the KDE Guys did a "stable release", from which they said that its still unstable. The distros packaged it, because it was a "stable release". They should not have named it 4.0.
But KDE 4.0 was crap, too. And with 4.2 they got it usable, with 4.4 or something like this it was better than 3.x. Why aren't the gnome guys achieving the same? Nothing against a clean restart, but then they need to recover from the total loss of features.
and they are even leaving for unity, only to avoid gnome 3. And non-ubuntu Users use cinnamon, XFCE or even KDE. So long and thanks for all the fish, gnome.
as i already said... do not underestimate google. Their current algorithm fully renders the page (a sideproduct is the preview-image in the results list) and even executes some javascript. On some sites they probe the search-function of the site with random keywords. Much stuff is just for indexing dynamic pages, but i think they also try to catch cheaters, which try to present google other content than the users.
but every good search engine (at least google and bing) has good algorithms for detecting what your content is (like looking which parts change, which not, which use terms which are typical for menus, etc.). Do not underestimate search engines. Their use is to find relevant information, so making a distinction between content and navigation is one of the easier tasks.
i think you're wrong. on tor the sickos think they're safe, on the open net you will not find any sites of them, because they're well hidden. There they are much more paranoid as on the "safe" network tor.
> *) including some officers searching my flat at 7 am and all my hardware was confiscated and this is how it works. Now you're afraid to run a node, because this can happen again. And a lot of others reading your message are afraid and do not even start.
We need so many nodes, that its infeasable to search every flat of a node-owner. Something like tor included into the default-config of a popular adsl-modem or something like this.
its easy: facebook makes it hard for you, to export your data, and hard to export the data you see from your friends. Of course, its possible, but they do some stuff to avoid mass-downloading and such things.
diaspora gets everything due to the federated protocol, when you patch your node, the other nodes have no chance to detect it. when you patch your node, your users are at advantage, so the users have some interest in using a patched node by themself.
so game theory says, you end up with a network where everyone stores everything he gets, just in case, because this might be an adavantage, but never will be a disadvantage for himself. And so everyone will lose (his privacy). Its just a variant of the prisoners dilemma here.
the "i store all i can get" model is available in almost every system, but easier for some (mostly federated ones). At least the diaspora model really gives me an adavantage, if i choose to use a node, which is patched to cache everything, maybe even add a version-history of changes to the received data.
I'm not sure about this problem in other federated systems, for most it will be the same. Centralized Systems like Facebook give me in this respect MORE privacy against my friends, while they give me LESS privacy against the platform.
Buddycloud was the answer, when i suggested why there are no XMPP Extensions for social networking. Another answer might be PSYC, which has some social-like features and may be extendend for more.
And i do not think of the diaspora stuff. I tested it a while ago, and noticed the awful coding very soon (wrong login goes to stacktrace-page, WTF), further i think their data model gives advantage to the node owners, which patch their nodes to store everything they can get, which is worse for my privacy in respect to my digital friends than the centralistic models.
Ubuntu goes more and more into the wrong direction. I use KDE anyway, but i still have their patched gtk-libs and other stuff... mint and other ubuntu forks are not an option, as they use the same packages. debian is slow with releases and only slowly adopting new tech.
What other debian-forks are usable, which did not change to ubuntu as the base of their packets?
you see, on a small sample. Make it a large sample, as all the google users. the news pages will have big articles, computer magazins will title with this story "how to use google with XP", everyone will know, that everyone other has the same problem, and soon the solutions will emerge, which are rather easy: get someone to install another browser. For some people it will be an insider tipp, and some may need help of their more technical friends, but they will find the solution.
when your page is important, the user will use a browser which is supported. Imagine google only working with sni. How long will it take until no one uses IE8 anymore? Only a few days, and even the dumbest has found a friend who can download him a real browser.
Slashdot Mirror
the KDE Guys did a "stable release", from which they said that its still unstable. The distros packaged it, because it was a "stable release". They should not have named it 4.0.
