This is 2002, not 1992. In 1992 we'd have roasted you alive, but in 1992 star wars had not been perverted, and star trek was only very minorly corrupt. This is 2002, where Star Wars is weak and uninspiring, and where star trek is just irrelevent.
Commoditize the protocals. In inter-office document exchange, office document formats are the protocals. Make the protocal a commodity (ie, anything can use it equally well) and no single vendor stands out.
Want MSOffice? Fine. Pay $500 more than I do, see if I care. Just send your documents with the standard protocal, and all is forgiven.
RMS may pummel you for not being 100% Free, but as long as the means of communication remain open I say we are winning. After MS has taken all their money and they are too poor to buy Office 17, then they'll switch to something Free.
Well sure, but some apps don't use this properly (ie, making the selection buffer automatically add to the clip board). I was mostly trying to dispute the "who needs a clip board?" mentality.
The cut-and-paste you refer to is actually X selection buffer stuff. It's nice to have the ability to regurgitate what was most recently selected (very nice indeed) but don't be confused: it's NOT a clip board, and a seperate clip board is a needed thing. (Scenario: select a block of code. Cut it. Select the block of code it's designed to replace. Paste over it. Decide you don't like the change. Undo levels to return to prior state: 1. This functionality cannot be achieved with the X selection buffer).
I see Taco and others applaud anti-spam laws every time they are proposed/passed. I see people decrying spammers like this guy as evil bastards. What are you guys smoking? Don't you realize that heavy-handed government regulation of the internet is a bad thing? Isn't freedom important to you? I have no problem with anybody sending me spam. Bring it on! Let him get his great new technology, and try all the harder to spam me. I don't hate him, and I don't want to see him forcibly stopped. If we petition the government not to interfere in one area at the same time we demand that they interferein another area, then we are hypocrites and they are right to ignore us. Spammers can be beaten by technology. Don't like spam? DoS spam servers. Blacklist spam servers. Develop software to filter spam in a smart way. This is the internet, we don't do physical harm to people here. We flame them, we shame them, and we amke sure the really obnoxious ones can't play if they don't want to play nice. We deal with these matters internally, and we welcome attempts to subvert us with better technology that subverts the subverters. You're idiots! Leave the spammers alone, just concentrate on making the fact that they spam irrelevent. Wake up: their freedom is your freedom. If they can't do something you don't like, then you can't do something a random MPAA executive doesn't like. It's that simple.
I can't count the number of times I've ssh'd into my router box and popped up a graphical web browser, or grkellm, or something. It's very useful. If I couldn't do that, I'd be extremely lost.
Of course, everyone seems to be ignoring the biggest argument for keeping X rather than moving to some newer, or even some superior method: Everyone uses X. All the developers use it, all of the users use it; it's supported accross *nix, so your X app will likely work on BSD if you can recompile it at all.
Half of the Linux bashers complain "There are no standards in Linux!" and then some of the same people turn around and say "But let's throw out the one thing that is amazingly, shockingly standard." Doing that would only open up the opportunity for endless Windowing System Wars, worse than KDE vs.Gnome, much worse than any Linux battle to date. Can you imagine if Linux users did not even agree on the basic system for creating graphics on the screen?
If there's really something wrong with X, then it can be fixed AFTER Linux is the standard. Right now we can't afford the competition for mind/developer share.
Pico? That proprietary thing? I'm sure you must mean nano.
Re:Anonymity: A problem with Gnutella
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 1
The solution is blind man message passing. In a room full of blind/deaf people whose feet are bolted to the floor, one blind man composes a message. On it he writes a name of the recipient. He hands it off to a blind man within reach who he thinks is the recipient (actually, it would end up being a random choice). The second blind man reads the recipients name, and if it is his own, decrypts and reads the message. If it is not, he hands it off to a random blind man (perhaps even the same one). Eventually, if both the recipient and the sender are in the room, and are connected by having a chain of people within arms reach, the message gets to the person for whom it was intended. The message itself retains no information about whose hands it has passed through. The person who just handed it off has no idea if who he handed it to was the end point (and the end point can always deny getting it/being the end point). If it was sensetive, it was encrypted, if not (ie, it was a part of an MP3) it was not.
And there you have anonymous, asynchronos data transfer accross a network. The price is massive slowness/massive bandwidth usage. Eventually those factors will reduce themselves via something like moores law into irrelevence.
6.5) Windows trolls post on Slashdot how Win XP works for them, because they've configured it properly, and if it doesn't work for you, surely you don't know what you're doing.
Wait... isn't that what Linux users normally say about Linux?
The trouble with GAIMs perl interface is that it's bloody unstable. I can have nonworking code, add a line with nothing but "1;" on it, and have it work suddenly. Sometimes nothing syntactically wrong breaks it, sometime minor syntax errors don't break it.
POD stands for Plain Old Documentation, and is perls inline documentation scheme. I presume a.pod file would be readable by perldoc, same as any other POD documentation.
As far as GNOME, KDE, and libc go, you are more or less correct. they all have certain issues when apt-get'd. However, I've upgraded gcc and the kernel (several times, in the case of the kernel) via apt without difficulty. You do have to recompile the kernel, and probably go over the settings, but this is a problem with the kernel no matter how you upgrade it.
Slashdot Mirror
Missing, you say?
~ATTENTION~
After being contacted by Microsoft officials the XP-like Desktop Environment is hereby renaming itself to the "Xtremely Pretty Desktop Environment"
Thank you, you may go about your business,
This is 2002, not 1992. In 1992 we'd have roasted you alive, but in 1992 star wars had not been perverted, and star trek was only very minorly corrupt. This is 2002, where Star Wars is weak and uninspiring, and where star trek is just irrelevent.
