Typically, the only reason individuals want their own second-level DNS domain is vanity.
So what? If I'm willing to pay money for a product for my own vanity, and someone is willing to sell it, that's what commerce is all about. Should I not be allowed to anonymously purchase a mirror at the store for my purposes of vanity?
If you're going to connect infrastructure to the Internet, you should be prepared to announce your identity to the rest of the Internet so that if/when you cause problems, you can be contacted.
Says who? All Internet users connect our infrastructure to the Internet every single time we access the Internet, which is 24/7 for a big chunk of the public. That doesn't mean that everyone connecting to the Internet should be identifiable. That would be absolute insanity. Part of what I enjoy about the Internet is being able to do things freely without concern that I am identifiable.
If you don't want to connect infrastructure to the Internet, and just want an outlet for your speech, again, there are plenty of ways to do that that don't involve your own little DNS domain.
So what? Just because there are alternative mediums doesn't make it okay. The Internet is clearly the single most useful medium for the average person to disseminate information. It is very important that a person be comfortable using the medium without fear of identification. Only then do you have true freedom of speech on the Internet.
If we cannot expect total freedom on a.us domain, how can we ever expect that to be true of a.cn (China) domain? Americans hold the U.S. to be a shining example of freedom, but clearly.us is not an example of freedom.
I totally agree, the grandparent is most certainly on topic. As I see it, the great-great-great-grandparent got modded Informative when its a joke, and the granparent got modded off-topic when it is on-topic. Go figure.
Every time I take the time to read the article and do some Googling so I can write an informative response, it ends up on page 2 or 3 of the thread. As a result, no moderator ever makes it that far, and it never gets +Informative. So I've gathered that the best way to be moderated +Informative is to not RTFA. It's a/. paradox.
I guess I could just do what many karma-whores do - Reply to the very first post in the thread even though your comment has absolutely nothing to do with that comment. Yes, that's right, you thought you were clever, but you can't fool me.
so i won't have debian in my toaster???? You can apparently use Debian if your toaster was built in '86.
Re:Future viability in question?
on
Gnome 2.10 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Most people I talk to who use Linux have expressed a strong preference for KDE over GNOME. "My buddies think that KDE is better than Gnome" is moderated Informative? My faith in the public moderation system just dropped a notch. they usually say that they think [KDE]'s crisper [than gnome] and the look is more consistent across applications. Crisper? More consistent? Consistent in that everything starts with a K, perhaps. Consistencies fall apart after that. Gnome is designed around the principals of consistency and simplicity, requiring HIG conformance, and such. KDE is not. In Gnome, menus follow a design, preferences are always found in the same place, colors follow a pallete, etc. In KDE, none of this is the case.
If you just open a few applications side by side in KDE, take a screenshot, then do the same in Gnome, then compare the screenshots, the difference is very noticable. I'd show you some screenshots if my web-server-over-cable-modem could support a good slashdotting.
Most people using Linux today are geeks, and geeks appreciate KDE because every application offers a million different settings, where as on Gnome apps very little is configurable. That's a fine strength for KDE if that's what you want. And if you are desperately waiting on E17, you also clearly choose features over consistent, simple design.
January Called, it wants its news back. This was covered in an Interview by Linux Magazine back in January. The article is available on the web here.
Tovalds: I personally also feel that ppc64 is interesting, and that's actually what I run on my personal desktop( it's a dual G5 Apple box, although it obviously runs Linux, not OS X).
From the article: Conclusions No, no. That is up to you. It all depends on how you use your browser and what you use it for, and what operating system(s) you use it on.
So, for the majority of us that means the likely conclusion is that Opera 8.0 handles surfing pr0n on Linux the best.
I really don't think there's much more to it. I use Opera on Windows specifically because it is faster and uses half the memory footprint Firefox does.
No one said the road to freedom is the fastest road. Sooner or later, the chains will slow you down.
I'm using FireFox 1.0, and everytime i've seen a security hole announced, an auto-updater pops up within a day or so to install the hot-fix. It's a little green arrow right under the title bar.
Security hotfixes that will only install on Linux if you are running Firefox as root. Brilliant!
Cue the lame jokes on optimizations and compile times that go with every single Gentoo story.
Re:Maybe you should read a book / the spec
on
The CSS Anthology
·
· Score: 1
Can we have decent support for CSS2, please? Leaving aside the aberration that is IE's attempt at CSS implementation, Gecko doesn't even do counters yet...
Back up the truck. Your original contention is: Basically, I find that the biggest problem with CSS is that it's like most of the other of the W3Cs standards: a really good idea implemented in a really half-assed way.
You can't rip the W3C's standards, and then back up your contention by complaining that vendors haven't implemented the standard. It's not the W3C's fault that IE's or Mozilla's implementation or their standard sucks.
