I just want some of Apple's innovations without the drawbacks.
Yeah, you just admitted Apple innovates. That immediately disqualifies you as an Apple hater. You then followed it up with a reasonable, coherent statement. That disqualifies you from Slashdot.
Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below
Dude, that's not all they're basing it on. There's been *multiple* resignations in the organization. If this were an isolated incident with a single individual, I might believe you, but it's clear there's far more to it than this.
So you're saying they're lying and that the quotes from people who've resigned are false.
Well, fortunately, this is the web, I'm sure they and others will come out to counter these claims.
Right?
I mean, it couldn't be that the beloved wikileaks really is rotting from the inside out thanks to a paranoid, egomaniacal who believes he can run the project with an iron fist...
People love apple and it's fabuously high quality ineffebly well designed products.
What are you, new here? Haven't you heard? People love Apple because they're "fashionable". And they're, like, brainwashed fanbois, who are mindlessly drawn to the Apple store thanks to Steve Jobs' mind control techniques.
Well-designed products... honestly, what are you, some kind of "consumer choice", "people pick what they want", "the best product wins" capitalist pig or something?
Err... no, capitalism is good, that can't be right.
When all of these "fashionable" people turn against apple
Wow, cool, I've never, in my life, been called "fashionable" before... pragmatic, sure. Focused on actually Getting Things Done, as opposed to fiddling around with inferior solutions, yes. Matured past the need to paint entire groups of people with the same brush in order to make myself feel superior, yes.
But the "moderate" position is to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely
Dear god, what makes you think *that* is a "moderate" position?? Talk about a distorted worldview. Here are a couple polls that cover the topic. As of September 2010, 2/3rds of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. The same number feel the war wasn't worth it. I suppose your claim is that the majority of Americans aren't moderates, then?
It is clear that the $1B is referring to the money users paid for the apps
No, it is clear that you fail at reading and math. Let's go over this really slowly:
"Apple has paid $1 billion to developers."
How this is even controversial, I don't know, but let's reiterate: Apple has paid one billion dollars to developers. Developers have been paid one billion dollars. That's it. Full stop.
But let's continue:
"Seventy percent of app sales goes to developers"
So of the gross sales, developers get 70%. Okay, now I'm going to do a little math. Try not to get lost, here, this is tricky!
M = Money paid to developers T = Total sales P = Percentage paid to developers
Hopefully I haven't lost you yet, 'cuz it's just gonna get harder from here...
M = T * P 1 000 000 = T * 0.7
0.7 is 70% expressed as a decimal value. Just wanted to point that out, I don't want you to get confused. Okay, moving on:
T = 1 000 000 / 0.7 T = 1 428 571
So what does this mean? It means *Apple's* total sales were about 1.4 billion. They then paid developers one billion, or seventy percent of that amount.
If I lost you, please, try reading this again. Slowly. I know you have trouble reading through your blind Apple-hate, as evidenced by your inability to comprehend the basic english in the cited article, but you really need to try, here. It's not that hard, really!
I don't see Android's market share plateauing until it is many times that of iOS.
ROFL, because... why? Symbian is hands down the current market leader, and BBOS is no slouch either. Meanwhile, Nokia will be rolling out their next major Symbian rev soon, *and* MeeGo, which means the market's gonna get even more competitive. There's absolutely *no* reason to believe Android will somehow dominate the market, save for mere Google fanboism.
Personally, I look at the way the carriers have fucked Android sans lube, and find myself shocked people still buy the devices... outdated OS releases, loaded with crapware, locked down... the carriers are doing their damnedest to ensure Android remains incredibly mediocre to the end user, and they're succeeding wonderfully. And now we have people putting Android on tablets when Google is flat out telling them not to, which means Android's reputation is gonna get another serious kick in the nuts.
No, I think the only thing you can say about the mobile market is that we live in interesting times, and it's largely impossible to predict what the market will look like even two years from now.
Eh, it works fine for me. Enable second-level domain scripts, and explicitly allow a few others (disqus, Google (a lot of people use their copies of jquery, etc), and a few others), and it works pretty well for the most part. Yeah, you occasionally come across a site that you have to "temporarily allow" a bunch of stuff to get it working, but those are the exception, IME.
The GPL is an anathema to Microsoft precisely because if they modify the source code, they must contribute changes back
A common misreading of the GPL, certainly, but a misreading nonetheless.
The stock GPL requires that you provide source code to anyone who possess binaries you've produced. Obviously this doesn't apply to web applications, which is why the AGPL exists.
Nooooo... that's not the same thing at all. That comic covers the entire life cycle of science reporting, from initial discovery, through to broadcast on the nightly news. This article, OTOH, is parody of a single stage in that cycle (the breathless science article).
