Right now, most people who only use a computer at their work place won't even know there are alternatives to Internet Explorer. Reporting on Firefox will increase public awareness of the fact that there are alternatives and that Firefox is a darned good one.
I believe his point was that none of these people read Slashdot, or they would already be aware, thus continually reporting it here has no affect on spreading the word to these people.
Of course it's always good to get confirmation from multiple sources. It increases one's confidence in the numbers. On the other hand, repeating an experiment with a flawed methodology only serves to increase one's confidence in numbers that are wrong, and that's a Bad Thing.
Running multiple stories of multiple reports gives us multiple opportunities to be critical, and that's a Good Thing.
I use Spybot and Adaware in combo. I also use AVG anitvirus. I'm not sure why, just for peace of mind I guess, because they have never, ever turned up anything on my own box, and I've been running the same install of original Windows 98 on a cable connection for four years now, much of that time without a NAT/firewall box (although I'm only in Windows about 10 hours a week).
A little informed caution really does go a long way.
When I fix other people's computers I use them because it does "jump start" the process of cleanup making things go a hair faster and smoother. I like faster and smoother. They're tools, like using a circular saw for long rough cuts, as opposed to a hand saw. Of course you'll still use hand saws for the fine finish work. Plus if I can get the people themselves to run them once in awhile I don't have to fix their computers quite so often, and I prefer to be paid for preventitive medicine, rather than emergency meatball surgery. The hard part is getting them to run them on a regular basis, and some of them just will click on every mailing list attachment that comes down the pike.
When are people going to learn to be careful?
Let us observe the behavior of people while they are engaged in a legitimate matter of life and death, shall we? Say, while driving?
I think the answer to your question, for most of them, is 'never'.
what is wrong with the general public???
Oh sweet Jesus, you want me to try to answer that in the space of a forum post? Yeah, right Bob. Blow me.
Ok, ok, I'll give you the Reader's Digest condensed version:
I'm not talking about anything. That's a quote from the linked article on effective advocacy. I am criticising said article.
And where, exactly, can I find an example of RMS advocating for people to spread copies of non-free software to make wireless devices work more conveniently?
RMS and Linus are one thing, but does ESR really deserve polite and professional criticism?
Yes.
This is a person who links to Steven Milloy's "junk science" page from his personal home page.
If I had a personal home page I might well link to Steve Milloy's "Junk Science" page. I dislike Mr. Milloy. I dislike his politics. I dislike his manner. I also dislike "Junk Science" and Mr. Milloy is often right. When and where I feel he is not I would feel free to politely and professionally critcise his views.
I have a Henry Clay cigar sitting here on my desk at the moment. Henry Clay said "I'd rather be right than President." I'm with Mr. Clay on this one (although I am agin 'im, and feel free to be, on a number of other issues). I am not going to allow someone else's political dogma get in the way of being right and will agree with people on specific points who I otherwise disagree with, and disagree with people on specific points that I otherwise agree with.
Then there is the fact that "He links to Steve Milloy" is not an argument, although in context you clearly seem to not only think it is, but also an argument that somehow settles some matter or other. It is a form of character attack (but then questioning his character seems to be the only point of your post) which also begs the question, since you simply sidestep the issue of what Mr. Raymond thinks to what Mr. Milloy thinks, without ever critically addressing what Mr. Milloy thinks.
You have not made a single point in refutation of a single point of Mr. Raymond. In fact, your post epitomizes the very sort of post that Mr. Shaw was refering, and taking objection, to, and to that extent I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Shaw.
He's also a rabid pro-war advocate . . .
Q.E.D. "His views are different than mine, and that clears up the critical matter."
In what way do you disagree with him, and what is your reasoning for doing so? Rather than fling vague insults (I am infering that you yourself consider calling someone a "rabid pro-war advocate" an insult from context. You can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
He has publicly published a point of view. In the document you link to he has made the task of rebutting him easier by actually itemizing his statements. He has done all the work of building a proper framework for disputation. All you have to do is pick a prelabeled point and offer your counter.
