My company gets the print version of this magazine. When that article came out, I took into my boss' office, and read the part about all unices moving toward linux compatibility.
We had a good laugh at such a completely stupid and meaningless statement, and then went back to work.
What the HELL is 'linux compatibility' supposed to mean? Linux hasn't unified anything, and I'm damned sure that the real (read as commercial) unix vendors aren't going out of their way to make their OS's linux compatible in any more than a marketing sense.
For instance, how many commercial unices include term type 'linux' in their termcap database? How many use/proc for tcp info? How many make sure that their utilities work under linux? How about tar, ls, or bash? Gzip? Make? Patch?
All of these programs exist on most unices, and they certainly don't behave in the way the GNU versions do. This is incompatibility, and for someone who write system software across a buttload of unices every day (DYNIX/ptx, solaris, AIX, and linux), these things all suck.
A handful have started porting some utilities or subsystems to linux, but the truth is that unix is based, loosely, on standards, and that linux adheres, loosely, to those standards.
It's a stupid article that makes a lot of false assertions written for people who won't ever know the difference.
Enjoy.:P
-- blue, bleeding karma from the eyeballs and loving it.
I'm talking about this from a Professional point of view.
Professional what? Professional pundit? Bigot? Your posts make you out to be so far inside your own box as to be laughable. I'm sure you're not a bad person, or as bitter and insane as you seem to be. Step back from those opinions of yours a little, and you might learn something.
The point was making was that what is killing linux is the lack of professionality.
I think you might want to quit while you're behind.
I hate the idea that todays culture can take the braindead sample based mediums and promote them as High Art.
Go, right now, and buy a copy of the Beastie Boy's "Pauls' Boutique" album. Listen to it every day for the next three weeks, and then come back and post that again.
If you hate ideas, then there's really nothing more that can be argued with you. You're either a lost cause or a _very_ good troll. (Who posts at +1 for extra effect.)
Someone is making money, hand over fist, off your work, and off my work. I have a right to question why many of us remain uncompensated when theres money like that changing hands.
I'm a huge fan of Propaganda, but, well, I hope you don't really feel this way. Remember that every project done in linux now is based on the countless unpaid hours of work done by people in the past. The gcc used to compile the tools used to paint those pretty pictures was started umpteen years ago..
If you don't like people using your work and not compensating you, then license it in such a way as to make that impossible.
A lot of people are claiming that Linux's 'stability' will improve the chances of having a nice time recording live sound and whatnot..
I just want to point out that application crashes, even in windows, are often a fault of the application. If you access the wrong chunk o' RAM, yer gonna blow up, linux or not.
Also, no one has mentioned the gimp-like sound editing tool for linux, Glame. It looks perty cool.
all the little bedroom 'musicians' grab a free groovebox type application and think they are a real musician. It's the whole DJ philosophy, let someone else do my work for me. Grab a few musicians aside, and ask what is the most important thing to them. Get real people involved and go at it.
The only thing I hate more than sample-based dance music is condescending people. There is talent in all walks of life, and art in all forms of expression. Perhaps if you were a little more open-minded about other people's choice of artistic medium your forum would be a little more successful. As it stands, I personally would never code for or help any group represented by someone with such a narrow-minded attitude.
Just something to think about. All people are real people.
-- Blue, musician, hacker, and supporter of trolls.
What bummed me out was that nobody nailed me on the single most obvious problem with that: The fact that the whole point of the GPL is that it requires making the source available.
People, even moderately enlightened people, are generally pretty damned dumb when it comes to having buttons pushed. The chat-room moral higher ground stance isn't often used on/., so it still has plenty of fresh troll power.:)
We are writing this letter to request that you reconsider your current plans for the timing and testing requirements for the Windows 2000 reboot monkey sucker drive. The changes that you've recently announced, such as limiting enrollment for beta exams, restricting access to the accelerated exam for existing reboot monkies to a single try, and limiting the timelines during which reboot monkies must "upgrade" their certifications reek far too much of actually encouraging only qualified technicians to become certified.
Based on feedback from our large community of readers, we also believe that these requirements will significantly impact the success of the Windows 2000 reboot monkey sucker drive. The steps you are about to take with your new program could impact the community-college enhanced work experiences of over 220,000 current reboot monkies, and the countless three-finger-salute wannabes who are studying to become certified under your sucker drive.
In the mid-1990s you created and expanded the reboot-monkey sucker program. Since that time the program has grown enormously. This growth occurred because anyone with a little cash and a few open weekends is gifted a very pretty looking certificate. Reboot monkies have quickly become the driving force behind Microsoft's success in the networking arena. In a sense, reboot monkies serve as an adjunct sales force and technical support arm for Microsoft. We gave you our fucking money, and it's bad enough that everyone calls us names as it is.
Changing and restricting the reboot monkey sucker drive is counterproductive, because everyone knows that it is only the ubiquity of reboot monkey certification, coupled with your headlock on the SOHO server market, that keeps anyone even vaguely interested in your farcical 'tests.' Many reboot monkies who feel that they have invested their careers with Microsoft now also feel that their investments are being seriously and negatively impacted. This is particularly true because the Windows NT 4.0 certifications will expire before many companies have replaced that software with Windows 2000 alternatives.