So people send a URL to a shortening service and receive a shortened URL they can post/send to me, and I can use a GreaseMonkey script that contacts the service and caches results to decode that shortened URL into the original URL they shortened... I understand we're not in the days of memory being measured in KB or 9600 baud modems, but this is retarded.
Umm, no, it's not.
Let's see, Twitter limits the length of the message you can send.
URL shortening services decrease the length of URLs.
Do I need to put two and two together for you?
Re:Shallow Learning Curve
on
Autotools
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Oh, for the love of jesus, not this again...
Yes, "learning curve" is a colloquialism that is not, literally, logically consistent. Move on already. Seriously.
Re:Autotools do not need a book
on
Autotools
·
· Score: 1
I don't know if this is instrinsic to newer build schemes or not, but my recent experience has been that "old-style" (autotools-based) packages work just fine, they interoperate well with stow, accept the "--prefix" argument to configure, and work just fine for the clients.
Not true. No true at all.
I used stow for many many years. And it's true, a lot of packages just worked. You'd do a "configure --prefix/run/time/target", then "make install prefix=/install/time/target", and it would work. But this is *hardly* universal. Many many apps fail due to install-time relinking, which means you have to hack libtool and the build a bit in order to get them to install. It's doable, certainly, but it's hardly automatic.
Now, I haven't had to deal with cmake-based systems recently, so it may be that they're even more broken than this. But it's never been completely trivial to build for one runtime path, while installing to another.
'course, as a user on an isolated workstation, I finally just moved away from stow, and manage my custom-built packages using checkinstall. But that's obviously no solution when you're managing applications on an NFS share.
Re:Good grief, those run-on sentences
on
Autotools
·
· Score: 1
To be fair, I wouldn't consider those run-on sentences (they are, by and large, grammatically correct, less a missing comma here or there). They're just... excessive.
Here's the thing: When you compare the public's stated positions on various issues, you generally get a cross between Kucinich and Paul.
Correct. Why? Because a cross between Kucinich and Paul is a *moderate*. Those guys are extreme specifically because of the *full spectrum* of ideas they hold, not because of any one particular idea.
The "whackjob" personas are figments of the same frat boy mentality that dominates politics, the media, and most of the rest of society.
No, they're not. Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich hold beliefs that are *far* out of step with average American politics. The former is the craziest kind of libertarian whacko, and the latter is practically a communist when compared with his contemporaries in the US (and I'm Canadian, I know my communists). Are they both intelligent, interesting people with good ideas? Absolutely. But relative to their compatriots in American politics, they're fucking nuts.
We could use more principled whackjobs in politics.
No, you just need people with principles. You don't have to be on the extremes of the political spectrum to object to the dangerous precedents set by this and the previous administration.
Unfortunately, like business, politics rewards the power-seeking sociopath.
Rather than voting for principled politicians like Kucinich or Ron Paul
The problem is, relative to the average American, both of those guys are principled *whackjobs*. Yes, they stand for a very pure, clear set of ideals, but they're far too radical for most.
The real problem is that, in a representative democracy, ultimately, you have to be able to trust the guy you voted in to do the right thing, as his/her entire job is to act as your representative. But without a means by which to hold said candidate accountable, there's very little reason for them to follow through on their promises once elected.
So I wonder which part of this is insightful? The cliched bitching about "hope and change", or the fact that we now know you have freckles on your ass?
I don't understand, the code hasn't been designed yet. Patch it. The problem is there aren't any security assertations built into some transactions? How hard is submitting a patch with an "if GUID_allowed() != true then gtfo()" ?
The fact that you think it's this simple to build a solid security architecture demonstrates, all too well, the kind of simplistic thinking that has already damaged this project.
What kind of security model? Fine or coarse-grained? Are actions authenticated based simply on action type, or are there permissions associated with individual objects? If you want a fine-grained system, does that mean you want roles as well (managing fine-grained access control without roles is a huge pain in the ass)? How are you going to centralize these operations so that you aren't duplicating important code everywhere? How are you going to ensure that security checks are always done when necessary?
Designing security into a product so that it's a) pervasive, b) maintainable, and c) useable is *hard*. It's not just about throwing a couple if-then-else checks in. It's an entire fucking mindset. It's absolutely an *architectural* problem, and software architecture can't be hacked in after the fact. It must be thought through right at the outset.
I don't really understand what's wrong with this blog author, this "Patrick" fellow. Diaspora is git-release of a pre-alpha. It's essentially proof-of-concept which was released so we can have a look at it and contribute.
And it contains flaws in its security architecture that are so basic, so deeply fundamental, that it's impossible to have any confidence in the development team. Security and scalability *must be architected up front*. Tacking it on after the fact is a recipe for disaster. And it's blatantly obviously that the people working on the project don't understand this.
Slashdot Mirror
I just want some of Apple's innovations without the drawbacks.
Yeah, you just admitted Apple innovates. That immediately disqualifies you as an Apple hater. You then followed it up with a reasonable, coherent statement. That disqualifies you from Slashdot.
Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below
Dude, that's not all they're basing it on. There's been *multiple* resignations in the organization. If this were an isolated incident with a single individual, I might believe you, but it's clear there's far more to it than this.
So you're saying they're lying and that the quotes from people who've resigned are false.
Well, fortunately, this is the web, I'm sure they and others will come out to counter these claims.
Right?
I mean, it couldn't be that the beloved wikileaks really is rotting from the inside out thanks to a paranoid, egomaniacal who believes he can run the project with an iron fist...
People love apple and it's fabuously high quality ineffebly well designed products.
What are you, new here? Haven't you heard? People love Apple because they're "fashionable". And they're, like, brainwashed fanbois, who are mindlessly drawn to the Apple store thanks to Steve Jobs' mind control techniques.
Well-designed products... honestly, what are you, some kind of "consumer choice", "people pick what they want", "the best product wins" capitalist pig or something?
Err... no, capitalism is good, that can't be right.
Now I'm confused. Confused and hungry.
When all of these "fashionable" people turn against apple
Wow, cool, I've never, in my life, been called "fashionable" before... pragmatic, sure. Focused on actually Getting Things Done, as opposed to fiddling around with inferior solutions, yes. Matured past the need to paint entire groups of people with the same brush in order to make myself feel superior, yes.
But never fashionable.
It just takes a pickup truck, a crow bar, some chains and a couple of guys willing to take a risk.
I can only assume you've never weighed gold before. Good luck moving one of these things with anything but a forklift.
But the "moderate" position is to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely
Dear god, what makes you think *that* is a "moderate" position?? Talk about a distorted worldview. Here are a couple polls that cover the topic. As of September 2010, 2/3rds of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. The same number feel the war wasn't worth it. I suppose your claim is that the majority of Americans aren't moderates, then?
It is clear that the $1B is referring to the money users paid for the apps
No, it is clear that you fail at reading and math. Let's go over this really slowly:
"Apple has paid $1 billion to developers."
How this is even controversial, I don't know, but let's reiterate: Apple has paid one billion dollars to developers. Developers have been paid one billion dollars. That's it. Full stop.
But let's continue:
"Seventy percent of app sales goes to developers"
So of the gross sales, developers get 70%. Okay, now I'm going to do a little math. Try not to get lost, here, this is tricky!
M = Money paid to developers
T = Total sales
P = Percentage paid to developers
Hopefully I haven't lost you yet, 'cuz it's just gonna get harder from here...
M = T * P
1 000 000 = T * 0.7
0.7 is 70% expressed as a decimal value. Just wanted to point that out, I don't want you to get confused. Okay, moving on:
T = 1 000 000 / 0.7
T = 1 428 571
So what does this mean? It means *Apple's* total sales were about 1.4 billion. They then paid developers one billion, or seventy percent of that amount.
If I lost you, please, try reading this again. Slowly. I know you have trouble reading through your blind Apple-hate, as evidenced by your inability to comprehend the basic english in the cited article, but you really need to try, here. It's not that hard, really!
I don't see Android's market share plateauing until it is many times that of iOS.
ROFL, because... why? Symbian is hands down the current market leader, and BBOS is no slouch either. Meanwhile, Nokia will be rolling out their next major Symbian rev soon, *and* MeeGo, which means the market's gonna get even more competitive. There's absolutely *no* reason to believe Android will somehow dominate the market, save for mere Google fanboism.
Personally, I look at the way the carriers have fucked Android sans lube, and find myself shocked people still buy the devices... outdated OS releases, loaded with crapware, locked down... the carriers are doing their damnedest to ensure Android remains incredibly mediocre to the end user, and they're succeeding wonderfully. And now we have people putting Android on tablets when Google is flat out telling them not to, which means Android's reputation is gonna get another serious kick in the nuts.
No, I think the only thing you can say about the mobile market is that we live in interesting times, and it's largely impossible to predict what the market will look like even two years from now.
Eh, it works fine for me. Enable second-level domain scripts, and explicitly allow a few others (disqus, Google (a lot of people use their copies of jquery, etc), and a few others), and it works pretty well for the most part. Yeah, you occasionally come across a site that you have to "temporarily allow" a bunch of stuff to get it working, but those are the exception, IME.
The GPL is an anathema to Microsoft precisely because if they modify the source code, they must contribute changes back
A common misreading of the GPL, certainly, but a misreading nonetheless.
The stock GPL requires that you provide source code to anyone who possess binaries you've produced. Obviously this doesn't apply to web applications, which is why the AGPL exists.
Nooooo... that's not the same thing at all. That comic covers the entire life cycle of science reporting, from initial discovery, through to broadcast on the nightly news. This article, OTOH, is parody of a single stage in that cycle (the breathless science article).
