1. That doesn't make any sense. By that definition, all major game studios would be independent.
2. Mojang is not a small time player anymore.
3. "Indie" definitely does indeed refer to small time self-owned business encompassing a very small group of people (I usually don't even use the word "studio" unless they actually have a physical studio). There is no other sensical definition.
4. I've been a part of an indie development shops. Mojang is not an indie development shop.
I disagree with your tone. I particularly (and universally) despise the statement "who the hell cares?" because it contains an arrogant implication that you speak for everybody.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment that Slashdot ignores good indie games, but my agreement is not for the reasons you think.
You might ask "but what about Mojang"? Mojang is a multi-million dollar game studio that has shown it can tangle with the big boys. Its flagship product has sold millions of copies. It sells products across multiple platforms. It's been the star of a cover article in every major game magazine. It's not "indie" by any stretch of the imagination.
Slashdot ignores nearly ALL indie game developers, with the exception of iphone app developers.
Thank you for recommending "Town", I'll check it out.
Yes. It was ONE of the subreddits. That was definitely a worthy ban. And there were a couple more good bans as well. But a large number of those subreddits were of fully clothed girls, many over the age of 18. One or two of the those subreddits were for girls exclusively over the age of 18. They just nuked a whole series of subreddits without verifying that all of them were a problem, presumably because SomethingAwful spooked them.
Additionally, US. vs. Knox defined Child Porn as any medium depicting sexual behavior in a child. A 16 year old girl in a bathing suit is not necessary depicting sexual behavior. It may be externally sexualized, as in, observers masturbate to it, but is that enough to call it porn? People masturbate to normal pictures of feet. Are we to define pornography on the basis of who gets off to it, as opposed to the original intent? And is that enough to ban a subreddit full of 16+ year olds who are clothed, or at most, dressed in bathing suits?
I'm certainly not a fan of sexually objectifying children, but it seems to me that there are still some hard issues here that haven't been addressed.
Let me establish a hint of credibility. I was the top-voted comment on the Reddit post announcing the ban of/r/jailbait. In that comment, I supported the ban decision. However, I think this situation is a bit different.
First of all, this set of bans wasn't handled well. It wasn't very accurate. Just a blanket ban based on the Something Awful list, without regard for the actual content or intent of the subreddit. They just didn't thoroughly verify the SA list.
Second of all, I dispute the premise that all of what was banned was Child Porn. According to the United States v. Knox decision, sexual behavior in photos can be construed as CP, in addition to images involving actual sex or nudity. With this expanded and legally accurate definition in mind, I went to google cache/imgur and checked out several subreddits on the ban list (those not blocked by the 18+ check in the cache, that is). There were lots of 15-19 year olds in bathing suits, but several subreddits failed to reveal any displays of sexual behavior. In fact, some subreddits weren't even of minors. Some of it was, and the bans in those cases were good. But very clearly not all of this was CP.
This also begs the question, "Is it pornography because someone masturbates to it? Or does the intent of the photo matter?" That wasn't clearly defined or discussed either.
Third, see this comment on SA's motivations. They weren't as pure as you would seem to portray them. We're just taking the accuracy and holiness of the Goons' crusade for granted here. That's a bit of a problem.
I was a big proponent of the ban of/r/jailbait after it became a CP hub. But I really don't think this current set of blanket bans was handled well. Bans must be accurate and well-executed, not badly executed and then bragged about by the admins afterward.
I don't know what your point is. If someone tells me that 2+2=5, virtually no one else will be stupid enough to think that 2 added to 2 actually equals 5. However, the fact that no one was fooled does not mean we can't criticize the person for being wrong, or in this case, for fueling incorrect perceptions that others may have.