We understand that you feel obliged to deliver an effective training and community college night school sucker program that doesn't simply reward "paper reboot monkies." To that end we strongly support the notion that community college night school sucker programs should be challenging, and that they should measure an individual's ability to perform on the job as accurately as possible. But we also believe that such sucker programs should be fair and open, and not simply provide a leverage point to push people into upgrading software and systems as soon as possible, or before their employers are ready to adopt the latest version of Windows software.
Reboot monkies gave your software a second chance; you should give them a second chance, too. Please reconsider your limitations on the 70-240 Accelerated Windows exam, and stretch out the timetable for upgrading reboot monkies to Windows 2000 by at least one more year!
Thanks for listening.
:1,$s/MCSE/reboot monkie :1,$s/certification/community college night school/ :1,$s/program/sucker program/ :1,$s/professional/sucker/
M$ started a certification program in order to evangelise their operating systems - they recognize that an easy way to get mindshare is to make certification (which is useless) ubiquitous.
Of course, as many hiring managers would tell you, if warm bodies weren't worth what they are in this labor market, M$ certification guarantees nothing.
Red Hat is trying the same thing, but is making the mistake of trying to imbue legitimacy into an otherwise technologically worthless process.
It's high school all over again - cram for the tests, learn nothing, get yer paper, etc, ad nauseum - only the cost is more than just your post-pubescent sanity.
Pretty much any cert that you can get by a little study and a few tests is not worth getting, at least in the competitive job markets. Compare the Sun JAVA certification - it's hard as hell, and people who have it usually _know_ java.
These guys (the complaintants in the article) sound like the 'grab a book and get your paper' cert is exactly what they're looking for.
-- blue, who, in spite of all of this, is going to get his DYNIX/ptx certification.:P
So let's all make sure the first person to create, train and nurture a computer consciousness will teach it morale, good values and understanding.
I don't think I've ever been in a room with any ten human beings who agreed on morality, good values, and understanding. If we as a species do not agree on these things, then how should our progeny be so imbued?
What if, for instance, someone built a robot, and did exactly that - but that person was Muslem? Mormon? The proper morals would be very, very, very different from mine.
And, all in all, it just plain does not matter by what method humanity is extincted - it will happen. Is there any real difference in us doing it to ourselves or it being the results of unforseen external factors? Nopers. We all die, and in 3 million years, the cockroach religious right argues about the true nature of the human fossils.
Crazy day for stories - I can't believe this got posted right after the censorware article. I think the last thing I posted in a thread on that article makes enough sense to cross post it here.
Zico said: something that every child should be tought in school, as opposed to the self-important dreck that comes out of the anti-"censorware" movement
Interesting point - sort of. If I ever have children, I will make damn sure that they understand the concept of censorship. I will make damned sure that they understand the concept of revolution, and that they understand their reponsibility to humanity to stand up for freedom and everyone's right to be left the fuck alone and live their life as they wish.
All in all, it isn't one group or another that I feel we have to worry about - It's not 'us' against the communists, or the religious right, it's the simple concept of freedom, the fight against the ability of one person or group controlling your access to information, of any kind.
Yes, I understand that information can be used to harm others, but I genuinely believe that if that's the way we go out, then so be it. If humanity is really so weak a force as to be destroyed by its own freedom, if some freak gets blueptrints to a nuke, builds a couple thousand, and gives the earth over to the cockroaches, then so be it - at least we lived free while we lived.
Your immature response, by the way, is why politicians laugh at people like you and make comments like the one you quoted.
Since you didn't quote anything, and most of my post was pretty low-key, I can only assume that you're talking about the line about revolt. Since you were nice enough to call me skippy, allow me to give you a short education on some methods of literary humor:
The quote from the lawyer referred to a revolution, a cyberpunk one. My line also referred to a revolution, but in the proletariat sense. See? Get it?
Also, I believe I fully qualified my statement by saying that it was his attitude that bothered me - I am not a child, I am not out of control, and I do not have the conch. I do, however, feel very strongly that I should be in control of everything I do, and that is my god-given right to beat off to Pr0n any time I like. Do you like it when people make blanket statements about your lifestyle, your friends, your hobbies, in a derragatory manner? I certainly don't.
... tree huggers and bra burners that came before you
Yes, damn those tree-huggers and bra-burners. I mean, women don't need to vote, right? And, fuck those darn trees anyways, always getting in the way of the pavement...
If you think that freedom and equality are the punchline to a passe joke, well.. there's just not much I can say to you. I am very, very sorry. We live in different worlds, I guess.
talk to people instead of making utopian speeches at themm and maybe people would actually be open to debating the subject with you...
nonsensical shit like, "The Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it."
Did you actually read my post? Were you actually responding to me? I mean, did you mean to put that in quotes, as though I said it? I post a lot, and I very, very rarely resort to cliche.
themselves into thinking that they're heroic in a world of absolutes
Nice sentance. I think the peacefire.org people and the guys who wrote the article ARE heros. So, you're absolutley right. I thank them sincerely and deeply for risking the ire of those who are into opressing such things.
it does bring up the delicious possible irony of the anti-"censorware" crowd trying to label me a troll so that most people will ignore the points I'm making...