But why not text-also? Audio-only seems like bad planning.
But what happens if I want to download the MP3s in Konqueror from Linux and then burn them with xcdroast? I'm screwed? Back to opennap for me, then.
Commoditize the protocals. In inter-office document exchange, office document formats are the protocals. Make the protocal a commodity (ie, anything can use it equally well) and no single vendor stands out.
Want MSOffice? Fine. Pay $500 more than I do, see if I care. Just send your documents with the standard protocal, and all is forgiven.
RMS may pummel you for not being 100% Free, but as long as the means of communication remain open I say we are winning. After MS has taken all their money and they are too poor to buy Office 17, then they'll switch to something Free.
Well sure, but some apps don't use this properly (ie, making the selection buffer automatically add to the clip board). I was mostly trying to dispute the "who needs a clip board?" mentality.
The cut-and-paste you refer to is actually X selection buffer stuff. It's nice to have the ability to regurgitate what was most recently selected (very nice indeed) but don't be confused: it's NOT a clip board, and a seperate clip board is a needed thing. (Scenario: select a block of code. Cut it. Select the block of code it's designed to replace. Paste over it. Decide you don't like the change. Undo levels to return to prior state: 1. This functionality cannot be achieved with the X selection buffer).
I see Taco and others applaud anti-spam laws every time they are proposed/passed. I see people decrying spammers like this guy as evil bastards. What are you guys smoking? Don't you realize that heavy-handed government regulation of the internet is a bad thing? Isn't freedom important to you? I have no problem with anybody sending me spam. Bring it on! Let him get his great new technology, and try all the harder to spam me. I don't hate him, and I don't want to see him forcibly stopped. If we petition the government not to interfere in one area at the same time we demand that they interferein another area, then we are hypocrites and they are right to ignore us. Spammers can be beaten by technology. Don't like spam? DoS spam servers. Blacklist spam servers. Develop software to filter spam in a smart way. This is the internet, we don't do physical harm to people here. We flame them, we shame them, and we amke sure the really obnoxious ones can't play if they don't want to play nice. We deal with these matters internally, and we welcome attempts to subvert us with better technology that subverts the subverters. You're idiots! Leave the spammers alone, just concentrate on making the fact that they spam irrelevent. Wake up: their freedom is your freedom. If they can't do something you don't like, then you can't do something a random MPAA executive doesn't like. It's that simple.
I can't count the number of times I've ssh'd into my router box and popped up a graphical web browser, or grkellm, or something. It's very useful. If I couldn't do that, I'd be extremely lost.
Of course, everyone seems to be ignoring the biggest argument for keeping X rather than moving to some newer, or even some superior method: Everyone uses X. All the developers use it, all of the users use it; it's supported accross *nix, so your X app will likely work on BSD if you can recompile it at all.
Half of the Linux bashers complain "There are no standards in Linux!" and then some of the same people turn around and say "But let's throw out the one thing that is amazingly, shockingly standard." Doing that would only open up the opportunity for endless Windowing System Wars, worse than KDE vs.Gnome, much worse than any Linux battle to date. Can you imagine if Linux users did not even agree on the basic system for creating graphics on the screen?
If there's really something wrong with X, then it can be fixed AFTER Linux is the standard. Right now we can't afford the competition for mind/developer share.
If your windows pop up in front of your work, your window manager is not configured properly. Don't blame Linux for that.
Pico? That proprietary thing? I'm sure you must mean nano.
The solution is blind man message passing. In a room full of blind/deaf people whose feet are bolted to the floor, one blind man composes a message. On it he writes a name of the recipient. He hands it off to a blind man within reach who he thinks is the recipient (actually, it would end up being a random choice). The second blind man reads the recipients name, and if it is his own, decrypts and reads the message. If it is not, he hands it off to a random blind man (perhaps even the same one). Eventually, if both the recipient and the sender are in the room, and are connected by having a chain of people within arms reach, the message gets to the person for whom it was intended. The message itself retains no information about whose hands it has passed through. The person who just handed it off has no idea if who he handed it to was the end point (and the end point can always deny getting it/being the end point). If it was sensetive, it was encrypted, if not (ie, it was a part of an MP3) it was not.
And there you have anonymous, asynchronos data transfer accross a network. The price is massive slowness/massive bandwidth usage. Eventually those factors will reduce themselves via something like moores law into irrelevence.
I did not say it was a good solution.
Try mplayer. It's the best (ie, [plays the most formats the easiest) movie player for Linux, and you can easily compile it into a debian package.
That's fugu.
6.5) Windows trolls post on Slashdot how Win XP works for them, because they've configured it properly, and if it doesn't work for you, surely you don't know what you're doing.
Wait... isn't that what Linux users normally say about Linux?
The trouble with GAIMs perl interface is that it's bloody unstable. I can have nonworking code, add a line with nothing but "1;" on it, and have it work suddenly. Sometimes nothing syntactically wrong breaks it, sometime minor syntax errors don't break it.
I can see the next MS EULA now: "If you have IE installed, you cannot write code for a competing browser."
> Unless he remembers edlin from his DOS days
Not really. edlin was actually much more user-friendly than ed.
mv $@ /tmp/trash would be better.
Let us not forget bzflag.
It's called AbiWord. I refer you to Google for all additional information.
POD stands for Plain Old Documentation, and is perls inline documentation scheme. I presume a .pod file would be readable by perldoc, same as any other POD documentation.
How is the above a troll?
As far as GNOME, KDE, and libc go, you are more or less correct. they all have certain issues when apt-get'd. However, I've upgraded gcc and the kernel (several times, in the case of the kernel) via apt without difficulty. You do have to recompile the kernel, and probably go over the settings, but this is a problem with the kernel no matter how you upgrade it.