I understand, but my point is that the "when most people talk about Linux" argument is purely based on an inaccurate popular perception. Any system that relies on the services of the Linux kernel is a Linux system. To talk about Android and Linux as if they are separate entities is just as wrong as if I used the terms "Ubuntu" and "Linux" distinctly when talking about the same issue. If the userspace framework is the critical difference, then talk about that! Don't generically refer to the underlying kernel as if it represents an accurate common theme of unsuccessful tablet OSs, because that's clearly not the case.
Several posts here talk about how "Linux" is somehow bad or unsatisfactory on tablets, then go on to talk about how Android somehow satisfactory. That makes no sense. Android is Linux. If you think a specific variety of Linux is bad, then say so. Stop making these overgeneralizations about "Linux" when you're clearly wrong.
I think you seem to be forgetting that Android is Linux. No, it's not desktop Linux (I agree that desktop Linux is not suited to tablets), but stop making generalizations about "Linux" being a failure. Android (and even WebOS, depending on who you talk to) is clear evidence that Linux on tablets is not a bad idea.
That's not what neoliberalism is. Neoliberalism is an economic term, whereas neoconservative is a foreign policy term. Many have tried to redefine both of those terms, but their actual original meaning remains.
Looks like you haven't even tried Gnome 3, and/or else you're confusing it with Unity.
You can have more than one window open in Gnome 3 by default. You can also overlap them. You're both confusing Gnome 3 with Unity.
I currently have min/max buttons...they don't show up in the Window Manager view because you're supposed to manipulate which Windows are on what desktop in WM view. In the normal desktop, I have min/max buttons. You can set the button order and left-top/right-top positioning from the settings.
Use the dock extension if you want to see running apps while using a window. Or you can use Docky or Cairo-dock. Or you can just switch to WM view which takes less than a second, then return from it. It's just the super key. Focus is maintained in the current app. so if you're running LibreOffice, you won't lose focus.
I like the "grow up kid" troll reply you posted on my previous comment, it makes seeing that you apparently haven't even tried Gnome 3 before complaining about it all the funnier.
No. It's the wide criticism for both GNOME3 and Unity that makes people think the poll was rigged. If you can't understand why users would dislike either, you are badly out of touch.
Straw man, much? I never said that I didn't understand why people would "dislike either". That's a complete fabrication on your part, especially since I never mentioned Unity. I didn't understand the vehemence behind the dislike here, because I actually have seen a great many people embrace Gnome 3, especially now that the Mint extensions are out.
Trying to be the first one to engage in insults won't change that.
Who is engaging in insults? I'm clearly stating a fact that this community is complaining without even providing substantiation for what they're complaining about. They're making objective statements about how it's "bad" when the only issue is that they just couldn't grow accustomed to it. The latter is perfectly legitimate (if you perform better under KDE 3 or Gnome 2, then that's your affair), but don't wrap it up in objective-sounding statements and conspiracy theories about rigged polls. If you automatically engage in poll-rigging conspiracies just because you haven't done your research enough to see the growing Gnome 3 community, then you're one of those people. Don't lecture me about being out of touch until you do that.
Your entire attitude smacks of the "change for the sake of change" attitude that some here are complaining about.
Where did I ever indicate that? The number of straw man trolls on this site is amazing. I use Gnome 3 because of the superior search, the window control, and the easy to edit javascript. Those are specific changes that I like. It took more work in Gnome 2.xx + Compiz to get that stuff working to my satisfaction than to just install Gnome.
I'll recommend it. If I hate it, I won't, and I'll criticize it.
Looks like you are presuming that I don't think people should criticize it. Except you don't see that anywhere in my original post, Mr. Sarcastic Strawman. It's one thing to generate subjective criticism directed at features individuals cannot grow accustomed to. It's quite another to disingenuously make incorrect objective-sounding statements or implications, such as that the poll was rigged or that Gnome 3 didn't provide "basic amenities".
newness does not equate to better. perhaps the rest of the people that poll was trying to reach were too busy getting work done with their more sensible guis. grow up kid.
Lovely. The classic "presumption of inferior age" troll.
