I ordered Open Sources from B&N in February (along with a CSS reference). Because I'm in Brazil and it was shipped by surface mail, the book only arrived two months and a half later. I've barely finished reading the damn thing, God damn it. They could at least have warned us.
My browser (Nutscrape 4.51 on MacOS 8.5.1) read the page, but it displayed all text as flyspec-3. Took me like three hours to Increase Font Size up to acceptable dimensions.
A few months ago, the news reached me that people at the CS Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), here in Brazil, had a working, fully POSIX-compliant UNIX clone for minicomputers, completely Made in Brazil. So there you go.
Uhrm, excuse me, but I use LaTeX when I write my papers. And not wanting to worry about the hex values for colors means getting yourself one of the thousand tools available which do the color->rgb hex conversion for you, not necessarily using a WYSIWYG editor. Besides, I've yet to see a WYSIWYG editor that is truly WYSIWYG - most of them take hours to get something done, and even more if you want to fine-tune the result output from the editor on a text processor.
I for one know that the most important thing is control. That's why I chose Linux. That's why I edit my HTML by hand. And I don't think it's up to you to dictate what web design should be.
I'd be more worried about drug use amongst teenagers than amongst professional programmers, mind you.
"mom-friendly"? Whose mom?
on
UNIX for Moms
·
· Score: 1
Is it? I don't think so. I think it's pretty obvious that most people aren't very intelligent. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons why we computer people have so much trouble selling their mindshare - because they are dealing with people that are incredibly below their own level of mental achievement.
Simply put, we need the eventual brainless marketroid to level us down with our average consumers.
I live in friggin' Brazil, land of the 6-month-late episodes.
"mom-friendly"? Whose mom?
on
UNIX for Moms
·
· Score: 1
Um, Seebach isn't a regular mom. She's obviously intelligent, her son is apparently a big-time computer geek, and she's willing to change. That puts her nowhere near your common, 'King of the Hill' American mom.
While I do agree that this combination (three gas giants) is quite odd, it hardly "invalidates" modern formation theories.
Why? Because scientific theories are designed to predict the average cases - what should happen in a theoretical closed system with specific characteristics. The problem is that the universe is hardly this kind of system. Rather, it's a very real, huge system that is subject to every kind of improbability you can think of. This is what it means to say that "if it's not forbidden, it's compulsory". Thus, there is no reason to believe that there will be no exceptions when you apply such a theory to the real universe; the only way to know if it's a good theory is if these 'odd' ones are rare enough.
So far, we only have two planetary systems on which to test them, and while our solar system can very well be the 'odd' one, it's just as likely that the new one is the 'odd' one. Or that both are 'odd'. Or that none is.
If it were, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that Microsoft is so blatantly lacking in vision. No matter how big a commercial success a TR Windows-like system might turn out to be, it wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't be anywhere near revolutionary. I mean, come on. For starters, this is just an input modification, which is relatively easy to implement. They hardly need a child genius to do it - give the usual bunch of programmers a 2005 average home-control computer (I'm betting on something along the lines of a SMP system with 64 4-GHz RISC chips, linked to every other electronic thing on the house through inconspicuous digital lines with 2 Tb bandwidth) and _very_strong_, _very_small_ electric impulse detectors and they'll have this thing ready in a matter of months. Only problem is, we're not in 2005 yet. And again, this won't change anything.
Now picture the situation another five years later, in say 2010. This is the optimistic estimate for the arrival of the early first-generation assemblers (probably built by protein-based machines). Once we have assemblers, we can have anything - nanobots for all, nanogrown materials, and eventually, artificial dry-carbon brains for the more liberal of us to get into. Now _this_ will be truly revolutionary... and the one who comes up with the first one will get it all - maybe not money, but certainly the gratitude of the human species.
Despite our attempts to conquer the world, the Open Source Movement is still not quite there yet, and I think I know why.
Because everybody who represents it is ugly.
I mean, think about it. ESR? He looks like a stuntman from "Erik the Viking". Richard Stallman? Guy gives me the creeps. Linus Torvalds? The man is practically a penguin himself. And I'm not going to get into the older generation - Ken Thompson and the gang. Sheesh.
Yes, I know that none of the representatives for Microsoft and the other big corporate bullies is very good-looking either (and let's not get into Tortoiseman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HBillG himself)... but that's compensated for by their heavy use of brain-washing subliminal propaganda.
So what I suggest (other than getting Eric a facelift) is that we get ourselves a good-looking representative. Preferrably a woman. Someone that can, in the true time-honored tradition of American business, uphold our worthy ideals of freedom, and still have every technosavvy man drooling all over her.
If we do that, I bet we can have everybody getting the cracker/hacker thing right in no time.