Until you do so you haven't said anything beyond a personal attack.
. ..who certainly doesn't address people who disagree with him in any professional or respectful manner.
"He hit me. I think hitting people is wrong. So I hit him."
Oooooooooook.
In any case I do not hold to the current fashion that either polite or professional is synonymous with having a stick up your butt. One can be polite and professional and still get "down and dirty."
"Your idea is stupid," is a perfectly acceptable statement in a debate (although you better be prepared to back it up with a "because,. ..).
"You are stupid," is not.
You, however, have played a bit of a trick by changing the parameters of the discussion, replacing "polite" with "respectful". I never said a damned thing about respectful, nor do I see that word used in Mr. Shaw's essay. It is not synonomous with "polite."
I doubt he'd get much positive publicity on slashdot if people had actually read what he writes.
Well, I've been around here for some years, and I can't say I've noted he gets much positive publicity, mostly it seems he gets a lot of posts "telling him hundreds of different places to stick it." The very cause of Mr. Shaw's essay in the first place.
Mostly from people who obvioulsy haven't actually read what he writes.
I disagree with Mr. Raymond on a good many things (and agree with him on a good many a
It's a bad habit I can't entirely break myself of, as I gather far more amusement pointing and giggling at myself than I do from doing the same to others.
We're all fools here, players that merely strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are heard no more, telling idiotic tales full of sound, often a considerable amount of fury, but signifying nothing.
Some of us are a bit more selfaware of the fact than others.
Infiltrate, recruit and employ surrogates, of course. Not that I'd trust a gay application in my box, they probably have a viruses.
(Do I *really* have to use extreme sarcasm tags on the above?)
Ok, to take your initial question somewhat seriously (although I refuse to refrain from being sardonic), a "next generation" application is the next piece of crap we're going to write that we'll tout as being the saviour of mankind (and probably the dolphins as well), to replace that last piece of crap we wrote and touted as being the saviour of mankind (and the dolphins, of course), but will now tout as being a tool of the devil that will only bring pain and sorrow to cute kittens if you refuse to upgrade.
. ..anyone else could fork it off (from any point) and maintain it however they wanted.
More to the point many do, including major distros.
The whole idea that Linus dictates what goes in the kernel is utter bollocks, whereas Sun is infamous for maintaining the "true vision" and "purity" of Java.
Isn't their very argument against open sourcing Java that what happens to Linux would happen to it?
Some of our most vocal proponents, such as ESR, RMS, and Linus, have somewhat taken on this responsibility, but even they are flamed and criticized.
Holding our most vocal proponents to be above criticism is an example of exactly the sort of mindless zealotry that epitomizes bad advocacy.
They should not, of course, be flamed, but critcised with professional politness where they are deserving of it, and everyone is deserving of it at one time or another.
When Neils Bohr went to Los Alamos during the Manhatten Project he spent a lot of time talking to Feynman, who, at the time, was a pretty minor figure who hadn't even finished his doctorate work yet.
Why? Because he was the only one there unafraid to forthrightly tell the Great One his ideas were stupid when they were.
Good leaders like that sort of thing. It makes their own advocay stronger. Only bad leaders hold themselves as above admission of error.
Yeah, I see the idea that Joe was driving at here, but he needs to go back rework that bit, as it came out very, very wrong, suggesting that we should all show a mindless unity when it comes to our public front
There's a word for that: zealotry.
And it's all about free as in speech, isn't it?
Besides, from what I've seen, Linus, ESR and RMS are well able to stand up for themselves, and rather entertaining while they do it, even if you disagree with them on some point or other.
Not as good as the real thing, of course, but at least it represented a good try. It never really made sense to me to make inferior knockoffs of Fiats. That's like trying to undercut the Wal-Mart computer market.
So you're saying we need to buy new fans every time we get a new video card or motherboard?