Seems like more than one/.er has reported spyware being bundled (specifically Grokster), contrary to the PC Mag reports. First off, Grokster is not spyware, it is an application that comes bundled with spyware. Second, just because Microsoft's anti-spyware software identifies something as possibly being Grokster doesn't mean anything. The Microsoft software has a pattern list like virus software. It saw something in Mercora that looks similar in design to Grokster and warned the user that he might be installing Grokster. Don't jump to condemning something you know clearly know very little about because of a buggy peice of Microsoft software. Whether or not the spyware was intentionally bundled Do you think they could unintentionally bundle spyware?
From the Mercora website: This is not a bait-and-switch "pop-up hell" application! We DO NOT have any Spy-ware or Ad-ware in our software and we keep your personal information confidential. You control what you want to share and what you do not.
Your entire post is based on negative logic. Something that never has happened cannot be proven that it will never happen in the future. So what? You condemn something without any positive proof of anything, because no one can dispute negative logic. Sad. Its simply not right to condemn before taking the time to do a little research into the validity of your allegations.
does GPL really protect against commerical companies taking the code over other open source licenses? in theory, it should. but many companies probably take GPL code and use it illegally, sometimes it's just hard to know
I beleive many people don't realize that companies can take GPL code and modify/improve it without releasing the source code and that's fully legal under the GPL. If the product is never distributed outside the company making the changes, according to the GPL you never need to distribute the source code.
The FSF goes after companies who distribute without disclosing source code - Linksys routers for example. But if Walmart had a home-brew version of Linux supporting their back-office that is the greatest peice of software ever, they don't have to give out the source code.
I agree with you. I think it's just as likely he was hired because he's a damn good engineer. I was just trying to explain why the jump to a Google OS was made by Dvorak and others.
That's extremely insightful. This would make complete sense. If Google could develop a useful thin client that came in at a very low price point, say $50-$100, they could own the casual computer user market. Heck, for the right price I'd consider one for the kitchen counter, even though I'm not a casual computer user.
I've been saying for a while, an inexpensive device with a good display that can access the web, and nothing else, would be pretty compelling to a huge segment of the population. If this $50 device is basically a window to Google, GMail, Froogle, and the other Google services, everyone is happy. In fact, with the increase in ad revenue Google would see, they may be able to subsidize a device and sell it at a loss, like Microsoft does with the XBox.
I heard it will be a joint announcement between Apple and Google about a Google OS that has a Google Browser that runs exclusively on the new PowerBook G5s. THIS WILL BE AWESOME!!!
A browser is one thing and apparently the only thing the evidence supports. Why the jump to a Google OS? Because Rob Pike was the developer of Plan 9 at Bell Labs. His hiring by Google would imply they are looking to develop their own OS. Microsoft is trying to push in on Google's territory, so it makes perfect sense for Google to push in on Microsoft's territory.
People, running Windows software under WINE is not a solution.
You just don't get it, do you? How can you expect Windows users to switch to Linux when their most common programs, known as viruses, don't run on Linux?
This book is absolutely awesome. I haven't even finished it yet (procrastination) When the book we are talking about is "Getting Things Done", the irony of this statement is amazing. At least you enjoyed the book (which I agree is an excellent book), even if it isn't working for you.
360 degree vision, and is able to recognise the football, approach it and deliver a hefty kick. Growing up, I recall my mother could give me a hefty kick in the butt after she saw what I did with her 360 degree vision (the eyes in the back of her head). I'm pretty sure she can recognize a football, but I'm still doubtful she could win the world cup.
Your list alone betrays itself. I remember a time when Intel had a lock on the x86 processor market with no real competition, and if you had a big alternative it was Cyrix (I remember, I've owned two Cyrix chips, both drove me nuts with overheating issues). AMD has made amazing strides into Intel's turf over the past 10 years, and is now positioned to possibly take the lead. At one time, graphics cards were dominated by 3dfx (or at least 3D graphics), then later came Matrox, ATI, and NVIDIA. And the real kicker in your list is Dell. Dell was started in 1984, and wasn't a major player in the PC industry for quite some time after that. Today, IBM has gotten out of the PC industry!
In possibly every industry you've listed, there have been newcomers that have made a large impact. It may not have happened in the past 5 years, but it has happened, and it will happen again. Sentiments like yours separate us from the successful entrepreneurs of the world.
Linux=cool If the girls you're flirting with don't get it, try a different bar. Or, better yet, find somewhere better to meet people. Definitely one of the top all time geekiest comments. On Slashdot, that's quite an achievement. Good work.
Slashdot Mirror
Typically, the only reason individuals want their own second-level DNS domain is vanity.
.us domain, how can we ever expect that to be true of a .cn (China) domain? Americans hold the U.S. to be a shining example of freedom, but clearly .us is not an example of freedom.
