You are so intent on being right that you can't see the plain truth in front of you.
That's just meaningless and confrontational.
It's not that a GUI can't have a checkbox, it's that unless it does, the feature is not available.
I don't know how you can believe that a feature of a GUI is any different than a feature of a CLI. If a command line doesn't have a way to run a program repeatedly, then the command line can't do it either, right? Do you really think there's a difference between adding a checkbox to a GUI and adding a command line switch or job control functions to a shell?
What all these share, however, is that the GUI tools allow access to a certain set of operations, and the CLI scripting language allows access to a certain set of operations, and one is a proper subset of the other.
You still haven't pointed out any operations that are only possible with a CLI. You pointed out something that most GUI's don't do, but that doesn't mean no GUI could.
You also seem to forget about the world of Windows, where it is far easier to use the graphical tools than the terrible command line provided. In windows, the set of CLI operations is very much a subset of GUI operations.
It's true, but it's like saying it's easier to drive a car than fly a helicopter. Dumb analogy. A helicopter is fundamentally different than a car. A helicopter flies. There is no similar fundamental difference with GUI vs. CLI. There's no reason a GUI can't do everything the CLI can.
With a GUI, you can only do what the GUI-writer allows. With a command line, you're free to do what you want. With a command line, you can only do what the command-line app writers allow you to do.
GUI is fine for apps. For admin work, give me a CLI any day. The graphical admin tools suck for linux, but that's why they need to be improved. It's not an excuse to continue touting the command line as the only interface for Real Admins.
ID management is a problem computer science students like to work on, hence it works well in linux. Actually making an operating system that people find useful and usable is an uninteresting and difficult problem, hence little work is done in that direction.
Moding a comment down because you disagree is double plus ungood.
Thank you for responding more reasonably than the OMG USE GOOGLE respondants i'm used to. I still think that you're essentialy saying the same thing as them though.
The point of an article is to show the readers something new. It's to help them, to teach them something, often on slashdot it's to show new ways of doing things. This article does none of these. It provides a few links, but little that google and wikipedia could not do.
In your response you mention a GUI, alluding to a GUI vs. console debate. An excellent analogy, I think i'll use it in my riposte:
GUI's are easier to use. This is just true. I'm sure someone can point out a bad GUI and a good text interface, but a good GUI can almost always beat out a good text interface. I know this is hard for slashdot users to accept, because we feel the need to occult our trade behind the command line which is so impenetrable to "users". Anyone who uses a GUI must not know how to use a command line, and obviously does not know anything. The same way C++ users don't know assembly, and obviously can't program anything. This sort of thinking is nothing but counter-productive elitism.
Getting back to the subject at hand, this article is very much like the command line. It's difficult, unhelpful, and hard to use. It taught me nothing about LDAP. I suggested that an article more like a GUI (metaphoricaly) would be better, and you seem to disagree with me, on the grounds that a GUI provides too much hand-holding. Exactly right, I want an article that is informative and easy to use. Do you really think that is a bad thing?
I read the link. It sounded like a good introduction to an interesting article. Then it abruptly stopped. Where, if I may ask, is the actual article describing how one might use LDAP effectively for user management?
Now I know somebody is going to say ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO USE GOOGLE!! No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that the article could have been much better, had they simply put actual information in instead of simply writing an introduction to the history of LDAP. As it stands, the article is exceedingly pointless.
I assume you meant that as some sort of affront, but Yes! I would be more comfortable reading CNN or Yahoo News, because they have stories that are better written! They have writers who can give background to stories, and know how much to background they need to fit their audience.
I know it's easy to claim you know everything already and don't need any context for anything you read, but that's just bad journalism.
I knew this straw man argument was coming from the second I posted.
Some things need to be explained, some things don't. Of course that is a matter of judgement. I never said "EXPLAIN EVERY ACRONYM OR NAME". Much fewer people are going to need C or RSA explained than "Acid2", some test that has been mentioned on slashdot maybe twice. This is obvious.
