Re:Gnome/KDE: for script kiddies and windoze wanna
on
October Gnome Released
·
· Score: 1
I know this is flame bait, but someone has to speak up We should all respond to flame bait once in a while, so here I go...
You're making the fundamental/.er mistake; assuming that everything in the world is designed for your exclusive benefit. The ultimate aim of Linux is to appeal to the masses, and the only way it can do that is with themes, solitaire and trivial shit like that. If it pisses you off, don't use it.
On the subject of pissed off, what does 'sh*t' mean? If you're going to swear, do it properly. If you're not, there are plenty of acceptable alternatives that don't require punctuation.
...but then again, I did when 1.0 came out. They did themselves no favours then, but I suppose we're all entitled to one mistake.
For the record, I think the 'click in a terminal' feature is beyond cool. One thing: October GNOME? What does October stand for? Let's see... October Can Take Off Because Errors Remedied?
I think will_in_seattle made a casual comment about elitist attitudes, and everyone's picking up on it as gospel and the entire point of the piece. Not so. Just as SMOFs miss the halcyon days when everyone read every SF book available, so will we soon reach the day when it's no longer possible to buy every Linux game; the rabble will well and truly have crashed the party. No-one except those with the most severe case of elitist-assholism thinks this is a Bad Thing.
Back to the point. Two lines in the article struck me: The Penguin Computing gaming machine, which is based on a 500-MHz AMD Athlon chip, comes with a 3Dfx Voodoo 3000 video card and a Sound Blaster PCI128 sound card. It also has a Logitech Wingman Extreme digital joystick. What can I say? Cool. Beyond cool.
Loki also has been working on open-source projects to improve how well Linux handles JPEG graphics files. Eh? Can someone explain this one to me?
...as I see it is that given american dominance over the internet, US considerations may be given primacy. Which may well contravene existing laws in other countries. So what should be done? I don't have the breadth of knowledge to give an authoritative or complete reply, but my inclination would be to maximise security (and hence privacy) and leave the wiretapping considerations to individual governments and ISPs. Here's why...
If I were planning an illegal activity over the internet, you can be damn sure I'd use 1024 bit pgp encryption. It wouldn't matter a damn what wiretapping facilities were in place if all they could read was encrypted crap. They'd only be able to read the mail of the innocent and the naive.
If the government can get in, so can other people. Back doors are by their very nature insecure.
Given how the US government banjaxed GPS so that it doesn't work as well for the rest of the planet, it's good to see tech like this get through. "But supposing the Despot of the Week get's hold of the images?" I can hear the whines starting already. As for the 1984 fears: I think they're unjustified. People's privacy is much more at risk from street cameras and bosses monitoring their email than from an eye in the sky. I don't know how much you'd have to pay Ikonos to track someone for ten minutes, but I imagen it'd be more than your average PI would be willing to pay. And the governments of the world have no need for private satellites; they've mostly got their own.
It's all very well to come out with explanations, etc, but there's still no excuse -- except cheesy publicity seeking -- for running a head-to-head contest like this in the first place; it does nothing except betray the cluelessness of the ZD journos. The impression I got from the story was that if someone as knowledgable as Ziff Davis can be hacked, so can anyone. Whereas the 'hackable anywhere' bit is true, it's simply ass-covering on the part of ZD. What did this test prove? That Linux is less secure? That ZD haven't a clue? "The bottom line is daunting: don't let your guard down. Ever." And don't ever trust ZD.
Yeah, yeah. Great stuff. If only we hadn't heard it all a thousand times before... Okay, no more cynicism. I sorta believe it this time, for one reason; they're talking about rollout in the second half of 2000. That's less than a year away, and I doubt they'd make such a forecast unless things were well and truly underway. Of course, it does say it'll use mozilla; so that date may get pushed back a bit.
Geoff Ryman's excellent novel The Child Garden had our green-skinned descendents photosynthisising (sp?), and Ed Regis' Nano predicted the nanosuit that'd supply all our energy needs. God, I love buckyballs. They can do anything. A beowulf cluster of these'd probably outcalculate Deep Thought.
Given that you can get a projector with comparable resolution, is there any point in spending $20k on one of these puppies? I'd rather spend five grand on a projector and blow the rest on jelly babies.
The cunning bastards have thought of that; most products are made nowadays so that if anyone looks at the twinned object, the original is instantly destroyed. Not only is this not covered by the guarantee, there's a chance that your product will spontaneously transform into something completely different; something for which you don't have a receipt.