But KDE 4.0 was crap, too. And with 4.2 they got it usable, with 4.4 or something like this it was better than 3.x. Why aren't the gnome guys achieving the same? Nothing against a clean restart, but then they need to recover from the total loss of features.
maybe a context-sensitive person?
and they are even leaving for unity, only to avoid gnome 3. And non-ubuntu Users use cinnamon, XFCE or even KDE. So long and thanks for all the fish, gnome.
as i already said ... do not underestimate google. Their current algorithm fully renders the page (a sideproduct is the preview-image in the results list) and even executes some javascript. On some sites they probe the search-function of the site with random keywords.
Much stuff is just for indexing dynamic pages, but i think they also try to catch cheaters, which try to present google other content than the users.
but every good search engine (at least google and bing) has good algorithms for detecting what your content is (like looking which parts change, which not, which use terms which are typical for menus, etc.).
Do not underestimate search engines. Their use is to find relevant information, so making a distinction between content and navigation is one of the easier tasks.
> you are penalized by search algorithms for using them
no, you're not. This is plain FUD.
blame the system.
nuff said.
i think you're wrong. on tor the sickos think they're safe, on the open net you will not find any sites of them, because they're well hidden. There they are much more paranoid as on the "safe" network tor.
> *) including some officers searching my flat at 7 am and all my hardware was confiscated
and this is how it works.
Now you're afraid to run a node, because this can happen again. And a lot of others reading your message are afraid and do not even start.
We need so many nodes, that its infeasable to search every flat of a node-owner. Something like tor included into the default-config of a popular adsl-modem or something like this.
Google had its chance to be better than facebook by not mirroring these realname bullshit. But they decided against it.
you need to train your reading skills.
game theory says, when you have your own node in a federated system, everyone's better off caching everything. But when everyone does, everyone loses.
its easy:
facebook makes it hard for you, to export your data, and hard to export the data you see from your friends. Of course, its possible, but they do some stuff to avoid mass-downloading and such things.
diaspora gets everything due to the federated protocol, when you patch your node, the other nodes have no chance to detect it. when you patch your node, your users are at advantage, so the users have some interest in using a patched node by themself.
so game theory says, you end up with a network where everyone stores everything he gets, just in case, because this might be an adavantage, but never will be a disadvantage for himself.
And so everyone will lose (his privacy). Its just a variant of the prisoners dilemma here.
the "i store all i can get" model is available in almost every system, but easier for some (mostly federated ones).
At least the diaspora model really gives me an adavantage, if i choose to use a node, which is patched to cache everything, maybe even add a version-history of changes to the received data.
I'm not sure about this problem in other federated systems, for most it will be the same. Centralized Systems like Facebook give me in this respect MORE privacy against my friends, while they give me LESS privacy against the platform.
Buddycloud was the answer, when i suggested why there are no XMPP Extensions for social networking. Another answer might be PSYC, which has some social-like features and may be extendend for more.
And i do not think of the diaspora stuff. I tested it a while ago, and noticed the awful coding very soon (wrong login goes to stacktrace-page, WTF), further i think their data model gives advantage to the node owners, which patch their nodes to store everything they can get, which is worse for my privacy in respect to my digital friends than the centralistic models.
maybe BuddyCloud?
Maxis SimLife
Ubuntu goes more and more into the wrong direction. ... mint and other ubuntu forks are not an option, as they use the same packages. debian is slow with releases and only slowly adopting new tech.
I use KDE anyway, but i still have their patched gtk-libs and other stuff
What other debian-forks are usable, which did not change to ubuntu as the base of their packets?
yeah, what a prude bullshit.
the libraries (next versions) will use the native controls, when your browser supports it.
this is not goatse.
thats why 2.499999...[endless nines] rounds to 3
google is not a proper synonym for this! You can kill google, and another company will take that place.
you see, on a small sample.
Make it a large sample, as all the google users. the news pages will have big articles, computer magazins will title with this story "how to use google with XP", everyone will know, that everyone other has the same problem, and soon the solutions will emerge, which are rather easy: get someone to install another browser. For some people it will be an insider tipp, and some may need help of their more technical friends, but they will find the solution.
when your page is important, the user will use a browser which is supported.
Imagine google only working with sni. How long will it take until no one uses IE8 anymore? Only a few days, and even the dumbest has found a friend who can download him a real browser.