The point is that I'm just having fun,
You made it too easy - these lines are almost back to back. You're just having fun, possibly trying to get a rise out of people, possibly, hell, I dunno, trolling? Welp, I bit.
something that every child should be tought in school, as opposed to the self-important dreck that comes out of the anti-"censorware" movement
Interesting point - sort of. If I ever have children, I will make damn sure that they understand the concept of censorship. I will make damned sure that they understand the concept of revolution, and that they understand their reponsibility to humanity to stand up for freedom and everyone's right to be left the fuck alone and live their life as they wish.
ear wouldn't comment on the findings, but Bruce >Taylor, chief counsel to the National Law Center for Children and Families in Fairfax, Va., disputed Haselton's study. The National Law Center for Children and Families is certainly not a US Government agency
The NLC, while not being an actual govmnt agency, is actually even a little worse - they are an active lobbying house for legislative action. In other words, they are a force behind a lot of the truly shity legislation that gets passed concerning censorship - and they're damned proud of it.
I admit that my title is overkill - they are not a government agency, but for all intents and purposes, they are a component of the US legislative body.
If that makes no sense, read their web pages, or just go straight here.
Quote from news.com the other day: (Haselton is the peacefire guy)
--- Gear wouldn't comment on the findings, but Bruce Taylor, chief counsel to the National Law Center for Children and Families in Fairfax, Va., disputed Haselton's study.
"I don't trust that Peacefire is telling the truth," Taylor said. "It's all part of the cyberpunk revolution. They don't like the government telling them that they don't have free access to the Internet. It's like 'Lord of the Flies,' and they think they have the conch." ---
That condescending, patronizing bullshit opinion in and of itself is more than enough to put me in the mood to grab a pitchfork and prepare for the politicians-up-against-the-wall kind of revolution.
The issue is not with censoreware, folks, the problem is with the use of hidden and encrypted ban lists. If everyone could see and change those lists at will, then censoreware, while still standing zero chance of actually working, would at least be acceptable.
As for the issue of performance, I think it's a pretty simple math problem to determine the chances of any one product effectively filtering Pr0n on the great big lan - with the number of new sites coming up every day, the ability of Pr0n purveyors to change sites at will, etc, etc, the chance of a high success rate is pretty well near nil, even if you consider only the sites that play by the rules and allow themselves to be censored.
Scuse me? Why do so many people think that a cell phone is a good medium from which to browse the web? I think wireless is _awesome_ for things like monitoring and notification, but, really, most of those phones have like 10x20 screens.. I don't really think that's "browsing' Size.. Sure, you can get some stock quotes or something..
Does anyone else wonder if the over-hyping of everything internet related will die down any time soon, and just become another information medium?
First, I don't know who you are, or to what depth your involvement with linsite extends. Please don't take the things I say personally. I am a person of strong opinions and no ready wealth of tact when it comes to expressing them.
You might notice that we have no banner ads on the site (nor will we ever). We're not trying to make any money on this... We're just providing a good service.
In fact, I did notice exactly that. In fact, I considered posting exactly that in response to the post above about posting the opening of your site to/. - but then I read your site, and, well..
I mean, come on Fred, LOOK at it. It's a portal, and it's not even a very interesting one. There's no sign of tux, no blessings by St. Larry.. just brown table-tops and lots of stock quotes. THIS is 'linsite?' Insight, into linux? No, no, in fact, it is not. It's a late-to-market, sub-par, CFO-friendly portal. And you didn't even release your php scripts for the kiddies. So, you know, you provide whatever service ya like, but if you post it to/., you take your lumpy soup like the rest of em.
If your site really WAS interesting, if it really DID have value, I'd have either posted a thank you, or not have posted at all. What do you want? You want me to thank you for not having banner ads? You want me to thank you for not having a profit motive? It's old hat, G. It's old hat, and it's bullshit. That site isn't free. Someone, somewhere, wants to make money off of it. In fact, consider this a challenge - you said you're not trying to make money, you said you're trying to provide good service - do either, do both. Give it up. Gimme some value. What are you doing? Where is the value? Search engines? A calendar? The same stories posted in different order under different headings all over your site? A fucking article talking about linux putting fucking AUSTRALIA on the software development map by the laughingstock of the IT industry? Cuz, you know, nothing good has ever come out of Australia, right? Do you have any idea how disgusting that article is? No? Here ya go:
"Australia has a great deal of creativity and a multicultural background to fuel content creation. Australia has always developed very sensitive content that probably would not be made in the US and Asia," he said. "
This is pure, 100% corporate, spin-laden, rhetorical, look-at-me-talk-and-say-nothing, BULLSHIT. Excuse me while I throw up. When I'm done, I'll clean my chin with SGI stock.
Have I made my point yet?
Ok, how about this. The very first item on Atipa.com's leetle web page is mention of a $30 million investment. Now.. Are you going to claim that none of the work done on linsite is done without the intention of furthering corporations that deal in linux solutions? Are you going to posit that just because linsite itself is monentarily valueless, there is not cash generated by its existence? Is linsite NPO? Doesn't seem to be.. In fact, it looks to me like everything on it is (C) of the Atipa corporation. Hmmmmm.
Wake up, clue in, and give us kernel patches. (yes, yes, yes, i realize SGI talks a lot about doing that - don't even bother to flame me with how great XFS for linux is, cuz i'll only laugh at you) If you encourage the corporatization of linux, then you are in it for the money, because corporations are about making money - the value they add to MY (free) linux is tertiary to the value they perceive (wrongly, i believe history will prove) that can be reaped from servicing it.
-- blue, unofficial/. agitant to the masses.
