Mary McDonnell's charactor was AWEsome. When informed of that "situation" of leaving people behind, I thought for sure that she would "Left Wing my heart bleeds for the little ones, lets die trying to rescue everyone" cop out and then pull it off. The fact that she was strong yet weak at that moment was worth every extra commercial alone.
It was supprising that such strength and such weakness can happen at the same time to the same person. Tremendous.
The worst problem with her charactor is that she is dying and probably going to last only as long in any series, as a transition to a crapier president is made.
Is being secure the same as security? Let us take a look and see. Starting out let us compare raw numbers.
Building A has one broken window, that is kind of small and can only be breached if you can get passed the outer gate (with its own security), and have the right (specialized) equipment.
Building B has many broken windows, and windows breaks as fast as they fix them. Many of the broken windows can be breached from down the street. The latest broken window could allow anyone to imitate building C, and only when you have entered the building do you realize that you have been duped into entering Goat's house of cx.
Which building is more secure?
The issue is that security is offered in LEVELS. No place is 100% secure, however some places offer much higher levels of security, providing a safer place to be.
The best security is good old fashioned non-networked computers. Wireless is bad. Know the source (code), and don't by applications and OSes from shifty A-Moral uber Geeks, even if they are smarter than you.
Mac OS/X is what UserLinux should be targeting. It is easily the closest to what I am proposing. The thing of it is, Apple gets it. They understand Joe User. From Grandma to Little Joey Jr, to the Graphics professional, OS/X is simple enough for the newbies, but powerful enough for the advanced.
Really, the only thing Linux Geeks haven't engineered for, is Nongeeks. Mainly because they like CLI, text based conf files, and the like. Users don't care about such things and really don't want to look or use them. Many Geeks don't understand this, or like the idea that Linux is "By Geeks, For Geeks" and don't want Joe sixpack anywhere near it. This is going to change.
At the core of UserLinux is a not-for-profit entity in charge of the Linux distribution, with engineering-by-meritocracy as in the Linux kernel.
Standards should be engineered, and software built to those standards and according to standards in programming. The distribution should be based upon OPEN standards, where they exist. IE, Word processing documents should conform to a OPEN standard. RTF, XML it doesn't matter.
Then the software should be EVALUATED to conform to USABILITY. You can engineer all sorts of standards and code to standards and provide a product that "Works" correctly in every way, but is IMPOSSIBLE for the average user to use. VI anyone, how about EMACS?
Then there is standardizations on one spec over another. KDE vs Gnome is another example. BOTH provide similar tools to the end user. Pick one, I don't care which, and neither does the average user. They don't care about QT vs GTK flame wars.
The problem is that Bruce Parens has the right idea, except he is too much of a GEEK and Zealot, and can't see the forrest for the trees. The world doesn't need another Debian clone. It needs a STANDARDIZED formula for Desktop Linux, where the choices have been made.
It boasts over 1000 developers all over the world, and 12884 Free Software packages in the official version of their system.
This is where Bruce loses it for me. NO USER needs 12884 applications. How many of those are Word Processing. Pick one, and GO. Take the best, forget the rest. KDE and GNOME are both good. But the desktop only needs ONE.
How many of those applications can run on 2.2? 2.4? 2.6? How many require KDE or Gnome? Howmany are CLI and how many are GUI. How many are "usable" by the average user?
The issue isn't how many, it is making the whole thing EASY to use. If it aint Easy, it won't be used.
KISS and Occam's Razor. 12884 is NOT using either of these principles.
Simple is better than complex. The parent post makes this point about 5 different ways, but not quite getting to the point.
Simplify Everything. Don't make it DUMB, just simple. I will give an example of simple not dumb.
DHCP. It takes a complicated job, IP / DNS / WINS / Gateway/..... and makes it simple to use. However it is intellegent, setting up the right parameters correctly, and CONSISTANTLY.
In the words of my dad, "Pick a lane and go!"
* KDE or Gnome Pick one * commandlines are for geeks, not users * Consistant AND Easy Versioning * Pick the best in class client/app * User Manuals in the style of "Dummies series" * Want to do THIS, use THAT app. * commandlines are for geeks, not users.