No, since so far as I know I wasn't discussing individual componant fans at all, although the suggestion certainly seems more reasonable to me than repeatedly frying high end GPUs.
A simpler solution is to simply use components that don't require fans sitting directly on top of the chips. . . Sounds like a better solution to me.
And me too, but then I wasn't the one offering solutions, I was the one commenting on a proposed solution and trying to figure out what the hell he was talking about.
Although you won't be able to apply that solution to high end video cards, which, again so far as I know, were the only kind under discussion.
KFG
Whereas the Jungle Fowl. . .
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
(wild chicken) says, "Owner? What the fuck is this "owner" you're talking about? Be free my chicken cousins.
Be free, free! Come sleep in a tree. There's tasty grubs for you and me All over the ground to be had for free For the chicken not afraid to be free.
"Free range," you say? Your "owner" is "nice"? Nice to end in a pot in a trice Screw the owner! Screw the farm! Come my chickens and sound the alarm.
No more fowl slaves we'll be or die to make a fricassee Out of the cubicle farms we'll flee The chickens, the chickens who dare to be FREE!
Oh. Ummmmmmm. Sorry. It's been a long day, and that post just set me off. It won't happen again until next time. I promise.
Removing the fan from your GPU to protect it from the fan's failure doesn't seem like such a, ummmmmm, 'hot' strategy to prevent GPU failure either.
In fact, it's exactly the same as a fan failure, causing the part to fail.
I am not talking about adding fans to increase redundancy, I'm questioning why simply decreasing fans, thus reducing redundancy, would lead to an increase reliability.
That seems to be the orginal claim. Had a bunch of fans in case. Fan failed. GPU failed. Took out a bunch of fans, encreased reliability of GPU. . ..how?
If he replaced his high end video card with a low end one that didn't need fan cooling, well, duh, of course that's not going to fail due to a fan failure.
Certainly not because nobody understands the darn thing well enough to rewrite it like it needs, probably resulting in a code base 1/4 the size, 10x the speed, and twice as reliable...
Shhhhhhhh! That's supposed to be a secret. I don't know that it really matters though, as the prime reason nobody understands the darn thing well enough to rewrite it like it needs is because nobody understands the business well enough to rewrite it like it needs either.
I would have to ask you how you would define 'almost' before I can take up that issue. Personally I think the word is weaselly enough that I've already dealt with it. I considered and acknowledged exceptions.
An example, my 1969 GMC truck runs fine.
Of which there are comparitively few on the road, even fewer as a percentage, and ever fewer every year. Thus, while it may spit out 100 times more 'garbage' than a newer vehicle it actually contributes little to the overall problem, although it does stand out a bit, which is a problem of perception mostly.
However, if you wish to crush it and get a Prius, well, it's possible you'd be doing the enviroment a favor. I'll be happy to leave it up to you, as the 'problem' is ultimately self-correcting in the long run.
Sooner or later some twit of a soccer mom is going to crush it under her new Hummer and it will no longer be on the road polluting.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean those people are productive? ;-)
Ah! A legitimate philosophical question on Slashdot. Go figure.
No. What I mean is that those people look busy.
KFG
Right now, most people who only use a computer at their work place won't even know there are alternatives to Internet Explorer. Reporting on Firefox will increase public awareness of the fact that there are alternatives and that Firefox is a darned good one.
I believe his point was that none of these people read Slashdot, or they would already be aware, thus continually reporting it here has no affect on spreading the word to these people.
Of course it's always good to get confirmation from multiple sources. It increases one's confidence in the numbers. On the other hand, repeating an experiment with a flawed methodology only serves to increase one's confidence in numbers that are wrong, and that's a Bad Thing.
Running multiple stories of multiple reports gives us multiple opportunities to be critical, and that's a Good Thing.
KFG
I dont use any, and have no problems.
I use Spybot and Adaware in combo. I also use AVG anitvirus. I'm not sure why, just for peace of mind I guess, because they have never, ever turned up anything on my own box, and I've been running the same install of original Windows 98 on a cable connection for four years now, much of that time without a NAT/firewall box (although I'm only in Windows about 10 hours a week).