And, to the two morons at the bottom of this thread - come the fuck ON, people. If you can't recognize the sarcasm in my trumpeting servlets, you might really wanna go back to reading the mushroom, or something.
Yet Another Company tried again today to 'capitalize' on the 'nascent' 'linux market' today by offering up the following stunning breakthrough in marketing technology:
A portal! Look mom! Look! It's got BOXES! LOOK! No, it's cool, see, those are STOCKS! And, wait, get this, it will be CUSTOMIZABLE!
Everyone knows php3 is passe these days. If you aren't using servlets, you're yawnsville.
Ya know.. I really do wonder sometimes if you're one person who looks for my posts, moderates them up or down, and then sends me a snide response. I think a good 60% of my posts have a single AC response, and it's always something like this.
What gives? You're not a real AC, are you.
And, yeah, the obvious replies were made in response to the same tired old rhetoric - that doesn't mean he has to tell us to wash our mouths out with soap, etc.
A lot of people have said that this was a really 'articulate' article.. I thought it was pretty condescending. It filled me with a definite sense of 'well, duh.' I think Danny does an outstanding job of stating the blatantly obvious - which makes me really, really wonder why so many people are impressed with that pseudo-rant.
Are we really so used to poor grammar and hot grits that we'll take that kind of shit from a career money-hacker and like it?
I hope not. Linux might need applications, but I hesitate to agree that Yet Another "Rapid Application" tool is the proper panacea to engender them. I'd rather have 'lots of educated programmers.';)
When people talk about Open Source products, you hear about their speed, their efficiency, and their features. What
Only when people who aren't actually part of any real projects talk about it, do you hear nonsense like that.
you don't hear is how innovative their interfaces are. Why? Because they're not. At best, products created by the Open Source movement offer workable imitations of popular commercial interfaces; originality is rare, and
In the cases where the commercial interface is good and interface is part of the design goal, (gimp vs. photoshop, for instance), this might be partially true. However, even with a perfectly intuitive interface, very few commercial applications will give you the benefit of ALSO being able to configure your app up the wazoo.
In the case of something like apache vs. IIS, the apache 'interface,' while being a flat text file, is _extremely_ easy to configure. It is also completely well commented, documented, and easy to get free support for. There is _also_ a gui-style configuration utility, if your definition of 'intuitive' is 'gui.'
routinely found in the underlying code. This presents an interesting dichotomy: why is the best software writing organization on earth unable to produce innovative interfaces, when small commercial software companies do so with regularity (if not always with commercial success)?
This is not an interesting dichotomy, this is bullshit. OSS is not, by any means, 'the best software writing...' method. It works for a lot of people, for solving problems and scratching an itch.
The answer is relatively simple: The Open Source movement has no feedback loop to end-users, and no imperative to create one.
Bullshit, and bullshit. I read the entirety of the gimp-devel and new-httpd lists every day. Those lists spend entire days hashing over tiny changes to the interface. Your entire premise is that these projects are coded without attention to user interface, and that shows that either you've never been involved in an open-source project, or you've been invovled in some that work in a totally different way than the ones I've seen.
I vote for the latter - I think this article is a fine example of 'me-too,' 'hey-mom-look-at-me-i'm-writing-about-open-source' journalism.
Guess what? Like all the equivalent tripe, it makes me ill.
The majority of Open Source software is still written for programmer-users: the systems are made with flexibility - not usability - in mind. Enough hooks and parameters are
Bullshit. Are you going to tell me GNOME and KDE are written for the programmer?
But that's only a small slice of the world's software users. Most people want a product that works right out of the box.
Gimme a percentage of applications that you think work 'right out of the box.' The fact is that _most_ software, OSS or not, still sucks. Commercial software actually sucks MORE, because it is more cash-efficient to add new features than it is to fix old bugs.
I'll go ahead and/rant off now, since I was working (damn you,/.), before this stupid article interrupted me, but I do wanna say one more thing:
Don't confuse an interface that seems obscure to you with lack of attention from the programmer. Just because YOU don't get it, doesn't mean it wasn't very carefully designed to work exactly as it does.
Slashdot Mirror
My company gets the print version of this magazine. When that article came out, I took into my boss' office, and read the part about all unices moving toward linux compatibility.
/proc for tcp info? How many make sure that their utilities work under linux? How about tar, ls, or bash? Gzip? Make? Patch?
:P
We had a good laugh at such a completely stupid and meaningless statement, and then went back to work.
What the HELL is 'linux compatibility' supposed to mean? Linux hasn't unified anything, and I'm damned sure that the real (read as commercial) unix vendors aren't going out of their way to make their OS's linux compatible in any more than a marketing sense.
For instance, how many commercial unices include term type 'linux' in their termcap database? How many use
All of these programs exist on most unices, and they certainly don't behave in the way the GNU versions do. This is incompatibility, and for someone who write system software across a buttload of unices every day (DYNIX/ptx, solaris, AIX, and linux), these things all suck.
A handful have started porting some utilities or subsystems to linux, but the truth is that unix is based, loosely, on standards, and that linux adheres, loosely, to those standards.
It's a stupid article that makes a lot of false assertions written for people who won't ever know the difference.
Enjoy.
--
blue, bleeding karma from the eyeballs and loving it.
Hi Clif,
I'm talking about this from a Professional point of view.