New Scientist's Feedback column regularly has examples of bemusing labels; some examples that spring to mind (paraphrasing) are the frisbee that wasn't suitable for under threes because it contained small parts and the CD player that said "warning: dangerous warning inside".
He may have *said* Complimentary Metal Oxide Semis, but he was actually correct in calling them C.M.O's as he was referring to Chief Medical Officers. I'm sure we all remember the episode of Voyager -- as predictive episode as I've seen -- where the doctor was shrinking. Exactly what's reported here. PS If you haven't seen it, that was the episode that sucked. Well, one of them.
C'mon. This idea is so familiar it's even got a name' 'the wall'. There are also a plethora of possible solutions on the horizon. Of course, it's possible that they're all crap and Quake 9 will have little over Quake 8. Moore himself talked about this on Cnet a couple of years ago.
the comparison with the North American Buffalo is, IMO, invalid. There are plenty of species that drop the sprog and move on; in general the amount of care provided to offspring is proportional to the amount of care that's needed. Buffalo may have a longer gestation period than humans, but they're fully grown after about two years. So of course the parents aren't going to be as protective. If you want to compare like with like, look at elephant calves. An elephant isn't fully grown until it's about twenty, and its parents (indeed, the herd) are much more protective.
As for the 'pointing to the actual genome': that's just silly. Sorry. Evolutionary theory was around long before genetics (peas notwithstanding), and a hell of a lot more is known than genomic research provides.
To everyone who's constantly dissing the space program as a waste of money, I say this: "The Bioreactor was developed by NASA to simulate the weightless environment of space"
Space flight isn't just a luxury; it's a necessity. People who can't see that may need other means of persuasion; this is one of the better ones.
...as long as it's got a browser. If that works, and it handles Java, a mass migration could be underway for surfing purposes. I know I'd use it. And on a floppy? How long has it been since someone decided bloat wasn't a feature? Cool.
In fact, I suspect one is underway already, although I have no evidence of it. It's just a sense I have. I had the same feeling. It's like millions of port scanners were logging hackable ports, and then were suddenly silent.
Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject. Some of them may be contradictory (in case the fact doesn't come through in these musings, btw, I disagree with him).
1. Citing individual cases as reasons why it's a bad idea is usually, well, a bad idea. For every Stephen Hawking there is probably someone made radical contributions to humanity which would not have happened had they devoted their time to maintaining their disabled child. A similar argument, which I've seen on several occasions, is the guy who would have died in a car crash had he been wearing a seatbelt.
2. As a species on this planet, we're genetically encoded to react against anything that endangers the next generation (and I don't mean the borg). This is why all those ridiculous "for the children" pleas are so effective. And no matter what your feelings on the subject, you'll have to agree that this is no longer necessary for the perpetuation of the human race.
3. Ethical is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Eugenics of the sort espoused by Singer, in a fascistic darwinian sort of way, contribute to the future viability of the species. However, see point two.
4. Points two and three above refer only to the continuation of the species, and ignore what could happen should indiviual human life become devalued through practices such as abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. This isn't my view, but it's one I'm willing to listen to with an open mind.
5. All laws and ethical systems are for the good of most members of society. This tyrrany of democracy inevitably has adverse consequences for the minority. Attitudes to those minorities decide whether this is viewed as a good or bad thing.
6. I'm an athiest, but that doesn't mean I can't steal the good bits from various holy books for my own philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, all philosophies that don't involve killing everyone else boil down to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert! Actually, it's toffee-nosed. I don't normally correct people about such things, but it's long been a source of amusement. Back in the good ol' days when Usenet *was* the internet, US python fans would transcribe the scripts with often amusing results. Quick quiz: What were these lines supposed to be (from memory)?
He's backed off! He has! He's scarfed!
Meaning of life it selfish bastard, I'll kick him in the balls upon the road
I remember celebrating twenty years of Python. I also remember celebrating twenty-one years of Python. I also remember celebrating twenty-five years of Python. I also remember celebrating thirty years of Python. I also remember... no, hang on. Ah, who cares? Three great series, three great films, six shite episodes, and the inspiration for Microsoft's attitude to competition. "Amongst our weapons are such diverse elements as fear, uncertainty, doubt and an almost fanatical devotion to Bill Gates."