So what? If I'm willing to pay money for a product for my own vanity, and someone is willing to sell it, that's what commerce is all about. Should I not be allowed to anonymously purchase a mirror at the store for my purposes of vanity?
If you're going to connect infrastructure to the Internet, you should be prepared to announce your identity to the rest of the Internet so that if/when you cause problems, you can be contacted.
Says who? All Internet users connect our infrastructure to the Internet every single time we access the Internet, which is 24/7 for a big chunk of the public. That doesn't mean that everyone connecting to the Internet should be identifiable. That would be absolute insanity. Part of what I enjoy about the Internet is being able to do things freely without concern that I am identifiable.
If you don't want to connect infrastructure to the Internet, and just want an outlet for your speech, again, there are plenty of ways to do that that don't involve your own little DNS domain.
So what? Just because there are alternative mediums doesn't make it okay. The Internet is clearly the single most useful medium for the average person to disseminate information. It is very important that a person be comfortable using the medium without fear of identification. Only then do you have true freedom of speech on the Internet.
If we cannot expect total freedom on a
I totally agree, the grandparent is most certainly on topic. As I see it, the great-great-great-grandparent got modded Informative when its a joke, and the granparent got modded off-topic when it is on-topic. Go figure.
Every time I take the time to read the article and do some Googling so I can write an informative response, it ends up on page 2 or 3 of the thread. As a result, no moderator ever makes it that far, and it never gets +Informative. So I've gathered that the best way to be moderated +Informative is to not RTFA. It's a /. paradox.
I guess I could just do what many karma-whores do - Reply to the very first post in the thread even though your comment has absolutely nothing to do with that comment. Yes, that's right, you thought you were clever, but you can't fool me.
so i won't have debian in my toaster????
You can apparently use Debian if your toaster was built in '86.
Most people I talk to who use Linux have expressed a strong preference for KDE over GNOME.
"My buddies think that KDE is better than Gnome" is moderated Informative? My faith in the public moderation system just dropped a notch.
they usually say that they think [KDE]'s crisper [than gnome] and the look is more consistent across applications.
Crisper? More consistent? Consistent in that everything starts with a K, perhaps. Consistencies fall apart after that. Gnome is designed around the principals of consistency and simplicity, requiring HIG conformance, and such. KDE is not. In Gnome, menus follow a design, preferences are always found in the same place, colors follow a pallete, etc. In KDE, none of this is the case.
If you just open a few applications side by side in KDE, take a screenshot, then do the same in Gnome, then compare the screenshots, the difference is very noticable. I'd show you some screenshots if my web-server-over-cable-modem could support a good slashdotting.
Most people using Linux today are geeks, and geeks appreciate KDE because every application offers a million different settings, where as on Gnome apps very little is configurable. That's a fine strength for KDE if that's what you want. And if you are desperately waiting on E17, you also clearly choose features over consistent, simple design.
January Called, it wants its news back. This was covered in an Interview by Linux Magazine back in January. The article is available on the web here.
Tovalds: I personally also feel that ppc64 is interesting, and that's actually what I run on my personal desktop( it's a dual G5 Apple box, although it obviously runs Linux, not OS X).
From the article:
Conclusions
No, no. That is up to you. It all depends on how you use your browser and what you use it for, and what operating system(s) you use it on.
So, for the majority of us that means the likely conclusion is that Opera 8.0 handles surfing pr0n on Linux the best.
I really don't think there's much more to it. I use Opera on Windows specifically because it is faster and uses half the memory footprint Firefox does.
No one said the road to freedom is the fastest road. Sooner or later, the chains will slow you down.
I'm using FireFox 1.0, and everytime i've seen a security hole announced, an auto-updater pops up within a day or so to install the hot-fix. It's a little green arrow right under the title bar.
Security hotfixes that will only install on Linux if you are running Firefox as root. Brilliant!
Cue the lame jokes on optimizations and compile times that go with every single Gentoo story.
Can we have decent support for CSS2, please? Leaving aside the aberration that is IE's attempt at CSS implementation, Gecko doesn't even do counters yet...
Back up the truck. Your original contention is:
Basically, I find that the biggest problem with CSS is that it's like most of the other of the W3Cs standards: a really good idea implemented in a really half-assed way.
You can't rip the W3C's standards, and then back up your contention by complaining that vendors haven't implemented the standard. It's not the W3C's fault that IE's or Mozilla's implementation or their standard sucks.
Seems like more than one /.er has reported spyware being bundled (specifically Grokster), contrary to the PC Mag reports.
First off, Grokster is not spyware, it is an application that comes bundled with spyware. Second, just because Microsoft's anti-spyware software identifies something as possibly being Grokster doesn't mean anything. The Microsoft software has a pattern list like virus software. It saw something in Mercora that looks similar in design to Grokster and warned the user that he might be installing Grokster. Don't jump to condemning something you know clearly know very little about because of a buggy peice of Microsoft software.