Professional what? Professional pundit? Bigot? Your posts make you out to be so far inside your own box as to be laughable. I'm sure you're not a bad person, or as bitter and insane as you seem to be. Step back from those opinions of yours a little, and you might learn something.
The point was making was that what is killing linux is the lack of professionality.
I think you might want to quit while you're behind.
I hate the idea that todays culture can take the braindead sample based mediums and promote them as High Art.
Go, right now, and buy a copy of the Beastie Boy's "Pauls' Boutique" album. Listen to it every day for the next three weeks, and then come back and post that again.
If you hate ideas, then there's really nothing more that can be argued with you. You're either a lost cause or a _very_ good troll. (Who posts at +1 for extra effect.)
--
blue
Hi Bowie,
:)
Someone is making money, hand over fist, off your work, and off my work. I have a right to question why many of us remain uncompensated when
theres money like that changing hands.
I'm a huge fan of Propaganda, but, well, I hope you don't really feel this way. Remember that every project done in linux now is based on the countless unpaid hours of work done by people in the past. The gcc used to compile the tools used to paint those pretty pictures was started umpteen years ago..
If you don't like people using your work and not compensating you, then license it in such a way as to make that impossible.
Otherwise, well.. sour grapes, wine, whichever.
--
blue
A lot of people are claiming that Linux's 'stability' will improve the chances of having a nice time recording live sound and whatnot..
I just want to point out that application crashes, even in windows, are often a fault of the application. If you access the wrong chunk o' RAM, yer gonna blow up, linux or not.
Also, no one has mentioned the gimp-like sound editing tool for linux, Glame. It looks perty cool.
Thanks,
--
blue
Hi Clif,
all the little bedroom 'musicians' grab a free groovebox type application and think they are a real musician. It's the whole DJ philosophy, let someone else do my work for me. Grab a few musicians aside, and ask what is the most important thing to them. Get real people involved and go at it.
The only thing I hate more than sample-based dance music is condescending people. There is talent in all walks of life, and art in all forms of expression. Perhaps if you were a little more open-minded about other people's choice of artistic medium your forum would be a little more successful. As it stands, I personally would never code for or help any group represented by someone with such a narrow-minded attitude.
Just something to think about. All people are real people.
--
Blue, musician, hacker, and supporter of trolls.
What bummed me out was that nobody nailed me on the single most obvious problem with that: The
/., so it still has plenty of fresh troll power. :)
fact that the whole point of the GPL is that it requires making the source available.
People, even moderately enlightened people, are generally pretty damned dumb when it comes to having buttons pushed. The chat-room moral higher ground stance isn't often used on
--
blue
Excellent troll, done with verve and taste. I give you a 9 out of 10. Misrepresenting the photoshop/GPL thing was a stroke of genious.
By the book, and well done.
--
blue
I like the assertion that a network switch is more complicated than a handheld device, and will therefore require the extra beef of NT.
I guess the author is just rephrasing some M$ propaganda, but, come on, that's a ludicrous statement.
Unless, of course, the handheld device is a spork.
--
blue
1) Can you commit to memory the maximum cable length of Thicknet Ethernet?
:P
:P
:P
:)
Yes - replace it immediately with 100bt.
2) Could you guess how to correctly terminate a 10Base-2 Network?
With a sexy little chrome nipple.
3) Given a hypothetical device called a "Brouter", could you guess what it does in a
NetBEUI network?
Absorbs broadcast packets, like everything else on a netbui network.
1) How do you set up SMB network browsing in a multi-domain environment?
De-install windows on all workstations. Use NFS.
2) What is the proper way to design WINS replication?
With a hammer.
3) How do you restore the MS DHCP database in a recovery situation?
Format and reinstall, like you do in every other M$ recovery sitation.
--
blue (from the 'it's-only-funny-if-you've-never-had-to-do-it' department.
We are writing this letter to request that you reconsider your current
plans for the timing and testing requirements for the Windows 2000 reboot
monkey sucker drive. The changes that you've recently announced, such as
limiting enrollment for beta exams, restricting access to the accelerated
exam for existing reboot monkies to a single try, and limiting the
timelines during which reboot monkies must "upgrade" their certifications
reek far too much of actually encouraging only qualified technicians to
become certified.
Based on feedback from our large community of readers, we also believe
that these requirements will significantly impact the success of the
Windows 2000 reboot monkey sucker drive. The steps you are about to take
with your new program could impact the community-college enhanced work
experiences of over 220,000 current reboot monkies, and the countless
three-finger-salute wannabes who are studying to become certified under
your sucker drive.
In the mid-1990s you created and expanded the reboot-monkey sucker
program. Since that time the program has grown enormously. This growth
occurred because anyone with a little cash and a few open weekends is
gifted a very pretty looking certificate. Reboot monkies have quickly
become the driving force behind Microsoft's success in the networking
arena. In a sense, reboot monkies serve as an adjunct sales force and
technical support arm for Microsoft. We gave you our fucking money, and
it's bad enough that everyone calls us names as it is.
Changing and restricting the reboot monkey sucker drive is
counterproductive, because everyone knows that it is only the ubiquity of
reboot monkey certification, coupled with your headlock on the SOHO server
market, that keeps anyone even vaguely interested in your farcical
'tests.' Many reboot monkies who feel that they have invested their
careers with Microsoft now also feel that their investments are being
seriously and negatively impacted. This is particularly true because the
Windows NT 4.0 certifications will expire before many companies have
replaced that software with Windows 2000 alternatives.