I haven't had to write a load of javascript. I kept it at default for a while, then decided I wanted some extra functionality- stuff that wasn't even really present in Gnome 2 or KDE, like automatically opening various files in a specific text editor based on what search parameters I added to a search term.
Based on a number of people I've had this conversation with, I imagine very few people have honestly given Gnome 3 a try, as opposed to loading it up for an hour, deciding they hate it, then making angry circlejerk posts to various tech related social networking sites.
I'm a C/Java developer who loves Gnome3. It's all javascript, so I've created buttons in the Window Manager interface to open searched files in different web services and text editors. Chat and Social Networking can be integrated directly into the notification pop up bar, so that's a plus. And it's simple. I don't need a lot of control, and what control I do need I can get from Extensions or messing with the js. The keyboard shortcuts are similar to Gnome 2 and are fairly intuitive to me.
Basically, I don't understand the vehement opposition here. It's like I'm looking at a forum with a bunch of 60+ Republicans in it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Just because you can't comprehend why another person would choose a different option from you on a poll, it doesn't mean the poll was rigged. Just because it's different and you can't get used to it doesn't mean that no one else can. Grow up.
Clever, Google! You renamed "error", making it the more anthropomorphic "regret". Ever heard of a Backpropagation-based Neural Network? This isn't anything new.
Note to everybody: Please stop using the term "czar". This isn't Romanov-era Russia. I hate how people are using this word to be synonymous with "management".
Look, I performed some of the first in-depth analysis of the Gliese 876 system. The inner two planets there are tidally-locked- there's no independent rotation. One side is searing hot (and thus barren), and the other side is frozen solid. The fact of the matter is that abiogenesis (as we understand it) requires a dynamic, liquid/gas H2O environment. This guy's shenanigans about "stable zones" existing between the hot and the cold is utter bullshit. Even if life could develop and then evolve to exist in the "stable zones", you have to remember that this isn't a single planet solar system. The gravitational influence of the other planets coupled with a fast orbital period could cause our poor 581g to wobble even under tidal lock; this would cause the "stable zones" on 581g to shift. In other words, there would be no stable zones. Self-replicating molecules as we know them would not even have the chance to chemically bootstrap.
I wonder how truly different the nascent Facebook was from this code. Still no examples besides some Mongodb and authorization issues.
Even if someone manages to provide me with examples of how the code is so terrible that it tarnishes the creators' names, I don't think those examples would denigrate their efforts. It will be carried on by the more capable community.
The "same guys" can do it if they wish, or there can be better git branches that prove themselves superior, or the "same guys" can collaborate with the community to fix the issues, as has been happening. Or both the latter two, as is most likely. I'm not sure anyone here arguing your side of things actually understands the decentralized concept behind "open source".
Anyway, you've just shoved the generalization sideways into an analogy. You'll have to provide specific details about insurmountable architectural weaknesses that require a full rewrite.
"That's not how it works" is not a valid argument, particularly since this is open source and almost every hole pointed out in this blog post has been fixed. These "researchers and other volunteers" ARE contributors, and they DID come because they saw value in the project. Funnily enough, even the naysayers are contributing fixes. And I wasn't making a distinction between "contributors" and "researchers and other volunteers". You synthesized that distinction to try and blow holes in my argument.
As I requested above, provide an example of such a "fundamental architectural flaw requiring complete redesign" instead of making bad generalizations about how much a disaster it all is.
And yet, no one has yet provided an example of a "fundamental" issue with Diaspora that can't be solved. The people on that blog identify Mongodb hoaxing and authorization problems, none of which are so fundamentally flawed that they require throwing out the entire architecture. Provide an example of such a "fundamental architectural flaw" instead of a bad generalization about how much of a disaster it all is.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine the looks on the faces of mice as CATCOPTERS rain death from above!
hey guys
geeks have to grill different
because they're geeks and have to be different and stuff
yeah, that makes sense.