See Twitter for what it is, and stop using it!
Broadcast IM.
So why should people stop using it?
So people send a URL to a shortening service and receive a shortened URL they can post/send to me, and I can use a GreaseMonkey script that contacts the service and caches results to decode that shortened URL into the original URL they shortened... I understand we're not in the days of memory being measured in KB or 9600 baud modems, but this is retarded.
Umm, no, it's not.
Let's see, Twitter limits the length of the message you can send.
URL shortening services decrease the length of URLs.
Do I need to put two and two together for you?
Oh, for the love of jesus, not this again...
Yes, "learning curve" is a colloquialism that is not, literally, logically consistent. Move on already. Seriously.
I don't know if this is instrinsic to newer build schemes or not, but my recent experience has been that "old-style" (autotools-based) packages work just fine, they interoperate well with stow, accept the "--prefix" argument to configure, and work just fine for the clients.
Not true. No true at all.
I used stow for many many years. And it's true, a lot of packages just worked. You'd do a "configure --prefix /run/time/target", then "make install prefix=/install/time/target", and it would work. But this is *hardly* universal. Many many apps fail due to install-time relinking, which means you have to hack libtool and the build a bit in order to get them to install. It's doable, certainly, but it's hardly automatic.
Now, I haven't had to deal with cmake-based systems recently, so it may be that they're even more broken than this. But it's never been completely trivial to build for one runtime path, while installing to another.
'course, as a user on an isolated workstation, I finally just moved away from stow, and manage my custom-built packages using checkinstall. But that's obviously no solution when you're managing applications on an NFS share.
To be fair, I wouldn't consider those run-on sentences (they are, by and large, grammatically correct, less a missing comma here or there). They're just... excessive.
Here's the thing: When you compare the public's stated positions on various issues, you generally get a cross between Kucinich and Paul.
Correct. Why? Because a cross between Kucinich and Paul is a *moderate*. Those guys are extreme specifically because of the *full spectrum* of ideas they hold, not because of any one particular idea.
The "whackjob" personas are figments of the same frat boy mentality that dominates politics, the media, and most of the rest of society.
No, they're not. Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich hold beliefs that are *far* out of step with average American politics. The former is the craziest kind of libertarian whacko, and the latter is practically a communist when compared with his contemporaries in the US (and I'm Canadian, I know my communists). Are they both intelligent, interesting people with good ideas? Absolutely. But relative to their compatriots in American politics, they're fucking nuts.
We could use more principled whackjobs in politics.
No, you just need people with principles. You don't have to be on the extremes of the political spectrum to object to the dangerous precedents set by this and the previous administration.
Unfortunately, like business, politics rewards the power-seeking sociopath.
Rather than voting for principled politicians like Kucinich or Ron Paul
The problem is, relative to the average American, both of those guys are principled *whackjobs*. Yes, they stand for a very pure, clear set of ideals, but they're far too radical for most.
The real problem is that, in a representative democracy, ultimately, you have to be able to trust the guy you voted in to do the right thing, as his/her entire job is to act as your representative. But without a means by which to hold said candidate accountable, there's very little reason for them to follow through on their promises once elected.
So I wonder which part of this is insightful? The cliched bitching about "hope and change", or the fact that we now know you have freckles on your ass?
Ahh shit, I can't believe I missed the opportunity to break out that reference... *sigh* I am shamed.
Plus, you really can't underestimate the ability of people to ignore things that don't immediately concern them.
I don't understand, the code hasn't been designed yet. Patch it. The problem is there aren't any security assertations built into some transactions? How hard is submitting a patch with an "if GUID_allowed() != true then gtfo()" ?
The fact that you think it's this simple to build a solid security architecture demonstrates, all too well, the kind of simplistic thinking that has already damaged this project.
What kind of security model? Fine or coarse-grained? Are actions authenticated based simply on action type, or are there permissions associated with individual objects? If you want a fine-grained system, does that mean you want roles as well (managing fine-grained access control without roles is a huge pain in the ass)? How are you going to centralize these operations so that you aren't duplicating important code everywhere? How are you going to ensure that security checks are always done when necessary?
Designing security into a product so that it's a) pervasive, b) maintainable, and c) useable is *hard*. It's not just about throwing a couple if-then-else checks in. It's an entire fucking mindset. It's absolutely an *architectural* problem, and software architecture can't be hacked in after the fact. It must be thought through right at the outset.
I don't really understand what's wrong with this blog author, this "Patrick" fellow. Diaspora is git-release of a pre-alpha. It's essentially proof-of-concept which was released so we can have a look at it and contribute.
And it contains flaws in its security architecture that are so basic, so deeply fundamental, that it's impossible to have any confidence in the development team. Security and scalability *must be architected up front*. Tacking it on after the fact is a recipe for disaster. And it's blatantly obviously that the people working on the project don't understand this.