So what do you say? Any takers?
-- Kaufmann, Ugly Boy [rnedal@olimpo.com.br]
P.S.: In case you haven't noticed, none of this is supposed to be serious.
Maybe I'm just not being open minded...
on
iMac Linux
·
· Score: 1
Overpriced and underperforming? A $900 box that can beat the crap out of any $2K Intel PC? Okay then.
LinuxPPC on the iWhack is faster than RedHat on a Pentium II/350. LinuxPPC on the G3/400 Server is faster than RedHat on a Xeon box.
I _am_ Jewish (an atheist, yes, but Jewish nonetheless), and I don't find my comment offensive at all, because I comprehend the concept of satire. Other people got that, but you obviously don't.
I think it's bloody obvious by now that there is _no_ name/password combination. This is another evil Republican conspiracy to publicly trash us. When the contest ends, Kipling will just make some random combination up and claim that it was there all along... and no one will be able to prove otherwise. So there.
I'm a unix user, but I admit...the Apple hardware is faster than intel hardware. OS X server is *probably* just as fast as any unix machine (minus overhead for the gui),
Which can be turned off.
and I guarantee it's faster than NT. However, Steve's quote: "Mac OS X server is a powerful web server..." is ludicrous...Mac OS X server is running on powerful hardware, which is running a powerful *3rd PARTY* web server.
I think Steve meant Web server in the context of 'system providing Web content', not the standard meaning of the software itself (i.e., Apache).
Furthermore, if you're comparing the performance of $5000 machines...you should be sure that all the machines are $5000. You don't need a $4000 copy of Back Office to run an Apache web server on NT.
No, but you need a brand machine with a Xeon processor in order to get anything like G3-400/OSX performance out of NT.
Slashdot Mirror
I ordered Open Sources from B&N in February (along with a CSS reference). Because I'm in Brazil and it was shipped by surface mail, the book only arrived two months and a half later. I've barely finished reading the damn thing, God damn it. They could at least have warned us.
I'm just curious. How many other sites can make that claim? (Hosted sites counting as separate sites, of course, which rules out Geocities.)
Edit, Preferences, Fonts, Use my fonts, overriding document fonts, Reload page. That didn't take 3 hours, did it?
No, but I don't get to just hit Command-Uparrow-]...
My browser (Nutscrape 4.51 on MacOS 8.5.1) read the page, but it displayed all text as flyspec-3. Took me like three hours to Increase Font Size up to acceptable dimensions.
[shyly raises puny Third-Worlder hand]
A few months ago, the news reached me that people at the CS Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), here in Brazil, had a working, fully POSIX-compliant UNIX clone for minicomputers, completely Made in Brazil. So there you go.
Uhrm, excuse me, but I use LaTeX when I write my papers. And not wanting to worry about the hex values for colors means getting yourself one of the thousand tools available which do the color->rgb hex conversion for you, not necessarily using a WYSIWYG editor. Besides, I've yet to see a WYSIWYG editor that is truly WYSIWYG - most of them take hours to get something done, and even more if you want to fine-tune the result output from the editor on a text processor.
I for one know that the most important thing is control. That's why I chose Linux. That's why I edit my HTML by hand. And I don't think it's up to you to dictate what web design should be.
Real programmers edit the inodes by hand. With magnets.
Boa tentativa, colega, mas você ficou em terceiro. :)
The five most connected American cities add up nearly enough to match the whole of Brazil. Think about it.
Fuck you, damn shit.
I'd be more worried about drug use amongst teenagers than amongst professional programmers, mind you.
Is it? I don't think so. I think it's pretty obvious that most people aren't very intelligent. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons why we computer people have so much trouble selling their mindshare - because they are dealing with people that are incredibly below their own level of mental achievement.
Simply put, we need the eventual brainless marketroid to level us down with our average consumers.
(YMMV, of course.)
I live in friggin' Brazil, land of the 6-month-late episodes.
Um, Seebach isn't a regular mom. She's obviously intelligent, her son is apparently a big-time computer geek, and she's willing to change. That puts her nowhere near your common, 'King of the Hill' American mom.
Not yet, you mean. I'm working on it. (Let's just say it'll beat the crap out of anything M$ has ever released.)
While I do agree that this combination (three gas giants) is quite odd, it hardly "invalidates" modern formation theories.
Why? Because scientific theories are designed to predict the average cases - what should happen in a theoretical closed system with specific characteristics. The problem is that the universe is hardly this kind of system. Rather, it's a very real, huge system that is subject to every kind of improbability you can think of. This is what it means to say that "if it's not forbidden, it's compulsory". Thus, there is no reason to believe that there will be no exceptions when you apply such a theory to the real universe; the only way to know if it's a good theory is if these 'odd' ones are rare enough.