1. That doesn't make any sense. By that definition, all major game studios would be independent.
2. Mojang is not a small time player anymore.
3. "Indie" definitely does indeed refer to small time self-owned business encompassing a very small group of people (I usually don't even use the word "studio" unless they actually have a physical studio). There is no other sensical definition.
4. I've been a part of an indie development shops. Mojang is not an indie development shop.
I disagree with your tone. I particularly (and universally) despise the statement "who the hell cares?" because it contains an arrogant implication that you speak for everybody.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment that Slashdot ignores good indie games, but my agreement is not for the reasons you think.
You might ask "but what about Mojang"? Mojang is a multi-million dollar game studio that has shown it can tangle with the big boys. Its flagship product has sold millions of copies. It sells products across multiple platforms. It's been the star of a cover article in every major game magazine. It's not "indie" by any stretch of the imagination.
Slashdot ignores nearly ALL indie game developers, with the exception of iphone app developers.
Thank you for recommending "Town", I'll check it out.
Yes. It was ONE of the subreddits. That was definitely a worthy ban. And there were a couple more good bans as well. But a large number of those subreddits were of fully clothed girls, many over the age of 18. One or two of the those subreddits were for girls exclusively over the age of 18. They just nuked a whole series of subreddits without verifying that all of them were a problem, presumably because SomethingAwful spooked them.
Additionally, US. vs. Knox defined Child Porn as any medium depicting sexual behavior in a child. A 16 year old girl in a bathing suit is not necessary depicting sexual behavior. It may be externally sexualized, as in, observers masturbate to it, but is that enough to call it porn? People masturbate to normal pictures of feet. Are we to define pornography on the basis of who gets off to it, as opposed to the original intent? And is that enough to ban a subreddit full of 16+ year olds who are clothed, or at most, dressed in bathing suits?
I'm certainly not a fan of sexually objectifying children, but it seems to me that there are still some hard issues here that haven't been addressed.
I'm going to have to dispute this.
Let me establish a hint of credibility. I was the top-voted comment on the Reddit post announcing the ban of /r/jailbait. In that comment, I supported the ban decision. However, I think this situation is a bit different.
First of all, this set of bans wasn't handled well. It wasn't very accurate. Just a blanket ban based on the Something Awful list, without regard for the actual content or intent of the subreddit. They just didn't thoroughly verify the SA list.
Second of all, I dispute the premise that all of what was banned was Child Porn. According to the United States v. Knox decision, sexual behavior in photos can be construed as CP, in addition to images involving actual sex or nudity. With this expanded and legally accurate definition in mind, I went to google cache/imgur and checked out several subreddits on the ban list (those not blocked by the 18+ check in the cache, that is). There were lots of 15-19 year olds in bathing suits, but several subreddits failed to reveal any displays of sexual behavior. In fact, some subreddits weren't even of minors. Some of it was, and the bans in those cases were good. But very clearly not all of this was CP.
This also begs the question, "Is it pornography because someone masturbates to it? Or does the intent of the photo matter?" That wasn't clearly defined or discussed either.
Third, see this comment on SA's motivations. They weren't as pure as you would seem to portray them. We're just taking the accuracy and holiness of the Goons' crusade for granted here. That's a bit of a problem.
I was a big proponent of the ban of /r/jailbait after it became a CP hub. But I really don't think this current set of blanket bans was handled well. Bans must be accurate and well-executed, not badly executed and then bragged about by the admins afterward.
I don't know what your point is. If someone tells me that 2+2=5, virtually no one else will be stupid enough to think that 2 added to 2 actually equals 5. However, the fact that no one was fooled does not mean we can't criticize the person for being wrong, or in this case, for fueling incorrect perceptions that others may have.