The point of slashdot is to be readable. I found this article to be unreadable and incomprehensible. If you think otherwise, fine. If you just want to make straw man arguments all day, go away.
What the hell is Acid2? What does it have to do with Safari/Konqueror? What patches? Apple's Webcore? What's that?
This is where editors are supposed to come in. There's no point in posting a story to the front page that only the 10 people who use konqueror are going to understand.
This is the only reason NASA would contemplate keeping hubble alive: to appease citizens who want to see pretty pictures.
You can point at the pictures all you want, but the HST is still broken and outdated. Some great research has come out of it yes, but that doesn't mean that it's worth the cost of fixing. Some great research has come out of ground based telescopes too, but they're not as glamorous and don't put out as many pretty pictures for the public to ooh and ahh at. The ground based telescopes is where great research is coming from now, ask an astronomer. They put far less import on saving hubble than the general populace, and they're the ones who actually use it. Hubble is just a public-relations device anymore.
it has nothing especially French, except its nationality and location
Does anyone else find this statement a bit odd?
What other requirements could you want? Are you suggesting that only organizations sanctioned by the government of Frace (Can I say French Government? Can they sanction themselves?) deserve the adjective "French"?
LOFAR needs its own supercomputer because it aims to detect radio wavelengths of up to 30 metres. Such long-wave radio images are blurry, and the only way to make them sharper is to build a vast array of detectors spread over hundreds of kilometres.
Now we have to wait to see if the happy couple of Lofar and Stella can produce images as beautiful as Hubble gave us during the last decade.
This guy doesn't have a clue. The point of the telescope is not to produce "images". It's to produce graphs. Maybe charts, depending on what they're doing. They have as much of a chance of getting images out of this thing as you do at home with an AM radio.
WTF is this "radio picture" he keeps talking about?
What they (the RIAA) did was gain illicit access to a network that they (the RIAA) were not authorized to use in order to monitor for activity that they (the RIAA) believed to be infringing on copyright.
You made this up. Completely. What tells you that the RIAA "illicitly" gained access to Internet2?
What does the Fine Article say? The RIAA declined to explain how it could detect piracy over Internet2 except to say it acted lawfully.
You can jump to all the conclusions you want, but you're just bullshitting when you don't have any evidence, and can't even read the article.
I believe the grandparent's post was that since America got fuzzier, and America is part of The World, then the world also got a bit fuzzier too, since the world is nothing but the sum of (a bunch of things smaller than the world). If a part of a wall is a little bit on fire, the room is a little bit on fire too, since room is comprised of the walls, floor, ceiling, etc.
Saying the US is the best country in the world is nationalism.
"having pride and love for your country" is patriotism.
Patriotism is pride, but nationalism is just arrogance.
Amazing what our society has produced, where if one admits that the US may not be the best country, that it has flaws, and is not superior to all other countries, one is branded as unpatriotic.
On a more related note: above all, I think our schools and society needs to get away from teaching these rediculous absolutes. America is The Best. Edison invented The Lightbulb. Freedom Is Right. Bad People are Bad.
teh ponite es tat fi u wnate 2 talcker aboot sumethin, eu meyeght wahnt to acteuale canvey waht u gotz 2 sey affectevely.
It's like brushing your teeth, standing up with decent posture, wearing clean clothes, i.g... You can say it's big bad academics who are at fault for not listening to every malpropism-ridden sentence anyone has to say, but if you present yourself like an uneducated bum, you're going to be treated like one.
You can appeal to Chaucer all you want, but you negate the effect with your very own statement that language changes. We have dictionaries, and relatively standardized spelling now, much unlike the 15th century. Do you propose we recind the Great Vowel Shift just because it occured after Chaucer?