Although the article lumps them together as 'terrorist weapons of mass destruction', cyber attacks are very different from chemical, biological, etc, attacks for a whole bunch of reasons):
Finance. The article implies that major finance is required to implement major attacks; this is not the case for cyber attacks; L0pht bulletins and Phrack are all that's required, along with a script kiddie mentality.
Nature of attack. Cyber attacks in general don't attack people; they attack infrastructure. If properly implemented a lot of people will die, but as a side-effect. Biological attacks, OTOH, attack only wetware and leave infrastructure intact.
Personnel. One deranged chemist can do quite a bit of damage, but an embittered genius nerd can do much, much more. Remember that interview with L0pht? "I can shut down this power grid now."
On the subject of state-sponsored terrorism: I honestly don't believe that this is the problem a lot of people make it out to be. If you're system goes down, it's a lot cooler to say it was the Indonesian Government than a dodgy cgi script. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I do believe that it's seriously overhyped.
Finally:defenses. Up to a couple of years ago, people thought of security they way people in the 80s thought of Y2K: it'll probably be a problem some day, but we'll muddle through. Any system put together in the last couple of years was implemented with security in mind (if it wasn't, shoot the sysadmin), but most systems more than a couple of years old are inherently insecure. Ironically, Y2K could prove to be a boon, as audits will give detailed reports on exactly what's in a system, and this information can be used to boost security.
"You've got diamonds on Uranus". Is this some sort of space equivalent of 'the sun shines out of his arse?' But seriously, folks... This is definitely one of the 'cool but useless' stories of the year. Maybe if we get some nifty propulsion systems online we'll see see a Clarkian 'diamonds covering everything' scenario, but it's far more likely that this will happen because of nanotech and not diamond mining.
There's a difference between/. and the users of/. ; I don't think there's a slashdotter alive that doesn't think that 90% of posters are full of shite. The only difference is we all have different definitions of what constitutes the quality 10%. As for slashdot being 'above' anything; I was comparing it to traditional news agencies, all of whom vie for an exclusive (or first post, if you will). Slashdot's very nature precludes 'first posting' news stories most of the time, and I don't think there's any need to start now.
Where does science end and playing god begin? If a surgeon cuts a tumour -- a natural occurance -- out of a body, is he acting god? What about the Wright brothers? Neil Armstrong? Every time a technological advance comes along, it can (and usually is) viewed by some people as 'playing god'.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is flame bait, but someone has to speak up
/.er mistake; assuming that everything in the world is designed for your exclusive benefit. The ultimate aim of Linux is to appeal to the masses, and the only way it can do that is with themes, solitaire and trivial shit like that. If it pisses you off, don't use it.
We should all respond to flame bait once in a while, so here I go...
You're making the fundamental
On the subject of pissed off, what does 'sh*t' mean? If you're going to swear, do it properly. If you're not, there are plenty of acceptable alternatives that don't require punctuation.
...but then again, I did when 1.0 came out. They did themselves no favours then, but I suppose we're all entitled to one mistake.
For the record, I think the 'click in a terminal' feature is beyond cool.
One thing: October GNOME? What does October stand for? Let's see... October Can Take Off Because Errors Remedied?
I think will_in_seattle made a casual comment about elitist attitudes, and everyone's picking up on it as gospel and the entire point of the piece. Not so.
Just as SMOFs miss the halcyon days when everyone read every SF book available, so will we soon reach the day when it's no longer possible to buy every Linux game; the rabble will well and truly have crashed the party.
No-one except those with the most severe case of elitist-assholism thinks this is a Bad Thing.
Back to the point. Two lines in the article struck me:
The Penguin Computing gaming machine, which is based on a 500-MHz AMD Athlon chip, comes with a 3Dfx Voodoo 3000 video card and a Sound Blaster PCI128 sound card. It also has a Logitech Wingman Extreme digital joystick.
What can I say? Cool. Beyond cool.
Loki also has been working on open-source projects to improve how well Linux handles JPEG graphics files.
Eh? Can someone explain this one to me?
So what should be done? I don't have the breadth of knowledge to give an authoritative or complete reply, but my inclination would be to maximise security (and hence privacy) and leave the wiretapping considerations to individual governments and ISPs.
Here's why...
If I were planning an illegal activity over the internet, you can be damn sure I'd use 1024 bit pgp encryption. It wouldn't matter a damn what wiretapping facilities were in place if all they could read was encrypted crap. They'd only be able to read the mail of the innocent and the naive.
If the government can get in, so can other people. Back doors are by their very nature insecure.
