I liked how they characterized it as "a short-run test of third-party offers on five of the mirrored projects." Do they really think that anyone is dumb enough to believe that this was intended to just be temporary trial?
But the new design saves so much screen real estate!
Oh, wait. Because of that stupid "share" button sitting all by itself that nobody is going to use, you haven't saved any space at all.
Isn't one of the tenets of good website design that it's better make the links obvious so that people can find them? Old users are annoyed by the change because it breaks their expectations. New users are much less likely to find the comment section of Slashdot because there's no clearly-marked link to get to them -- you have to figure out to click on some cryptic icon that just looks like a decoration. You're not saving any screen space, and the "share" button sitting all alone like that just looks silly.
I don't mind an interface change if there's a good reason for doing so, but this one is all downside.
Didn't you hear? Slashdot is trying this cutting-edge "Agile Development" thing. The idea is that instead of testing your changes, you just make them directly on your production site and see what happens. It's the wave of the future!
We have a name for a video that you passively watch of fictitious or staged events. It's called a "movie," and I'm pretty sure that they've been used to train people for various scenarios roughly since the technology has existed.
If you want a real easy way to waste their time without wasting your own, just talk to them long enough to get them to ask you for your credit card number, and then tell them "oh, I better get my wallet" and put down the phone. It often takes them 5-10 minutes for them to realize that I'm not coming back.
The issue is, if you're a big company with 50 phone lines, you want your "main" number to appear regardless of which line you call on.
If the phone system was sanely designed, the calls would have a "real" number that could not be changed as well as a "callback" number that could be. A big company could use the same callback number for all calls, but not spoof the "real" number that the call came from.
There are tons of things that could be done to reduce the number of fraudulent calls, but the reality is that the phone companies make loads of money off of having lax rules that allow companies to do whatever they want.
Your argument is that it's OK to torture your children if there is no law against it.
There is a difference between morality and legality. Actions may be legal while still being immoral. Punishment through the legal system should be limited to actions that are illegal.
Censoring your own profanity is one thing (albeit kind of silly in my opinion; why is implying it worse than actually spelling it out?) But when you're quoting somebody else -- and linking to their article -- you really ought to use their own words. If you're afraid that your readers are going to be offended by profanity, then you probably ought to not be linking to those articles.
If Sourceforge is to be believed -- that all they did was create a mirror, without touching the owner's page -- then that's not in itself a bad thing to do. Providing mirrors of open-source software would be perfectly acceptable for another organization.
But this isn't another organization, this is Sourceforge. They've already demonstrated that they have no qualms about using their "mirrors" to distribute malware by misrepresenting the content of the downloads. Therefore, they have no credibility to be running a mirror, and nobody should trust anything that comes from their download pages.
There's no "new hotness" about 4.0. Linux moved a long time ago away from the model of using a major version number change to indicate large changes or major new features.
I was actually quite surprised at how responsive the owners have been on those two issues. They clearly invested a lot of money and time into beta, and I dread to think what kind of favours Bennet was offering, but in the end they listened to us.
The anti-beta crowd essentially managed to make the comment threads unusable for a couple days before Slashdot finally relented. I think that was more a matter of them realizing that by the time they rolled out the beta, all the normal readers would have already been driven away.
Frankly, the excuse of why it took so long is pretty lame -- we're supposed to believe that it's just a coincidence that the story critical of a/. sister site is the only one that got delayed for several days? -- but at least now it's been acknowledged.
The original announcement for when Sourceforge added the "feature" of injecting malware into installers said that the money earned would be shared with the developers. So I have to wonder: did they send the GIMP a check? Have the GIMP developers demanded that Sourceforge do so?
On the assumption that Sourceforge did not, it seems like they've just burned a bridge that they shouldn't have. They killed any trust that users would have had for SF projects a long time ago, but developers who were willing to sell out have stuck around. But now that developers know that SF is willing to just assume control of a project (and the associated profits), why would any developer continue to use SF.
It's funny, the Slashdot editors usedtobe aware of the Streisand effect. Apparently they still haven't learned not to try to hide something that's already been publicized widely on the internet.
An organization that was formerly one of the major hubs of open-source and free software has hijacked the downloads of a major free software project, and is using that to push malware to their users. Do you seriously think that's non-newsworthy, especially to the Slashdot readership? WTF, do you work for Dice too?
or not even true.
Several of the submitted stories have been fairly well-sourced, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that they aren't true.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked how they characterized it as "a short-run test of third-party offers on five of the mirrored projects." Do they really think that anyone is dumb enough to believe that this was intended to just be temporary trial?
But the new design saves so much screen real estate!
Oh, wait. Because of that stupid "share" button sitting all by itself that nobody is going to use, you haven't saved any space at all.
Isn't one of the tenets of good website design that it's better make the links obvious so that people can find them? Old users are annoyed by the change because it breaks their expectations. New users are much less likely to find the comment section of Slashdot because there's no clearly-marked link to get to them -- you have to figure out to click on some cryptic icon that just looks like a decoration. You're not saving any screen space, and the "share" button sitting all alone like that just looks silly.
I don't mind an interface change if there's a good reason for doing so, but this one is all downside.