If LuserLinux is going to be sucessful, the GEEKS and Zealots have got to get out of the way. So what if RMS wants to call everything GNU/linux. Users don't care about such stuff. So what if Perens wants to compile his own kernel. Users don't care. The point is, USERS don't WANT to care about such things. And it doesn't matter to them what RMS, BP or whoever thinks. (and don't get me started on Emacs vs Vim, neither one are usable by users).
Users want easy to use, unbreakable, solid applications that get stuff done. Use simple defaults; default the best options MOST people need, and then hide them.
Put stuff in the background that the average user doesn't need or want to see. Translate things from GEEKSPEAK to Natural Language. "Automate tasks" instead of "Cron Job".
Providing something simple to use, yet powerful takes intellegence. Simple doesn't mean Dumbing down.
Re:Forced password changes
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
Plus, people might not be able to keep coming up with unique passwords once a month.
Fakepassword01 (Jan) Fakepassword02 (Feb)....
Fakepassword11 (Nov) Fakepassword12 (Dec)
Each PW is unique, passes Caps / NonCaps / Numeral / character count requirement. This also has the added benifit of actually have 12 passwords before repeating.
Once someone figures out the trick, it becomes trivial to implement and often spreads.
It is OpenSource, and very easy to use. It has WYSIWYG for those that don't know how to cut/paste. I suggest anyone looking at a CMS to take a look. It isn't perfect, but none really are.
Personally, I think that Opus is coming back to remind us of penguins before Tux. Opus thought that he was the "be all" and "End all" of penguin mascots. That all changed right after Opus Retired.
At that point in time, hardly anyone knew who Tux was, let alone that he was a Penguin. Fast forward 7 years or so, and all of a sudden (HA) Tux is the penguin mascot of the day.
Opus realizing that Tux has overtaken him has "America's favorite penguin", and now seeks to be reinstated.
Which leads us to the grudge match of the century. Geeks everywhere are going to have to pick their favorite penguin in the next Slashpoll.
Spam is profitable at such a low rate of response that it will NEVER disappear, even if it pisses 99.98% of the people. It is the stupid.02% of the people who make spam work.
Spam will NOT be profitable if it generates NOISE. In order for Spam to work, it must leave behind a point of contact of some sort. If we collectively fill that point of contact with JUNK responses, spam will disappear because it cost MORE to the spammers than it is worth. Imagine a spammer having to sort through millions of fake responses to find the one that is legit?
I doubt that in 2-3 years SCO will even exist as it does today. By then they will have won or lost the suit.
If they lose, then they will declare themselves bankrupt and be pieced out anyway. They won't go Chapter 11 reorg, because they have nothing to reorg even at this point, and no hope of an income model that works.
If they win, which of course is doubtful, they will may or may not have recourse, especially if the code is replaced or removed. So they would be in a similar position as if they had lost.
To me, this is increasingly sounding like SCO desperately seeking a buyer. While I know that the/. crowd has often raised this flag especially in the early stages, but when it was clear that IBM wasn't biting the bait (drinking the koolaid) the tactic seemed to shift.
Now with the attack on BSD, I think they are trying to get APPLE to bite. I doubt very much that Apple will bite, because Apple knows apples and this one is poisoned.
No company in their right mind is going to purchase SCO at this point. McBride and Co, have tainted with so much vile crap that it will be impossible for SCO to ever come out smelling like a rose. (enough cheezy oneliners yet?)
Anyway, the BSD attack is directed at Apple, and Apple should understand this.
This just came to me. What if Xbox is only a prelude to DRM based computing? What if the next Windows only accepts Signed Code, and will only run on DRM HW?
This is exactly right. How can a company be profitable by paying people to not use one competitor, but rather use another, unless the dominant market leader is controlling the puppet strings?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the traffic Jams are caused by it?
"Damn, Slashdot posted another article." Scrreeech
I am going to guess that the warflying numbers are not including these new ones. Perhaps a regular survey by Warflying is needed.
I am thinking quarterly would be often enough to be useful.
Mary McDonnell's charactor was AWEsome. When informed of that "situation" of leaving people behind, I thought for sure that she would "Left Wing my heart bleeds for the little ones, lets die trying to rescue everyone" cop out and then pull it off. The fact that she was strong yet weak at that moment was worth every extra commercial alone.
It was supprising that such strength and such weakness can happen at the same time to the same person. Tremendous.