Given how the US government banjaxed GPS so that it doesn't work as well for the rest of the planet, it's good to see tech like this get through. "But supposing the Despot of the Week get's hold of the images?" I can hear the whines starting already.
As for the 1984 fears: I think they're unjustified. People's privacy is much more at risk from street cameras and bosses monitoring their email than from an eye in the sky. I don't know how much you'd have to pay Ikonos to track someone for ten minutes, but I imagen it'd be more than your average PI would be willing to pay. And the governments of the world have no need for private satellites; they've mostly got their own.
It's all very well to come out with explanations, etc, but there's still no excuse -- except cheesy publicity seeking -- for running a head-to-head contest like this in the first place; it does nothing except betray the cluelessness of the ZD journos.
The impression I got from the story was that if someone as knowledgable as Ziff Davis can be hacked, so can anyone. Whereas the 'hackable anywhere' bit is true, it's simply ass-covering on the part of ZD.
What did this test prove? That Linux is less secure? That ZD haven't a clue?
"The bottom line is daunting: don't let your guard down. Ever." And don't ever trust ZD.
Yeah, yeah. Great stuff. If only we hadn't heard it all a thousand times before...
Okay, no more cynicism. I sorta believe it this time, for one reason; they're talking about rollout in the second half of 2000. That's less than a year away, and I doubt they'd make such a forecast unless things were well and truly underway.
Of course, it does say it'll use mozilla; so that date may get pushed back a bit.
Geoff Ryman's excellent novel The Child Garden had our green-skinned descendents photosynthisising (sp?), and Ed Regis' Nano predicted the nanosuit that'd supply all our energy needs.
God, I love buckyballs. They can do anything. A beowulf cluster of these'd probably outcalculate Deep Thought.
Given that you can get a projector with comparable resolution, is there any point in spending $20k on one of these puppies? I'd rather spend five grand on a projector and blow the rest on jelly babies.
The cunning bastards have thought of that; most products are made nowadays so that if anyone looks at the twinned object, the original is instantly destroyed. Not only is this not covered by the guarantee, there's a chance that your product will spontaneously transform into something completely different; something for which you don't have a receipt.
New Scientist's Feedback column regularly has examples of bemusing labels; some examples that spring to mind (paraphrasing) are the frisbee that wasn't suitable for under threes because it contained small parts and the CD player that said "warning: dangerous warning inside".
He may have *said* Complimentary Metal Oxide Semis, but he was actually correct in calling them C.M.O's as he was referring to Chief Medical Officers. I'm sure we all remember the episode of Voyager -- as predictive episode as I've seen -- where the doctor was shrinking. Exactly what's reported here.
PS If you haven't seen it, that was the episode that sucked. Well, one of them.
C'mon. This idea is so familiar it's even got a name' 'the wall'. There are also a plethora of possible solutions on the horizon. Of course, it's possible that they're all crap and Quake 9 will have little over Quake 8.
Moore himself talked about this on Cnet a couple of years ago.
the comparison with the North American Buffalo is, IMO, invalid. There are plenty of species that drop the sprog and move on; in general the amount of care provided to offspring is proportional to the amount of care that's needed. Buffalo may have a longer gestation period than humans, but they're fully grown after about two years. So of course the parents aren't going to be as protective.
If you want to compare like with like, look at elephant calves. An elephant isn't fully grown until it's about twenty, and its parents (indeed, the herd) are much more protective.
As for the 'pointing to the actual genome': that's just silly. Sorry. Evolutionary theory was around long before genetics (peas notwithstanding), and a hell of a lot more is known than genomic research provides.
To everyone who's constantly dissing the space program as a waste of money, I say this:
"The Bioreactor was developed by NASA to simulate the weightless environment of space"
Space flight isn't just a luxury; it's a necessity. People who can't see that may need other means of persuasion; this is one of the better ones.
...as long as it's got a browser. If that works, and it handles Java, a mass migration could be underway for surfing purposes. I know I'd use it.
And on a floppy? How long has it been since someone decided bloat wasn't a feature? Cool.
In fact, I suspect one is underway already, although I have no evidence of it. It's just a sense I have.
I had the same feeling. It's like millions of port scanners were logging hackable ports, and then were suddenly silent.
Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject. Some of them may be contradictory (in case the fact doesn't come through in these musings, btw, I disagree with him).