Didn't you hear? Slashdot is trying this cutting-edge "Agile Development" thing. The idea is that instead of testing your changes, you just make them directly on your production site and see what happens. It's the wave of the future!
We have a name for a video that you passively watch of fictitious or staged events. It's called a "movie," and I'm pretty sure that they've been used to train people for various scenarios roughly since the technology has existed.
I do the same thing.
If you want a real easy way to waste their time without wasting your own, just talk to them long enough to get them to ask you for your credit card number, and then tell them "oh, I better get my wallet" and put down the phone. It often takes them 5-10 minutes for them to realize that I'm not coming back.
The issue is, if you're a big company with 50 phone lines, you want your "main" number to appear regardless of which line you call on.
If the phone system was sanely designed, the calls would have a "real" number that could not be changed as well as a "callback" number that could be. A big company could use the same callback number for all calls, but not spoof the "real" number that the call came from.
There are tons of things that could be done to reduce the number of fraudulent calls, but the reality is that the phone companies make loads of money off of having lax rules that allow companies to do whatever they want.
Why use a Java clone instead of just using Java?
Maybe because some people prefer C# to Java? They aren't exactly the same, after all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java.
Is the article inaccurate? Pushing some sort of evil agenda?
If it is, then tell us how. And if not, then why should we care about your personal vendetta against the organization?
When the cars can navigate I70 through the Rockies during a blizzard in heavy ski season traffic, let me know.
When humans can navigate the I70 through the Rockies during a blizzard in heavy ski season traffic, let me know.
They're just learning from the developers of Gnome, systemd, and slashcode.
Your argument is that it's OK to torture your children if there is no law against it.
There is a difference between morality and legality. Actions may be legal while still being immoral. Punishment through the legal system should be limited to actions that are illegal.
Censoring your own profanity is one thing (albeit kind of silly in my opinion; why is implying it worse than actually spelling it out?) But when you're quoting somebody else -- and linking to their article -- you really ought to use their own words. If you're afraid that your readers are going to be offended by profanity, then you probably ought to not be linking to those articles.
So it's fine to be part of the problem as long as you don't break a law?
Whether or not it's "fine," we absolutely should not jail people who don't break the law. Doing so is going down a very, very dangerous road.
If Sourceforge is to be believed -- that all they did was create a mirror, without touching the owner's page -- then that's not in itself a bad thing to do. Providing mirrors of open-source software would be perfectly acceptable for another organization.
But this isn't another organization, this is Sourceforge. They've already demonstrated that they have no qualms about using their "mirrors" to distribute malware by misrepresenting the content of the downloads. Therefore, they have no credibility to be running a mirror, and nobody should trust anything that comes from their download pages.
Well, that's a very well-reasoned argument that I'm sure will persuade Linus to change his mind.
There's no "new hotness" about 4.0. Linux moved a long time ago away from the model of using a major version number change to indicate large changes or major new features.
I was actually quite surprised at how responsive the owners have been on those two issues. They clearly invested a lot of money and time into beta, and I dread to think what kind of favours Bennet was offering, but in the end they listened to us.
The anti-beta crowd essentially managed to make the comment threads unusable for a couple days before Slashdot finally relented. I think that was more a matter of them realizing that by the time they rolled out the beta, all the normal readers would have already been driven away.
By the way, thanks for posting this, Soulskill.
Frankly, the excuse of why it took so long is pretty lame -- we're supposed to believe that it's just a coincidence that the story critical of a /. sister site is the only one that got delayed for several days? -- but at least now it's been acknowledged.
The original announcement for when Sourceforge added the "feature" of injecting malware into installers said that the money earned would be shared with the developers. So I have to wonder: did they send the GIMP a check? Have the GIMP developers demanded that Sourceforge do so?
On the assumption that Sourceforge did not, it seems like they've just burned a bridge that they shouldn't have. They killed any trust that users would have had for SF projects a long time ago, but developers who were willing to sell out have stuck around. But now that developers know that SF is willing to just assume control of a project (and the associated profits), why would any developer continue to use SF.
I don't know, What Interesting Things Can I Power With an External USB Battery? comes pretty close.
But yes, this is pretty bad. And if you click through to the article, you'll find that it's every bit as moronic as the summary makes it sound.
It's funny, the Slashdot editors used to be aware of the Streisand effect. Apparently they still haven't learned not to try to hide something that's already been publicized widely on the internet.
Why do you even bother replying to questions like this. You need a hobby.
If his hobby is "pissing people like you off," then he's doing well.
Apparently there just wasn't anything interesting or important to talk about today.
Oh, wait...
The device footprint is 2.8x2.8m2
The actual measurement, from TFA, is 2.8x2.8 square micrometers.
Apparently timothy is too busy burying unflattering stories about his employer to bother reading what he's posting to the front page.
Another reason is that it is not news worthy,
An organization that was formerly one of the major hubs of open-source and free software has hijacked the downloads of a major free software project, and is using that to push malware to their users. Do you seriously think that's non-newsworthy, especially to the Slashdot readership? WTF, do you work for Dice too?
or not even true.
Several of the submitted stories have been fairly well-sourced, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that they aren't true.