The worst problem with her charactor is that she is dying and probably going to last only as long in any series, as a transition to a crapier president is made.
Is being secure the same as security? Let us take a look and see. Starting out let us compare raw numbers.
Building A has one broken window, that is kind of small and can only be breached if you can get passed the outer gate (with its own security), and have the right (specialized) equipment.
Building B has many broken windows, and windows breaks as fast as they fix them. Many of the broken windows can be breached from down the street. The latest broken window could allow anyone to imitate building C, and only when you have entered the building do you realize that you have been duped into entering Goat's house of cx.
Which building is more secure?
The issue is that security is offered in LEVELS. No place is 100% secure, however some places offer much higher levels of security, providing a safer place to be.
So which building is more secure?
click me
Isn't that a better redirect?
and I was going for "Troll" or "Funny" not "Insightful". Oh well.
from Battlestar Gallactica.
The best security is good old fashioned non-networked computers. Wireless is bad. Know the source (code), and don't by applications and OSes from shifty A-Moral uber Geeks, even if they are smarter than you.
"The war is over, we lost"
Macs had networking standard on the Mac Plus and above. Only two models preceeded the Mac Plus, the Mac 128 and the upgraded Mac 512.
Pc's STILL don't have networking standard, you still (too) often have to order a NIC.
[blockquote]Or else we'd still be boogying to disco, wearing tie dyed shirts, and listening to Zeppelin.[/blockquote]
You mean, we're not supposed to?
What is really scary, is that I was going to post that line.
For those wondering, it was a line from Robocop.
Mac OS/X is what UserLinux should be targeting. It is easily the closest to what I am proposing. The thing of it is, Apple gets it. They understand Joe User. From Grandma to Little Joey Jr, to the Graphics professional, OS/X is simple enough for the newbies, but powerful enough for the advanced.
Really, the only thing Linux Geeks haven't engineered for, is Nongeeks. Mainly because they like CLI, text based conf files, and the like. Users don't care about such things and really don't want to look or use them. Many Geeks don't understand this, or like the idea that Linux is "By Geeks, For Geeks" and don't want Joe sixpack anywhere near it. This is going to change.
Standards should be engineered, and software built to those standards and according to standards in programming. The distribution should be based upon OPEN standards, where they exist. IE, Word processing documents should conform to a OPEN standard. RTF, XML it doesn't matter.
Then the software should be EVALUATED to conform to USABILITY. You can engineer all sorts of standards and code to standards and provide a product that "Works" correctly in every way, but is IMPOSSIBLE for the average user to use. VI anyone, how about EMACS?
Then there is standardizations on one spec over another. KDE vs Gnome is another example. BOTH provide similar tools to the end user. Pick one, I don't care which, and neither does the average user. They don't care about QT vs GTK flame wars.
The problem is that Bruce Parens has the right idea, except he is too much of a GEEK and Zealot, and can't see the forrest for the trees. The world doesn't need another Debian clone. It needs a STANDARDIZED formula for Desktop Linux, where the choices have been made.
This is where Bruce loses it for me. NO USER needs 12884 applications. How many of those are Word Processing. Pick one, and GO. Take the best, forget the rest. KDE and GNOME are both good. But the desktop only needs ONE.
How many of those applications can run on 2.2? 2.4? 2.6? How many require KDE or Gnome? Howmany are CLI and how many are GUI. How many are "usable" by the average user?
The issue isn't how many, it is making the whole thing EASY to use. If it aint Easy, it won't be used.
KISS and Occam's Razor. 12884 is NOT using either of these principles.
Occam's Razor. Kiss (keep it simple stupid)
/..... and makes it simple to use. However it is intellegent, setting up the right parameters correctly, and CONSISTANTLY.
Simple is better than complex. The parent post makes this point about 5 different ways, but not quite getting to the point.
Simplify Everything. Don't make it DUMB, just simple. I will give an example of simple not dumb.
DHCP. It takes a complicated job, IP / DNS / WINS / Gateway
In the words of my dad, "Pick a lane and go!"
* KDE or Gnome Pick one
* commandlines are for geeks, not users
* Consistant AND Easy Versioning
* Pick the best in class client/app
* User Manuals in the style of "Dummies series"
* Want to do THIS, use THAT app.
