflow for people. And that sometimes gets my goat in a big way when somebody does something stupid in a big way, and then I get really excited, and by excited I mean I curse at people."
Definitely detecting a tone of humour (and truth) in those statements.
I always liked his soothing voice on those stargazing programmes on the telly.
From TFA
That's why you have a deflector dish! Don't these guys even _watch_ Star Trek? ;)
P.s. we don't mind a few sacrifices. The kind of people who liked this type of Nokia phone (and I think you'll find there are quite a few) held onto their old monochrome 3310s for as long as possible like their lives depended on it so really, it's fine if it's not got a SuperMegaBrite(TM) Retina Display pushing 400ppi. It's okay if it's a bit thick and a bit ugly. Really :)
When I think Nokia, I think "phone that is reliable, built like a brick shithouse and with a battery that lasts all week or more, and can pick up the faintest whiff of a signal and make it work"
Never mind making "yet another smartphone that is only 2 molecules thick and with a battery that lasts a whole 4 hours!"
Do smartphones if you must, but make it the same way you used to make phones. Make it a rugged beastie that the highly destructive creatures known as "sales reps" won't keep handing back to the IT department with shattered screens knackered batteries broken buttons and chunks missing. Make a phone that can connect to Exchange but that our CEO won't brandish angrily at us while shouting about terrible battery life and dropped calls. Trust me, we'll love you for it and we'll buy lots.
Ta.
I've just noticed this (having read up a bit more about how they're really in the belief of everyone involved there *not trying to be evil* but just kind of trying to raise funds, I decided to stop worrying and carry on, and heck, download the latest version)
Lo and behold, before the download it asked whether I'd like to donate something. In what I consider a stroke of sheer genius, they let you allocate it to whatever you consider the biggest concerns (I went for hardware support and upstream co-ordination plus tip) in quite a direct system of voting with your wallet. It's a brilliant idea because indeed it did entice me into donating which I think I last did about 5+ years ago. Money placed where mouth is, and I hope they'll find success with this and maybe not feel the need to stoop further into dodgy advertising territory.
Funny how everyone who wants to stop supporting Canonical ends up using Mint. Mint is derived from Ubuntu! So yes you're getting a desktop that you prefer... but you're still indirectly supporting Ubuntu/Canonical.
Agreed.
Interestingly I'm faced with the same dilemma as when I got into Apple stuff - while Canonical, much like Apple, are getting more and more evil... their OS is by far the most polished. Everything just looks and acts fantastic, from the fonts to the window borders to the dash to the "app store", it's just beautifully done. Other distros are clunky by comparison. So there's always this question of "how much of your freedom and privacy are you willing to give up for all this polish?". Very tricky indeed.
Tempting but the thing is Mint is based on Ubuntu. If you don't want to support Canonical (which I'm starting to wonder myself - they're starting to drift towards Facebook and Apple styles of evilness, pushing at boundaries, seeing what they can get away with) then running something that relies on them probably isn't the best idea. Better off with something Debian based, or Arch, or such like.
Ah right, I sit corrected. No minimum that I was affected by :)
There's also the Farnell-owned CPC, which is a lot more open to consumers (they even have a recently expanded shop now in Preston that you can wander around and browse in) and I note that they're using the "register to express an interest" model for those who prefer that to pre-ordering.
I pre-ordered from Farnell with no issue at all. No minimum amount, no company details (it's geared at that, but I ignored it), and "Home / Hobby" was even an option in the list of job roles.
Indeed.
Got to find it amusing that it takes in-depth research to prove the bleedingly obvious, and quite surprising that it triggered debate IMO
People rarely (if ever) get rich by being fair, honest and following the law to the letter. They get rich by being "go-getters" and not letting anything stand in the way.
It's all in getting away with it. The more someone can get away with trampling on people, breaking laws / morality etc without repercussions ("getting away with it" includes internal sense of guilt/remorse), by nature, the further they will succeed in getting what they want while others who get away with it less hold back.
You could go right the way back to cave men. The one who knocks everyone out and has the meat to himself isn't *nice*, but he's still the one who didn't go hungry.
eBay.
And the reason everyone uses eBay is because everyone uses eBay (biggest audience - can't really get out of it because who wants a smaller audience for the thing they're trying to sell?)
Since eBay own Paypal and receive some nice additional fee payments from it, they tend to ban other payment methods (try even saying you accept Google Checkout - they will block your listing) and so Paypal thrives.