A little informed caution really does go a long way.
When I fix other people's computers I use them because it does "jump start" the process of cleanup making things go a hair faster and smoother. I like faster and smoother. They're tools, like using a circular saw for long rough cuts, as opposed to a hand saw. Of course you'll still use hand saws for the fine finish work. Plus if I can get the people themselves to run them once in awhile I don't have to fix their computers quite so often, and I prefer to be paid for preventitive medicine, rather than emergency meatball surgery. The hard part is getting them to run them on a regular basis, and some of them just will click on every mailing list attachment that comes down the pike.
When are people going to learn to be careful?
Let us observe the behavior of people while they are engaged in a legitimate matter of life and death, shall we? Say, while driving?
I think the answer to your question, for most of them, is 'never'.
what is wrong with the general public???
Oh sweet Jesus, you want me to try to answer that in the space of a forum post? Yeah, right Bob. Blow me.
Ok, ok, I'll give you the Reader's Digest condensed version:
They really are functional morons.
KFG
But if Linus finally picks a GUI and starts up a desktop linux fork, I will disagree.
I have tried to make sense of this statement.
I have failed.
KFG
Hence, asking about where RMS was advocating for the overall point of this thread:
Whereas I was criticising the specific point quoted from the linked article.
I hope this dispells your confusion.
KFG
I realize that I'm just being a pedantic pain in the arse by pointing this out here. . .
Well, it's your shift. I'm on break.
KFG
What are you talking about as a responsibility?
I'm not talking about anything. That's a quote from the linked article on effective advocacy. I am criticising said article.
And where, exactly, can I find an example of RMS advocating for people to spread copies of non-free software to make wireless devices work more conveniently?
Did you read my actual post?
KFG
Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Well, yeah, but that's just the way children act when they're trying to be "adult and sophisticated."
Ironic, in'nit?
KFG
RMS and Linus are one thing, but does ESR really deserve polite and professional criticism?
.who certainly doesn't address people who disagree with him in any professional or respectful manner.
.).
Yes.
This is a person who links to Steven Milloy's "junk science" page from his personal home page.
If I had a personal home page I might well link to Steve Milloy's "Junk Science" page. I dislike Mr. Milloy. I dislike his politics. I dislike his manner. I also dislike "Junk Science" and Mr. Milloy is often right. When and where I feel he is not I would feel free to politely and professionally critcise his views.
I have a Henry Clay cigar sitting here on my desk at the moment. Henry Clay said "I'd rather be right than President." I'm with Mr. Clay on this one (although I am agin 'im, and feel free to be, on a number of other issues). I am not going to allow someone else's political dogma get in the way of being right and will agree with people on specific points who I otherwise disagree with, and disagree with people on specific points that I otherwise agree with.
Then there is the fact that "He links to Steve Milloy" is not an argument, although in context you clearly seem to not only think it is, but also an argument that somehow settles some matter or other. It is a form of character attack (but then questioning his character seems to be the only point of your post) which also begs the question, since you simply sidestep the issue of what Mr. Raymond thinks to what Mr. Milloy thinks, without ever critically addressing what Mr. Milloy thinks.
You have not made a single point in refutation of a single point of Mr. Raymond. In fact, your post epitomizes the very sort of post that Mr. Shaw was refering, and taking objection, to, and to that extent I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Shaw.
He's also a rabid pro-war advocate . . .
Q.E.D. "His views are different than mine, and that clears up the critical matter."
In what way do you disagree with him, and what is your reasoning for doing so? Rather than fling vague insults (I am infering that you yourself consider calling someone a "rabid pro-war advocate" an insult from context. You can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
He has publicly published a point of view. In the document you link to he has made the task of rebutting him easier by actually itemizing his statements. He has done all the work of building a proper framework for disputation. All you have to do is pick a prelabeled point and offer your counter.
Until you do so you haven't said anything beyond a personal attack.