* commandlines are for geeks, not users.
If LuserLinux is going to be sucessful, the GEEKS and Zealots have got to get out of the way. So what if RMS wants to call everything GNU/linux. Users don't care about such stuff. So what if Perens wants to compile his own kernel. Users don't care. The point is, USERS don't WANT to care about such things. And it doesn't matter to them what RMS, BP or whoever thinks. (and don't get me started on Emacs vs Vim, neither one are usable by users).
Users want easy to use, unbreakable, solid applications that get stuff done. Use simple defaults; default the best options MOST people need, and then hide them.
Put stuff in the background that the average user doesn't need or want to see. Translate things from GEEKSPEAK to Natural Language. "Automate tasks" instead of "Cron Job".
Providing something simple to use, yet powerful takes intellegence. Simple doesn't mean Dumbing down.
Fakepassword01 (Jan)
Fakepassword02 (Feb)
Fakepassword11 (Nov)
Fakepassword12 (Dec)
Each PW is unique, passes Caps / NonCaps / Numeral / character count requirement. This also has the added benifit of actually have 12 passwords before repeating.
Once someone figures out the trick, it becomes trivial to implement and often spreads.
Lord Locutus
Darth Suyu
Perhaps?
I use WebGUI from PlainBlack Software. It uses Perl/MySQL/Apache.
It is OpenSource, and very easy to use. It has WYSIWYG for those that don't know how to cut/paste. I suggest anyone looking at a CMS to take a look. It isn't perfect, but none really are.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
Personally, I think that Opus is coming back to remind us of penguins before Tux. Opus thought that he was the "be all" and "End all" of penguin mascots. That all changed right after Opus Retired.
At that point in time, hardly anyone knew who Tux was, let alone that he was a Penguin. Fast forward 7 years or so, and all of a sudden (HA) Tux is the penguin mascot of the day.
Opus realizing that Tux has overtaken him has "America's favorite penguin", and now seeks to be reinstated.
Which leads us to the grudge match of the century. Geeks everywhere are going to have to pick their favorite penguin in the next Slashpoll.
Opus vs Tux in "Mascot wars"
Spam is profitable at such a low rate of response that it will NEVER disappear, even if it pisses 99.98% of the people. It is the stupid .02% of the people who make spam work.
Spam will NOT be profitable if it generates NOISE. In order for Spam to work, it must leave behind a point of contact of some sort. If we collectively fill that point of contact with JUNK responses, spam will disappear because it cost MORE to the spammers than it is worth. Imagine a spammer having to sort through millions of fake responses to find the one that is legit?
That is how spam will be defeated.
Number 7 is almost correct. It needs to be prefaced with the term DARK.
I doubt that in 2-3 years SCO will even exist as it does today. By then they will have won or lost the suit.
If they lose, then they will declare themselves bankrupt and be pieced out anyway. They won't go Chapter 11 reorg, because they have nothing to reorg even at this point, and no hope of an income model that works.
If they win, which of course is doubtful, they will may or may not have recourse, especially if the code is replaced or removed. So they would be in a similar position as if they had lost.
To me, this is increasingly sounding like SCO desperately seeking a buyer. While I know that the /. crowd has often raised this flag especially in the early stages, but when it was clear that IBM wasn't biting the bait (drinking the koolaid) the tactic seemed to shift.
Now with the attack on BSD, I think they are trying to get APPLE to bite. I doubt very much that Apple will bite, because Apple knows apples and this one is poisoned.
No company in their right mind is going to purchase SCO at this point. McBride and Co, have tainted with so much vile crap that it will be impossible for SCO to ever come out smelling like a rose. (enough cheezy oneliners yet?)
Anyway, the BSD attack is directed at Apple, and Apple should understand this.
What I meant, was that XBOX is the Trial Balloon for Trusted Computing, to work out the bugs, so to speak.
I can see it now, you get get your next PC for $0 and HAVE TO buy all your software from M$.
OMG!!!
This just came to me. What if Xbox is only a prelude to DRM based computing? What if the next Windows only accepts Signed Code, and will only run on DRM HW?
Talk about Monopolies!
This is exactly right. How can a company be profitable by paying people to not use one competitor, but rather use another, unless the dominant market leader is controlling the puppet strings?