We understand that you feel obliged to deliver an effective training and
community college night school sucker program that doesn't simply reward
"paper reboot monkies." To that end we strongly support the notion that
community college night school sucker programs should be challenging, and
that they should measure an individual's ability to perform on the job as
accurately as possible. But we also believe that such sucker programs
should be fair and open, and not simply provide a leverage point to push
people into upgrading software and systems as soon as possible, or before
their employers are ready to adopt the latest version of Windows software.
Reboot monkies gave your software a second chance; you should give them a
second chance, too. Please reconsider your limitations on the 70-240
Accelerated Windows exam, and stretch out the timetable for upgrading
reboot monkies to Windows 2000 by at least one more year!
Thanks for listening.
:1,$s/MCSE/reboot monkie
:1,$s/certification/community college night school/
:1,$s/program/sucker program/
:1,$s/professional/sucker/
--
blue, a little vi goes a long way.
M$ started a certification program in order to evangelise their operating systems - they recognize that an easy way to get mindshare is to make certification (which is useless) ubiquitous.
:P
Of course, as many hiring managers would tell you, if warm bodies weren't worth what they are in this labor market, M$ certification guarantees nothing.
Red Hat is trying the same thing, but is making the mistake of trying to imbue legitimacy into an otherwise technologically worthless process.
It's high school all over again - cram for the tests, learn nothing, get yer paper, etc, ad nauseum - only the cost is more than just your post-pubescent sanity.
Pretty much any cert that you can get by a little study and a few tests is not worth getting, at least in the competitive job markets. Compare the Sun JAVA certification - it's hard as hell, and people who have it usually _know_ java.
These guys (the complaintants in the article) sound like the 'grab a book and get your paper' cert is exactly what they're looking for.
--
blue, who, in spite of all of this, is going to get his DYNIX/ptx certification.
So let's all make sure the first person to create, train and nurture a computer
consciousness will teach it morale, good values and understanding.
I don't think I've ever been in a room with any ten human beings who agreed on morality, good values, and understanding. If we as a species do not agree on these things, then how should our progeny be so imbued?
What if, for instance, someone built a robot, and did exactly that - but that person was Muslem? Mormon? The proper morals would be very, very, very different from mine.
And, all in all, it just plain does not matter by what method humanity is extincted - it will happen. Is there any real difference in us doing it to ourselves or it being the results of unforseen external factors? Nopers. We all die, and in 3 million years, the cockroach religious right argues about the true nature of the human fossils.
Whee.
---
blue
Was this the world's most obscure flame, or were you agreeing with me? :P
Hi Folks,
Crazy day for stories - I can't believe this got posted right after the censorware article. I think the last thing I posted in a thread on that article makes enough sense to cross post it here.
The whole thread is here.
And the last thing I wrote to it was:
Zico said:
something that every child should be tought in school, as opposed to the self-important dreck that comes out of the anti-"censorware" movement
Interesting point - sort of. If I ever have children, I will make damn sure that they understand the concept of censorship. I will make damned sure that they understand the concept of revolution, and that they understand their reponsibility to humanity to stand up for freedom and everyone's right to be left the fuck alone and live their life as they wish.
All in all, it isn't one group or another that I feel we have to worry about - It's not 'us' against the communists, or the religious right, it's the simple concept of freedom, the fight against the ability of one person or group controlling your access to information, of any kind.
Yes, I understand that information can be used to harm others, but I genuinely believe that if that's the way we go out, then so be it. If humanity is really so weak a force as to be destroyed by its own freedom, if some freak gets blueptrints to a nuke, builds a couple thousand, and gives the earth over to the cockroaches, then so be it - at least we lived free while we lived.
--
blue
Hi Zico,
... tree huggers and bra burners that came before you
...
Your immature response, by the way, is why politicians laugh at people like you and make comments like the one you quoted.
Since you didn't quote anything, and most of my post was pretty low-key, I can only assume that you're talking about the line about revolt. Since you were nice enough to call me skippy, allow me to give you a short education on some methods of literary humor:
The quote from the lawyer referred to a revolution, a cyberpunk one. My line also referred to a revolution, but in the proletariat sense. See? Get it?
Also, I believe I fully qualified my statement by saying that it was his attitude that bothered me - I am not a child, I am not out of control, and I do not have the conch. I do, however, feel very strongly that I should be in control of everything I do, and that is my god-given right to beat off to Pr0n any time I like. Do you like it when people make blanket statements about your lifestyle, your friends, your hobbies, in a derragatory manner? I certainly don't.
Yes, damn those tree-huggers and bra-burners. I mean, women don't need to vote, right? And, fuck those darn trees anyways, always getting in the way of the pavement...
If you think that freedom and equality are the punchline to a passe joke, well.. there's just not much I can say to you. I am very, very sorry. We live in different worlds, I guess.
talk to people instead of making utopian speeches at themm and maybe people would actually be open to debating the subject with you
nonsensical shit like, "The Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it."