Now, why they don't get bitten by some sort of anti-competitive law of monopoly abuse like MS with IE I don't know, but there you go.
... as like the things that fly through them (planes).
On average and statistically, the safest (it's got true industry experts in safety and security behind it precisely because their business relies on it - in-house usually hasn't)
But when something does go wrong, it affects a lot of people and makes a mess.
Watch out for the Kazon. And the Vidiians. And species 8472. And the Borg.
Yeah it's that point about lack of demo for me. That seems to be the norm now that we have all the "app store" distribution models (iTunes Store, Steam etc). You're supposed to just "know" if a game is any good, that it will work well on your PC properly etc and gamble £30-50 on it. No thanks - if they can't be arsed to make a demo, I'll make my own.
Of course, once you've got a pirated version working it's up to discipline and morals to buy it. I would, but tend to be in the minority (I'm the sort of person who drives the speed limit. Almost no one does that). Maybe writing demos would help reduce it a little, or maybe there's not enough "pirated it for a demo and now I have it I might as well keep it" activity to justify the cost of making one which is their choice.
Whether this is the "real" Anonymous or not (how can something that has no set identity be real or not?), they're kind of getting out of hand.
Sometimes they have an agreeable cause (in my opinion, but that's just the thing, it's an opinion) but all the people calling for regulation and full traceability of the internet will be pointing at this "Anonymous" lot and saying "That's why".
They like to make themselves feared, but it's just going to drive more people towards wanting to do anything to protect the internet / their children / etc from them.
Is to search for what I actually ask for. Don't search for what you *thought* I meant. Don't search for all those synonyms unless I ask you to. Just. Search. For. What. I. Typed. In. Dammit.
I shouldn't have to force that by putting quotes around everything - it should be default, or at the very least a cookie.
And also ban boardreader.com and all these other crappy sites that overtake the real discussion search results with their ads and middle man tactics.
And those spam sites that somehow read your query and come back with "searching for {whatever I typed in}? Click here!"
Please and thank you, and I will stop with my increasing habit of resorting to Bing (though that suffers from some of these things too but seems marginally better) to get my work done.
I think it's a fracking nuisance
I recently said on another story's comments that brands are important because you can tell known good stuff from bad, but that some just abuse the fame of a brand (which got to where it was by being great) to produce overpriced crap.
The new Amiga is one of those cases.
Go on, how much will this Atom based netbook be... £1500? No thanks. Frankly, shove it.
Good points on both sides... the thing is, it's all about knowing *which* brand truly is quality, and which is cheap tat sold high just for the name.
You can't do this without some sort of brand/label.
What I think happens in a lot of cases is, a brand does become famous due to quality. But later in life they lower the quality and cash in on the fame.
Apple are increasingly doing this, but do still produce some great quality (such as the unibody MacBooks) which keep them there as the BMW of computing, for now.
I suspect Jobs was referring to Multitouch.
Don't know about others, but all this pinching and flicking and scrolling inertia etc seemed really clever to me at first when Apple did it. It seems incredibly obvious in hindsight of course...
I did thank you, and before you go swearing and shouting at me, consider that I addressed that assumption: the fact that it's an assumption and may not be the case is the entire point of my post.
No, I haven't chosen to provide evidence as it's a casual comment, not a submission to Wikipedia.
I would suggest that it's up to the person disagreeing with a comment to submit evidence to the contrary, should they insist upon a more academic approach.
Yeah yeah okay guys... I don't post enough on /. to remember to account for the site's high levels of pedantry. I'm making a casual comment on a news site here, not writing an article for Wikipedia, but here we go:
The general understanding by the non-pedantic is that when someone is said to be "dying" it means they have a terminal illness such as cancer* (the risk of which is greatly increased around 60/65 - source: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/age/). To call age-related illness "dying" is exaggerating I guess, but only slightly as it's around the same age and the same sort of illness that I have in mind.
If you look at it technically (and quite pessimistically) then yes, we are dying from the moment we are born but very few people use the term in that manner.
Now, it's quite possible that the age of dramatically increased cancer risk (and similar) would increase along with our lifespan, but my comment was in context with the summary's comment of "That assumes that the life extension is all 'good years', and not a prolonged period of dementia and physical decline."
{*} In before "not all cancer is terminal": I mean cases where it has been diagnosed as terminal, and also cancer is just an example but a very common problem.