. .
"He hit me. I think hitting people is wrong. So I hit him."
Oooooooooook.
In any case I do not hold to the current fashion that either polite or professional is synonymous with having a stick up your butt. One can be polite and professional and still get "down and dirty."
"Your idea is stupid," is a perfectly acceptable statement in a debate (although you better be prepared to back it up with a "because,. .
"You are stupid," is not.
You, however, have played a bit of a trick by changing the parameters of the discussion, replacing "polite" with "respectful". I never said a damned thing about respectful, nor do I see that word used in Mr. Shaw's essay. It is not synonomous with "polite."
I doubt he'd get much positive publicity on slashdot if people had actually read what he writes.
Well, I've been around here for some years, and I can't say I've noted he gets much positive publicity, mostly it seems he gets a lot of posts "telling him hundreds of different places to stick it." The very cause of Mr. Shaw's essay in the first place.
Mostly from people who obvioulsy haven't actually read what he writes.
I disagree with Mr. Raymond on a good many things (and agree with him on a good many a
We called it "Science."
KFG
. . .is this a reference to 'Grokwars'?
No, I'm afraid it's simply a reference to a post I had just made in another thread:
Advocacy
It's a bad habit I can't entirely break myself of, as I gather far more amusement pointing and giggling at myself than I do from doing the same to others.
We're all fools here, players that merely strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are heard no more, telling idiotic tales full of sound, often a considerable amount of fury, but signifying nothing.
Some of us are a bit more selfaware of the fact than others.
KFG
What if the applications are gay, though?
Infiltrate, recruit and employ surrogates, of course. Not that I'd trust a gay application in my box, they probably have a viruses.
(Do I *really* have to use extreme sarcasm tags on the above?)
Ok, to take your initial question somewhat seriously (although I refuse to refrain from being sardonic), a "next generation" application is the next piece of crap we're going to write that we'll tout as being the saviour of mankind (and probably the dolphins as well), to replace that last piece of crap we wrote and touted as being the saviour of mankind (and the dolphins, of course), but will now tout as being a tool of the devil that will only bring pain and sorrow to cute kittens if you refuse to upgrade.
KFG
I fully agree with your post.
:)
Well alright then. We wouldn't want any public division of untiy in open source advocacy, now would we?
KFG
There is a point to maintaining pruity in your programming language.
Please note that I did not address this point at all. In fact, I rather agree with it.
The whole comparison thing is Apples to Oranges.
Of course, that's why Mr. Schwartz made the statement in the first place.
KFG
. . .anyone else could fork it off (from any point) and maintain it however they wanted.
More to the point many do, including major distros.
The whole idea that Linus dictates what goes in the kernel is utter bollocks, whereas Sun is infamous for maintaining the "true vision" and "purity" of Java.
Isn't their very argument against open sourcing Java that what happens to Linux would happen to it?
KFG
Some of our most vocal proponents, such as ESR, RMS, and Linus, have somewhat taken on this responsibility, but even they are flamed and criticized.
Holding our most vocal proponents to be above criticism is an example of exactly the sort of mindless zealotry that epitomizes bad advocacy.
They should not, of course, be flamed, but critcised with professional politness where they are deserving of it, and everyone is deserving of it at one time or another.
When Neils Bohr went to Los Alamos during the Manhatten Project he spent a lot of time talking to Feynman, who, at the time, was a pretty minor figure who hadn't even finished his doctorate work yet.
Why? Because he was the only one there unafraid to forthrightly tell the Great One his ideas were stupid when they were.
Good leaders like that sort of thing. It makes their own advocay stronger. Only bad leaders hold themselves as above admission of error.
Yeah, I see the idea that Joe was driving at here, but he needs to go back rework that bit, as it came out very, very wrong, suggesting that we should all show a mindless unity when it comes to our public front
There's a word for that: zealotry.
And it's all about free as in speech, isn't it?