"I know several phrases in Latin" is a strawman argument. Nobody's saying knowing Latin is the greatest thing in the world. More important is the statement "I can communicate effectively," which is the entire point of language. In some circles it's necessary to know the (correct) Latin to communicate with other people. If this isn't your circle, then nobody's forcing you to learn the Latin, but you can't claim knowing the correct Latin is universally irrelevant or a "sign of hubris".[1]
Final point: yes, language changes. But the ultimate definition of what a word means comes from what others will understand it to mean. If I said "o.k." when I meant "No," then I would clearly be in the wrong. You can argue that "ok" is starting to be understood as "no" by some people, but the question of whether it's "right" or "wrong" lies ultimately with how people will interpret it. That's why (good) dictionaries have usage panels.[2]
Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed in the classical sense. It is not a replacement for peer-reviewed research. It is not a replacement for primary sources or anything else. It is a replacement for the encyclopedia. Do you trust encyclopaedia britanica as much as academic journals? I hope not.
If you're conducting serious research, you are definitly not going to be using an encyclopaedia beyond the first 5 minutes. Wikipedia won't change that. It's good if you just want a quick overview of a subject or a what books an author wrote or something, but it's not a replacement for actual research.
Slashdot Mirror
What? You think this will hurt Microsoft? Both of the examples you give are great examples of this sort of stuff working perfectly for MS.
OpenGL, and hence easily-portable games, are fucked.
You are so intent on being right that you can't see the plain truth in front of you.
That's just meaningless and confrontational.
It's not that a GUI can't have a checkbox, it's that unless it does, the feature is not available.
I don't know how you can believe that a feature of a GUI is any different than a feature of a CLI. If a command line doesn't have a way to run a program repeatedly, then the command line can't do it either, right? Do you really think there's a difference between adding a checkbox to a GUI and adding a command line switch or job control functions to a shell?
What all these share, however, is that the GUI tools allow access to a certain set of operations, and the CLI scripting language allows access to a certain set of operations, and one is a proper subset of the other.
You still haven't pointed out any operations that are only possible with a CLI. You pointed out something that most GUI's don't do, but that doesn't mean no GUI could.
You also seem to forget about the world of Windows, where it is far easier to use the graphical tools than the terrible command line provided. In windows, the set of CLI operations is very much a subset of GUI operations.
What prevents a GUI from having just such a checkbox?
What prevents a GUI from having a scripting language?
Just because most of the GUI's you're familiar with don't have such features, doesn't mean that no GUI can have them.
It's true, but it's like saying it's easier to drive a car than fly a helicopter.
Dumb analogy. A helicopter is fundamentally different than a car. A helicopter flies. There is no similar fundamental difference with GUI vs. CLI. There's no reason a GUI can't do everything the CLI can.
With a GUI, you can only do what the GUI-writer allows. With a command line, you're free to do what you want.
With a command line, you can only do what the command-line app writers allow you to do.
GUI is fine for apps. For admin work, give me a CLI any day.
The graphical admin tools suck for linux, but that's why they need to be improved. It's not an excuse to continue touting the command line as the only interface for Real Admins.
Once again, the same elitist bullshit.
Hear, hear!
ID management is a problem computer science students like to work on, hence it works well in linux. Actually making an operating system that people find useful and usable is an uninteresting and difficult problem, hence little work is done in that direction.
Moding a comment down because you disagree is double plus ungood.
Thank you for responding more reasonably than the OMG USE GOOGLE respondants i'm used to. I still think that you're essentialy saying the same thing as them though.
The point of an article is to show the readers something new. It's to help them, to teach them something, often on slashdot it's to show new ways of doing things. This article does none of these. It provides a few links, but little that google and wikipedia could not do.
In your response you mention a GUI, alluding to a GUI vs. console debate. An excellent analogy, I think i'll use it in my riposte:
GUI's are easier to use. This is just true. I'm sure someone can point out a bad GUI and a good text interface, but a good GUI can almost always beat out a good text interface. I know this is hard for slashdot users to accept, because we feel the need to occult our trade behind the command line which is so impenetrable to "users". Anyone who uses a GUI must not know how to use a command line, and obviously does not know anything. The same way C++ users don't know assembly, and obviously can't program anything. This sort of thinking is nothing but counter-productive elitism.