I understand, but my point is that the "when most people talk about Linux" argument is purely based on an inaccurate popular perception. Any system that relies on the services of the Linux kernel is a Linux system. To talk about Android and Linux as if they are separate entities is just as wrong as if I used the terms "Ubuntu" and "Linux" distinctly when talking about the same issue. If the userspace framework is the critical difference, then talk about that! Don't generically refer to the underlying kernel as if it represents an accurate common theme of unsuccessful tablet OSs, because that's clearly not the case.
Several posts here talk about how "Linux" is somehow bad or unsatisfactory on tablets, then go on to talk about how Android somehow satisfactory. That makes no sense. Android is Linux. If you think a specific variety of Linux is bad, then say so. Stop making these overgeneralizations about "Linux" when you're clearly wrong.
I think you seem to be forgetting that Android is Linux. No, it's not desktop Linux (I agree that desktop Linux is not suited to tablets), but stop making generalizations about "Linux" being a failure. Android (and even WebOS, depending on who you talk to) is clear evidence that Linux on tablets is not a bad idea.
That's not what neoliberalism is. Neoliberalism is an economic term, whereas neoconservative is a foreign policy term. Many have tried to redefine both of those terms, but their actual original meaning remains.
Looks like you haven't even tried Gnome 3, and/or else you're confusing it with Unity.
You can have more than one window open in Gnome 3 by default. You can also overlap them. You're both confusing Gnome 3 with Unity.
I currently have min/max buttons...they don't show up in the Window Manager view because you're supposed to manipulate which Windows are on what desktop in WM view. In the normal desktop, I have min/max buttons. You can set the button order and left-top/right-top positioning from the settings.
Use the dock extension if you want to see running apps while using a window. Or you can use Docky or Cairo-dock. Or you can just switch to WM view which takes less than a second, then return from it. It's just the super key. Focus is maintained in the current app. so if you're running LibreOffice, you won't lose focus.
I like the "grow up kid" troll reply you posted on my previous comment, it makes seeing that you apparently haven't even tried Gnome 3 before complaining about it all the funnier.
No. It's the wide criticism for both GNOME3 and Unity that makes people think the poll was rigged. If you can't understand why users would dislike either, you are badly out of touch.
Straw man, much? I never said that I didn't understand why people would "dislike either". That's a complete fabrication on your part, especially since I never mentioned Unity. I didn't understand the vehemence behind the dislike here, because I actually have seen a great many people embrace Gnome 3, especially now that the Mint extensions are out.
Trying to be the first one to engage in insults won't change that.
Who is engaging in insults? I'm clearly stating a fact that this community is complaining without even providing substantiation for what they're complaining about. They're making objective statements about how it's "bad" when the only issue is that they just couldn't grow accustomed to it. The latter is perfectly legitimate (if you perform better under KDE 3 or Gnome 2, then that's your affair), but don't wrap it up in objective-sounding statements and conspiracy theories about rigged polls. If you automatically engage in poll-rigging conspiracies just because you haven't done your research enough to see the growing Gnome 3 community, then you're one of those people. Don't lecture me about being out of touch until you do that.
Your entire attitude smacks of the "change for the sake of change" attitude that some here are complaining about.
Where did I ever indicate that? The number of straw man trolls on this site is amazing. I use Gnome 3 because of the superior search, the window control, and the easy to edit javascript. Those are specific changes that I like. It took more work in Gnome 2.xx + Compiz to get that stuff working to my satisfaction than to just install Gnome.
I'll recommend it. If I hate it, I won't, and I'll criticize it.
Looks like you are presuming that I don't think people should criticize it. Except you don't see that anywhere in my original post, Mr. Sarcastic Strawman. It's one thing to generate subjective criticism directed at features individuals cannot grow accustomed to. It's quite another to disingenuously make incorrect objective-sounding statements or implications, such as that the poll was rigged or that Gnome 3 didn't provide "basic amenities".
newness does not equate to better. perhaps the rest of the people that poll was trying to reach were too busy getting work done with their more sensible guis. grow up kid.
Lovely. The classic "presumption of inferior age" troll.