1. Citing individual cases as reasons why it's a bad idea is usually, well, a bad idea. For every Stephen Hawking there is probably someone made radical contributions to humanity which would not have happened had they devoted their time to maintaining their disabled child. A similar argument, which I've seen on several occasions, is the guy who would have died in a car crash had he been wearing a seatbelt.
2. As a species on this planet, we're genetically encoded to react against anything that endangers the next generation (and I don't mean the borg). This is why all those ridiculous "for the children" pleas are so effective. And no matter what your feelings on the subject, you'll have to agree that this is no longer necessary for the perpetuation of the human race.
3. Ethical is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Eugenics of the sort espoused by Singer, in a fascistic darwinian sort of way, contribute to the future viability of the species. However, see point two.
4. Points two and three above refer only to the continuation of the species, and ignore what could happen should indiviual human life become devalued through practices such as abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. This isn't my view, but it's one I'm willing to listen to with an open mind.
5. All laws and ethical systems are for the good of most members of society. This tyrrany of democracy inevitably has adverse consequences for the minority. Attitudes to those minorities decide whether this is viewed as a good or bad thing.
6. I'm an athiest, but that doesn't mean I can't steal the good bits from various holy books for my own philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, all philosophies that don't involve killing everyone else boil down to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
Actually, it's toffee-nosed. I don't normally correct people about such things, but it's long been a source of amusement. Back in the good ol' days when Usenet *was* the internet, US python fans would transcribe the scripts with often amusing results.
Quick quiz: What were these lines supposed to be (from memory)?
He's backed off! He has! He's scarfed!
Meaning of life it selfish bastard, I'll kick him in the balls upon the road
I'm an anarcho-cynicalist communist
coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert! (sorry).
I remember celebrating twenty years of Python. I also remember celebrating twenty-one years of Python. I also remember celebrating twenty-five years of Python. I also remember celebrating thirty years of Python. I also remember... no, hang on.
Ah, who cares? Three great series, three great films, six shite episodes, and the inspiration for Microsoft's attitude to competition.
"Amongst our weapons are such diverse elements as fear, uncertainty, doubt and an almost fanatical devotion to Bill Gates."
Programmers are precise, confident and look ahead
Just as well, or we'd be in all sorts of shit when the date rolls over next year.
Finance. The article implies that major finance is required to implement major attacks; this is not the case for cyber attacks; L0pht bulletins and Phrack are all that's required, along with a script kiddie mentality.
Nature of attack. Cyber attacks in general don't attack people; they attack infrastructure. If properly implemented a lot of people will die, but as a side-effect. Biological attacks, OTOH, attack only wetware and leave infrastructure intact.
Personnel. One deranged chemist can do quite a bit of damage, but an embittered genius nerd can do much, much more. Remember that interview with L0pht? "I can shut down this power grid now."
On the subject of state-sponsored terrorism: I honestly don't believe that this is the problem a lot of people make it out to be. If you're system goes down, it's a lot cooler to say it was the Indonesian Government than a dodgy cgi script. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I do believe that it's seriously overhyped.
Finally:defenses. Up to a couple of years ago, people thought of security they way people in the 80s thought of Y2K: it'll probably be a problem some day, but we'll muddle through. Any system put together in the last couple of years was implemented with security in mind (if it wasn't, shoot the sysadmin), but most systems more than a couple of years old are inherently insecure. Ironically, Y2K could prove to be a boon, as audits will give detailed reports on exactly what's in a system, and this information can be used to boost security.
"You've got diamonds on Uranus". Is this some sort of space equivalent of 'the sun shines out of his arse?'
But seriously, folks...
This is definitely one of the 'cool but useless' stories of the year. Maybe if we get some nifty propulsion systems online we'll see see a Clarkian 'diamonds covering everything' scenario, but it's far more likely that this will happen because of nanotech and not diamond mining.
There's a difference between /. and the users of /. ; I don't think there's a slashdotter alive that doesn't think that 90% of posters are full of shite. The only difference is we all have different definitions of what constitutes the quality 10%.
As for slashdot being 'above' anything; I was comparing it to traditional news agencies, all of whom vie for an exclusive (or first post, if you will). Slashdot's very nature precludes 'first posting' news stories most of the time, and I don't think there's any need to start now.
Where does science end and playing god begin? If a surgeon cuts a tumour -- a natural occurance -- out of a body, is he acting god? What about the Wright brothers? Neil Armstrong?
Every time a technological advance comes along, it can (and usually is) viewed by some people as 'playing god'.