Whether or not the spyware was intentionally bundled
Do you think they could unintentionally bundle spyware?
From the Mercora website: This is not a bait-and-switch "pop-up hell" application! We DO NOT have any Spy-ware or Ad-ware in our software and we keep your personal information confidential. You control what you want to share and what you do not.
Your entire post is based on negative logic. Something that never has happened cannot be proven that it will never happen in the future. So what? You condemn something without any positive proof of anything, because no one can dispute negative logic. Sad. Its simply not right to condemn before taking the time to do a little research into the validity of your allegations.
MY two years with SBC DSl were the worst two years of my life
Dude, if that's the worst thing that's ever happen to you, it must hurt to take a crap with that silver spoon in the way.
Point of game: Entertainment.
Game not in operation: Not entertainment.
Cost of Game: $50
Point of reading this Slashdot article: Entertainment
Game not in operation: Very entertaining
Cost of Slashdot: $0
does GPL really protect against commerical companies taking the code over other open source licenses? in theory, it should. but many companies probably take GPL code and use it illegally, sometimes it's just hard to know
I beleive many people don't realize that companies can take GPL code and modify/improve it without releasing the source code and that's fully legal under the GPL. If the product is never distributed outside the company making the changes, according to the GPL you never need to distribute the source code.
The FSF goes after companies who distribute without disclosing source code - Linksys routers for example. But if Walmart had a home-brew version of Linux supporting their back-office that is the greatest peice of software ever, they don't have to give out the source code.
I agree with you. I think it's just as likely he was hired because he's a damn good engineer. I was just trying to explain why the jump to a Google OS was made by Dvorak and others.
That's extremely insightful. This would make complete sense. If Google could develop a useful thin client that came in at a very low price point, say $50-$100, they could own the casual computer user market. Heck, for the right price I'd consider one for the kitchen counter, even though I'm not a casual computer user.
I've been saying for a while, an inexpensive device with a good display that can access the web, and nothing else, would be pretty compelling to a huge segment of the population. If this $50 device is basically a window to Google, GMail, Froogle, and the other Google services, everyone is happy. In fact, with the increase in ad revenue Google would see, they may be able to subsidize a device and sell it at a loss, like Microsoft does with the XBox.
I heard it will be a joint announcement between Apple and Google about a Google OS that has a Google Browser that runs exclusively on the new PowerBook G5s. THIS WILL BE AWESOME!!!
As long as I can connect my gPod, I'll be happy.
A browser is one thing and apparently the only thing the evidence supports. Why the jump to a Google OS?
Because Rob Pike was the developer of Plan 9 at Bell Labs. His hiring by Google would imply they are looking to develop their own OS. Microsoft is trying to push in on Google's territory, so it makes perfect sense for Google to push in on Microsoft's territory.
People, running Windows software under WINE is not a solution.
You just don't get it, do you? How can you expect Windows users to switch to Linux when their most common programs, known as viruses, don't run on Linux?
This book is absolutely awesome. I haven't even finished it yet (procrastination)
When the book we are talking about is "Getting Things Done", the irony of this statement is amazing. At least you enjoyed the book (which I agree is an excellent book), even if it isn't working for you.
360 degree vision, and is able to recognise the football, approach it and deliver a hefty kick.
Growing up, I recall my mother could give me a hefty kick in the butt after she saw what I did with her 360 degree vision (the eyes in the back of her head). I'm pretty sure she can recognize a football, but I'm still doubtful she could win the world cup.
Your list alone betrays itself. I remember a time when Intel had a lock on the x86 processor market with no real competition, and if you had a big alternative it was Cyrix (I remember, I've owned two Cyrix chips, both drove me nuts with overheating issues). AMD has made amazing strides into Intel's turf over the past 10 years, and is now positioned to possibly take the lead. At one time, graphics cards were dominated by 3dfx (or at least 3D graphics), then later came Matrox, ATI, and NVIDIA. And the real kicker in your list is Dell. Dell was started in 1984, and wasn't a major player in the PC industry for quite some time after that. Today, IBM has gotten out of the PC industry!
In possibly every industry you've listed, there have been newcomers that have made a large impact. It may not have happened in the past 5 years, but it has happened, and it will happen again. Sentiments like yours separate us from the successful entrepreneurs of the world.
Linux=cool If the girls you're flirting with don't get it, try a different bar. Or, better yet, find somewhere better to meet people.
Definitely one of the top all time geekiest comments. On Slashdot, that's quite an achievement. Good work.
Guy founds project. Guy loses political arguments while running project. Guy leaves project in a political huff. Guy criticizes project.
Must be a slow news day.