I haven't had to write a load of javascript. I kept it at default for a while, then decided I wanted some extra functionality- stuff that wasn't even really present in Gnome 2 or KDE, like automatically opening various files in a specific text editor based on what search parameters I added to a search term.
Based on a number of people I've had this conversation with, I imagine very few people have honestly given Gnome 3 a try, as opposed to loading it up for an hour, deciding they hate it, then making angry circlejerk posts to various tech related social networking sites.
I'm a C/Java developer who loves Gnome3. It's all javascript, so I've created buttons in the Window Manager interface to open searched files in different web services and text editors. Chat and Social Networking can be integrated directly into the notification pop up bar, so that's a plus. And it's simple. I don't need a lot of control, and what control I do need I can get from Extensions or messing with the js. The keyboard shortcuts are similar to Gnome 2 and are fairly intuitive to me.
Basically, I don't understand the vehement opposition here. It's like I'm looking at a forum with a bunch of 60+ Republicans in it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Just because you can't comprehend why another person would choose a different option from you on a poll, it doesn't mean the poll was rigged. Just because it's different and you can't get used to it doesn't mean that no one else can. Grow up.
Clever, Google! You renamed "error", making it the more anthropomorphic "regret". Ever heard of a Backpropagation-based Neural Network? This isn't anything new.
Note to everybody: Please stop using the term "czar". This isn't Romanov-era Russia. I hate how people are using this word to be synonymous with "management".
Look, I performed some of the first in-depth analysis of the Gliese 876 system. The inner two planets there are tidally-locked- there's no independent rotation. One side is searing hot (and thus barren), and the other side is frozen solid. The fact of the matter is that abiogenesis (as we understand it) requires a dynamic, liquid/gas H2O environment. This guy's shenanigans about "stable zones" existing between the hot and the cold is utter bullshit. Even if life could develop and then evolve to exist in the "stable zones", you have to remember that this isn't a single planet solar system. The gravitational influence of the other planets coupled with a fast orbital period could cause our poor 581g to wobble even under tidal lock; this would cause the "stable zones" on 581g to shift. In other words, there would be no stable zones. Self-replicating molecules as we know them would not even have the chance to chemically bootstrap.
Blame their Computer Science program. Security just isn't taught.
I wonder how truly different the nascent Facebook was from this code. Still no examples besides some Mongodb and authorization issues.
Even if someone manages to provide me with examples of how the code is so terrible that it tarnishes the creators' names, I don't think those examples would denigrate their efforts. It will be carried on by the more capable community.
The "same guys" can do it if they wish, or there can be better git branches that prove themselves superior, or the "same guys" can collaborate with the community to fix the issues, as has been happening. Or both the latter two, as is most likely. I'm not sure anyone here arguing your side of things actually understands the decentralized concept behind "open source".
Anyway, you've just shoved the generalization sideways into an analogy. You'll have to provide specific details about insurmountable architectural weaknesses that require a full rewrite.
"That's not how it works" is not a valid argument, particularly since this is open source and almost every hole pointed out in this blog post has been fixed. These "researchers and other volunteers" ARE contributors, and they DID come because they saw value in the project. Funnily enough, even the naysayers are contributing fixes. And I wasn't making a distinction between "contributors" and "researchers and other volunteers". You synthesized that distinction to try and blow holes in my argument.
As I requested above, provide an example of such a "fundamental architectural flaw requiring complete redesign" instead of making bad generalizations about how much a disaster it all is.
And yet, no one has yet provided an example of a "fundamental" issue with Diaspora that can't be solved. The people on that blog identify Mongodb hoaxing and authorization problems, none of which are so fundamentally flawed that they require throwing out the entire architecture. Provide an example of such a "fundamental architectural flaw" instead of a bad generalization about how much of a disaster it all is.
The "create controversy to increase blog traffic" strategy was my first thought as well. Either way, that guy is a douchebag.