Did you actually read my post? Were you actually responding to me? I mean, did you mean to put that in quotes, as though I said it? I post a lot, and I very, very rarely resort to cliche.
themselves into thinking that they're heroic in a world of absolutes
Nice sentance. I think the peacefire.org people and the guys who wrote the article ARE heros. So, you're absolutley right. I thank them sincerely and deeply for risking the ire of those who are into opressing such things.
it does bring up the delicious
possible irony of the anti-"censorware" crowd trying to label me a troll so that most people will ignore the points I'm making...
The point is that I'm just having fun,
You made it too easy - these lines are almost back to back. You're just having fun, possibly trying to get a rise out of people, possibly, hell, I dunno, trolling? Welp, I bit.
something that every child should be tought in school, as opposed to the self-important dreck that comes out of
the anti-"censorware" movement
Interesting point - sort of. If I ever have children, I will make damn sure that they understand the concept of censorship. I will make damned sure that they understand the concept of revolution, and that they understand their reponsibility to humanity to stand up for freedom and everyone's right to be left the fuck alone and live their life as they wish.
--
blue
Hi Rudolfo,
ear wouldn't comment on the findings, but Bruce >Taylor, chief counsel to the National Law Center for Children and Families in Fairfax, Va., disputed Haselton's study. The National Law Center for Children and Families is certainly not a US Government agency
The NLC, while not being an actual govmnt agency, is actually even a little worse - they are an active lobbying house for legislative action. In other words, they are a force behind a lot of the truly shity legislation that gets passed concerning censorship - and they're damned proud of it.
I admit that my title is overkill - they are not a government agency, but for all intents and purposes, they are a component of the US legislative body.
If that makes no sense, read their web pages, or just go straight here.
thanks,
--
blue
Quote from news.com the other day: (Haselton is the peacefire guy)
---
Gear wouldn't comment on the findings, but Bruce Taylor, chief counsel to the National Law Center for Children and Families in Fairfax, Va.,
disputed Haselton's study.
"I don't trust that Peacefire is telling the truth," Taylor said. "It's all part of the cyberpunk revolution. They don't like the government telling them that they don't have free access to the Internet. It's like 'Lord of the Flies,' and they think they have the conch."
---
That condescending, patronizing bullshit opinion in and of itself is more than enough to put me in the mood to grab a pitchfork and prepare for the politicians-up-against-the-wall kind of revolution.
The issue is not with censoreware, folks, the problem is with the use of hidden and encrypted ban lists. If everyone could see and change those lists at will, then censoreware, while still standing zero chance of actually working, would at least be acceptable.
As for the issue of performance, I think it's a pretty simple math problem to determine the chances of any one product effectively filtering Pr0n on the great big lan - with the number of new sites coming up every day, the ability of Pr0n purveyors to change sites at will, etc, etc, the chance of a high success rate is pretty well near nil, even if you consider only the sites that play by the rules and allow themselves to be censored.
--
blue
Scuse me? Why do so many people think that a cell phone is a good medium from which to browse the web? I think wireless is _awesome_ for things like monitoring and notification, but, really, most of those phones have like 10x20 screens.. I don't really think that's "browsing' Size.. Sure, you can get some stock quotes or something..
:P
Does anyone else wonder if the over-hyping of everything internet related will die down any time soon, and just become another information medium?
Does anyone else PRAY for it every day?
--
blue
Get yer asbestos undies on, kids -
/. - but then I read your site, and, well..
/., you take your lumpy soup like the rest of em.
/. agitant to the masses.
Hi Fred:
First, I don't know who you are, or to what depth your involvement with linsite extends. Please don't take the things I say personally. I am a person of strong opinions and no ready wealth of tact when it comes to expressing them.
You might notice that we have no banner ads on the site (nor will we ever). We're not trying to make any money on this... We're just providing a good service.
In fact, I did notice exactly that. In fact, I considered posting exactly that in response to the post above about posting the opening of your site to
I mean, come on Fred, LOOK at it. It's a portal, and it's not even a very interesting one. There's no sign of tux, no blessings by St. Larry.. just brown table-tops and lots of stock quotes. THIS is 'linsite?' Insight, into linux? No, no, in fact, it is not. It's a late-to-market, sub-par, CFO-friendly portal. And you didn't even release your php scripts for the kiddies. So, you know, you provide whatever service ya like, but if you post it to
If your site really WAS interesting, if it really DID have value, I'd have either posted a thank you, or not have posted at all. What do you want? You want me to thank you for not having banner ads? You want me to thank you for not having a profit motive? It's old hat, G. It's old hat, and it's bullshit. That site isn't free. Someone, somewhere, wants to make money off of it. In fact, consider this a challenge - you said you're not trying to make money, you said you're trying to provide good service - do either, do both. Give it up. Gimme some value. What are you doing? Where is the value? Search engines? A calendar? The same stories posted in different order under different headings all over your site? A fucking article talking about linux putting fucking AUSTRALIA on the software development map by the laughingstock of the IT industry? Cuz, you know, nothing good has ever come out of Australia, right? Do you have any idea how disgusting that article is? No? Here ya go:
"Australia has a great deal of creativity and a multicultural background to fuel content creation. Australia has always developed very sensitive content that probably would not be made in the US and Asia," he said. "
This is pure, 100% corporate, spin-laden, rhetorical, look-at-me-talk-and-say-nothing, BULLSHIT. Excuse me while I throw up. When I'm done, I'll clean my chin with SGI stock.
Have I made my point yet?