Besides, from what I've seen, Linus, ESR and RMS are well able to stand up for themselves, and rather entertaining while they do it, even if you disagree with them on some point or other.
KFG
. . .Borcshe to the soldiers....
Is that that 356 knockoff that Lada made?
Not as good as the real thing, of course, but at least it represented a good try. It never really made sense to me to make inferior knockoffs of Fiats. That's like trying to undercut the Wal-Mart computer market.
KFG
We do have a cowboy in office, don't we?
Nah. The guy who just shovels shit isn't properly refered to as a cowboy.
KFG
Am I alone in wondering exactly what a "next-generation application" is anyway?
.
Oh dear, I knew this question was going to come up, but I didn't expect it so soon.
Ummmmm, ok, look, when two applications love each other very much. .
KFG
So you're saying we need to buy new fans every time we get a new video card or motherboard?
No, since so far as I know I wasn't discussing individual componant fans at all, although the suggestion certainly seems more reasonable to me than repeatedly frying high end GPUs.
A simpler solution is to simply use components that don't require fans sitting directly on top of the chips. . . Sounds like a better solution to me.
And me too, but then I wasn't the one offering solutions, I was the one commenting on a proposed solution and trying to figure out what the hell he was talking about.
Although you won't be able to apply that solution to high end video cards, which, again so far as I know, were the only kind under discussion.
KFG
(wild chicken) says, "Owner? What the fuck is this "owner" you're talking about? Be free my chicken cousins.
Be free, free! Come sleep in a tree.
There's tasty grubs for you and me
All over the ground to be had for free
For the chicken not afraid to be free.
"Free range," you say? Your "owner" is "nice"?
Nice to end in a pot in a trice
Screw the owner! Screw the farm!
Come my chickens and sound the alarm.
No more fowl slaves we'll be
or die to make a fricassee
Out of the cubicle farms we'll flee
The chickens, the chickens who dare to be FREE!
Oh. Ummmmmmm. Sorry. It's been a long day, and that post just set me off. It won't happen again until next time. I promise.
KFG
On the other hand, Tampon Tester would rate as one of the best jobs ever.
If you say so buddy. Drop 'em and bend over.
KFG
Removing the fan from your GPU to protect it from the fan's failure doesn't seem like such a, ummmmmm, 'hot' strategy to prevent GPU failure either.
.how?
In fact, it's exactly the same as a fan failure, causing the part to fail.
I am not talking about adding fans to increase redundancy, I'm questioning why simply decreasing fans, thus reducing redundancy, would lead to an increase reliability.
That seems to be the orginal claim. Had a bunch of fans in case. Fan failed. GPU failed. Took out a bunch of fans, encreased reliability of GPU. . .
If he replaced his high end video card with a low end one that didn't need fan cooling, well, duh, of course that's not going to fail due to a fan failure.
KFG
Certainly not because nobody understands the darn thing well enough to rewrite it like it needs, probably resulting in a code base 1/4 the size, 10x the speed, and twice as reliable...
Shhhhhhhh! That's supposed to be a secret. I don't know that it really matters though, as the prime reason nobody understands the darn thing well enough to rewrite it like it needs is because nobody understands the business well enough to rewrite it like it needs either.
KFG
I doubt this statement is entirely true.
I would have to ask you how you would define 'almost' before I can take up that issue. Personally I think the word is weaselly enough that I've already dealt with it. I considered and acknowledged exceptions.
An example, my 1969 GMC truck runs fine.
Of which there are comparitively few on the road, even fewer as a percentage, and ever fewer every year. Thus, while it may spit out 100 times more 'garbage' than a newer vehicle it actually contributes little to the overall problem, although it does stand out a bit, which is a problem of perception mostly.
However, if you wish to crush it and get a Prius, well, it's possible you'd be doing the enviroment a favor. I'll be happy to leave it up to you, as the 'problem' is ultimately self-correcting in the long run.
Sooner or later some twit of a soccer mom is going to crush it under her new Hummer and it will no longer be on the road polluting.
KFG