So far, we only have two planetary systems on which to test them, and while our solar system can very well be the 'odd' one, it's just as likely that the new one is the 'odd' one. Or that both are 'odd'. Or that none is.
- Where do you want to go today?
- Uh, slashdot.org, please.
- *BZZZZZZZT* USER PERFORMED ILLEGAL OPERATION: CAN'T GO FROM HERE TO THERE.
[hideous blue screen]
GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT: REBOOT, RUN MICROSOFT© SCANDISK, GO TO http://www.msnbc.com .
- Kaufmann
If it were, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that Microsoft is so blatantly lacking in vision. No matter how big a commercial success a TR Windows-like system might turn out to be, it wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't be anywhere near revolutionary. I mean, come on. For starters, this is just an input modification, which is relatively easy to implement. They hardly need a child genius to do it - give the usual bunch of programmers a 2005 average home-control computer (I'm betting on something along the lines of a SMP system with 64 4-GHz RISC chips, linked to every other electronic thing on the house through inconspicuous digital lines with 2 Tb bandwidth) and _very_strong_, _very_small_ electric impulse detectors and they'll have this thing ready in a matter of months. Only problem is, we're not in 2005 yet. And again, this won't change anything.
Now picture the situation another five years later, in say 2010. This is the optimistic estimate for the arrival of the early first-generation assemblers (probably built by protein-based machines). Once we have assemblers, we can have anything - nanobots for all, nanogrown materials, and eventually, artificial dry-carbon brains for the more liberal of us to get into. Now _this_ will be truly revolutionary... and the one who comes up with the first one will get it all - maybe not money, but certainly the gratitude of the human species.
Despite our attempts to conquer the world, the Open Source Movement is still not quite there yet, and I think I know why.
Because everybody who represents it is ugly.
I mean, think about it. ESR? He looks like a stuntman from "Erik the Viking". Richard Stallman? Guy gives me the creeps. Linus Torvalds? The man is practically a penguin himself. And I'm not going to get into the older generation - Ken Thompson and the gang. Sheesh.
Yes, I know that none of the representatives for Microsoft and the other big corporate bullies is very good-looking either (and let's not get into Tortoiseman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HBillG himself)... but that's compensated for by their heavy use of brain-washing subliminal propaganda.
So what I suggest (other than getting Eric a facelift) is that we get ourselves a good-looking representative. Preferrably a woman. Someone that can, in the true time-honored tradition of American business, uphold our worthy ideals of freedom, and still have every technosavvy man drooling all over her.
If we do that, I bet we can have everybody getting the cracker/hacker thing right in no time.
So what do you say? Any takers?
--
Kaufmann, Ugly Boy
[rnedal@olimpo.com.br]
P.S.: In case you haven't noticed, none of this is supposed to be serious.
Overpriced and underperforming? A $900 box that can beat the crap out of any $2K Intel PC? Okay then.
LinuxPPC on the iWhack is faster than RedHat on a Pentium II/350. LinuxPPC on the G3/400 Server is faster than RedHat on a Xeon box.
Yeah, you're definitely not being open-minded.
[ahem]
I _am_ Jewish (an atheist, yes, but Jewish nonetheless), and I don't find my comment offensive at all, because I comprehend the concept of satire. Other people got that, but you obviously don't.
Yeah, those Jewish gay communists are all out to get us. ;)
Peace,
--
Kaufmann
I think it's bloody obvious by now that there is _no_ name/password combination. This is another evil Republican conspiracy to publicly trash us. When the contest ends, Kipling will just make some random combination up and claim that it was there all along... and no one will be able to prove otherwise. So there.
Peace,
--
Kaufmann
... is practically trivial and free on Linux. Tcl/Tk or Python, anyone?
Peace,
--
Kaufmann
[rnedal@olimpo.com.br]
I'm a unix user, but I admit...the Apple hardware is faster than intel hardware. OS X server is *probably* just as fast as any unix machine (minus overhead for the gui),
Which can be turned off.
and I guarantee it's faster than NT. However, Steve's quote: "Mac OS X server is a powerful web server..." is ludicrous...Mac OS X server is running on powerful hardware, which is running a powerful *3rd PARTY* web server.
I think Steve meant Web server in the context of 'system providing Web content', not the standard meaning of the software itself (i.e., Apache).
Furthermore, if you're comparing the performance of $5000 machines...you should be sure that all the machines are $5000. You don't need a $4000 copy of Back Office to run an Apache web server on NT.
No, but you need a brand machine with a Xeon processor in order to get anything like G3-400/OSX performance out of NT.
Peace,
--
Rafael Kaufmann
[rnedal@olimpo.com.br]