Ok, how about this. The very first item on Atipa.com's leetle web page is mention of a $30 million investment. Now.. Are you going to claim that none of the work done on linsite is done without the intention of furthering corporations that deal in linux solutions? Are you going to posit that just because linsite itself is monentarily valueless, there is not cash generated by its existence? Is linsite NPO? Doesn't seem to be.. In fact, it looks to me like everything on it is (C) of the Atipa corporation. Hmmmmm.
Wake up, clue in, and give us kernel patches. (yes, yes, yes, i realize SGI talks a lot about doing that - don't even bother to flame me with how great XFS for linux is, cuz i'll only laugh at you) If you encourage the corporatization of linux, then you are in it for the money, because corporations are about making money - the value they add to MY (free) linux is tertiary to the value they perceive (wrongly, i believe history will prove) that can be reaped from servicing it.
--
blue, unofficial
And, to the two morons at the bottom of this thread - come the fuck ON, people. If you can't recognize the sarcasm in my trumpeting servlets, you might really wanna go back to reading the mushroom, or something.
and it rulez0rez! I can't believe how much faster it is.. (voodoo III)
THANK YOU, XF86 WREKIN' KREW.
blue
Yet Another Company tried again today to 'capitalize' on the 'nascent' 'linux market' today by offering up the following stunning breakthrough in marketing technology:
A portal! Look mom! Look! It's got BOXES! LOOK! No, it's cool, see, those are STOCKS! And, wait, get this, it will be CUSTOMIZABLE!
Everyone knows php3 is passe these days. If you aren't using servlets, you're yawnsville.
--
blue
Ya know.. I really do wonder sometimes if you're one person who looks for my posts, moderates them up or down, and then sends me a snide response. I think a good 60% of my posts have a single AC response, and it's always something like this.
What gives? You're not a real AC, are you.
And, yeah, the obvious replies were made in response to the same tired old rhetoric - that doesn't mean he has to tell us to wash our mouths out with soap, etc.
--
blue
A lot of people have said that this was a really 'articulate' article.. I thought it was pretty condescending. It filled me with a definite sense of 'well, duh.' I think Danny does an outstanding job of stating the blatantly obvious - which makes me really, really wonder why so many people are impressed with that pseudo-rant.
;)
Are we really so used to poor grammar and hot grits that we'll take that kind of shit from a career money-hacker and like it?
I hope not. Linux might need applications, but I hesitate to agree that Yet Another "Rapid Application" tool is the proper panacea to engender them. I'd rather have 'lots of educated programmers.'
Mebbe I'm wrong.
--
blue
Not only is this the _THIRD_ time this has been posted on /., but they also used to run banner ads for it.
On another note, I signed up for this, and the guy running it is a friggin geek GOD. The whole thing is automated, runs NIS, etc, etc.
very, very cool toys indeed.
--
blue
When people talk about Open Source products, you hear
about their speed, their efficiency, and their features. What
Only when people who aren't actually part of any real projects talk about
it, do you hear nonsense like that.
you don't hear is how innovative their interfaces are.
Why? Because they're not. At best, products created by
the Open Source movement offer workable imitations of
popular commercial interfaces; originality is rare, and
In the cases where the commercial interface is good and interface is
part of the design goal, (gimp vs. photoshop, for instance), this might be
partially true. However, even with a perfectly intuitive interface, very
few commercial applications will give you the benefit of ALSO being able
to configure your app up the wazoo.
In the case of something like apache vs. IIS, the apache 'interface,'
while being a flat text file, is _extremely_ easy to configure. It is also
completely well commented, documented, and easy to get free support for.
There is _also_ a gui-style configuration utility, if your definition of
'intuitive' is 'gui.'
routinely found in the underlying code. This presents an
interesting dichotomy: why is the best software writing
organization on earth unable to produce innovative
interfaces, when small commercial software companies do
so with regularity (if not always with commercial success)?
This is not an interesting dichotomy, this is bullshit. OSS is not, by any
means, 'the best software writing
people, for solving problems and scratching an itch.
The answer is relatively simple: The Open Source
movement has no feedback loop to end-users, and no
imperative to create one.
Bullshit, and bullshit. I read the entirety of the gimp-devel
and new-httpd lists every day. Those lists spend entire days hashing
over tiny changes to the interface. Your entire premise is that these
projects are coded without attention to user interface, and that shows
that either you've never been involved in an open-source project, or
you've been invovled in some that work in a totally different way than the
ones I've seen.
I vote for the latter - I think this article is a fine example of
'me-too,' 'hey-mom-look-at-me-i'm-writing-about-open-source
Guess what? Like all the equivalent tripe, it makes me ill.
The majority of Open Source software is still written for
programmer-users: the systems are made with flexibility -
not usability - in mind. Enough hooks and parameters are
Bullshit. Are you going to tell me GNOME and KDE are written for the
programmer?
But that's only a small slice of the world's software users.
Most people want a product that works right out of the box.
Gimme a percentage of applications that you think work 'right out of the
box.' The fact is that _most_ software, OSS or not, still sucks.
Commercial software actually sucks MORE, because it is more
cash-efficient to add new features than it is to fix old bugs.
I'll go ahead and
before this stupid article interrupted me, but I do wanna say one more
thing:
Don't confuse an interface that seems obscure to you with lack of
attention from the programmer. Just because YOU don't get it, doesn't mean
it wasn't very carefully designed to work exactly as it does.