Getting back to the subject at hand, this article is very much like the command line. It's difficult, unhelpful, and hard to use. It taught me nothing about LDAP. I suggested that an article more like a GUI (metaphoricaly) would be better, and you seem to disagree with me, on the grounds that a GUI provides too much hand-holding. Exactly right, I want an article that is informative and easy to use. Do you really think that is a bad thing?
I read the link. It sounded like a good introduction to an interesting article. Then it abruptly stopped. Where, if I may ask, is the actual article describing how one might use LDAP effectively for user management?
Now I know somebody is going to say ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO USE GOOGLE!! No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that the article could have been much better, had they simply put actual information in instead of simply writing an introduction to the history of LDAP. As it stands, the article is exceedingly pointless.
Did anyone else read the headline as: "Bigger brains make smarter people study, says ______"?
But that's not the issue. Nobody was refering to $1 000 000 000, nor $1 000 000 000 000. Somebody saw million and wrote billion.
I assume you meant that as some sort of affront, but Yes! I would be more comfortable reading CNN or Yahoo News, because they have stories that are better written! They have writers who can give background to stories, and know how much to background they need to fit their audience.
I know it's easy to claim you know everything already and don't need any context for anything you read, but that's just bad journalism.
I knew this straw man argument was coming from the second I posted.
Some things need to be explained, some things don't. Of course that is a matter of judgement. I never said "EXPLAIN EVERY ACRONYM OR NAME". Much fewer people are going to need C or RSA explained than "Acid2", some test that has been mentioned on slashdot maybe twice. This is obvious.
The point of slashdot is to be readable. I found this article to be unreadable and incomprehensible. If you think otherwise, fine. If you just want to make straw man arguments all day, go away.
What the hell is Acid2? What does it have to do with Safari/Konqueror? What patches? Apple's Webcore? What's that?
This is where editors are supposed to come in. There's no point in posting a story to the front page that only the 10 people who use konqueror are going to understand.
Yes. Exactly.
This is the only reason NASA would contemplate keeping hubble alive: to appease citizens who want to see pretty pictures.
You can point at the pictures all you want, but the HST is still broken and outdated. Some great research has come out of it yes, but that doesn't mean that it's worth the cost of fixing. Some great research has come out of ground based telescopes too, but they're not as glamorous and don't put out as many pretty pictures for the public to ooh and ahh at. The ground based telescopes is where great research is coming from now, ask an astronomer. They put far less import on saving hubble than the general populace, and they're the ones who actually use it. Hubble is just a public-relations device anymore.
Nortel (formerly Norther Telecom) is Canadian.
it has nothing especially French, except its nationality and location
Does anyone else find this statement a bit odd?
What other requirements could you want? Are you suggesting that only organizations sanctioned by the government of Frace (Can I say French Government? Can they sanction themselves?) deserve the adjective "French"?
LOFAR needs its own supercomputer because it aims to detect radio wavelengths of up to 30 metres. Such long-wave radio images are blurry, and the only way to make them sharper is to build a vast array of detectors spread over hundreds of kilometres.
Now we have to wait to see if the happy couple of Lofar and Stella can produce images as beautiful as Hubble gave us during the last decade.
This guy doesn't have a clue. The point of the telescope is not to produce "images". It's to produce graphs. Maybe charts, depending on what they're doing. They have as much of a chance of getting images out of this thing as you do at home with an AM radio.
WTF is this "radio picture" he keeps talking about?
-1 gross incompetence
1) Roland Piquepaille. See one of the many comments on what this guy does.
2) The blurb was written by some third grader, wasn't it?
IT radio-telescope? What is IT? Radio is an adjective, there's no need to hyphenate radio telescope.
"At this time"? Now? I thought it won't be completed until 2008?
We detect radio waves, not wavelengths.
"the Lofar images might be somewhat blurry"? Images? Since when do we get images from radio telescopes?
They're obviously not sending data at 22 terabits/sec today, since the telescope hasn't even been constructed yet.
"This" is why it needs stella? Oh, the antecedent is yet to come in the sentence.
What they (the RIAA) did was gain illicit access to a network that they (the RIAA) were not authorized to use in order to monitor for activity that they (the RIAA) believed to be infringing on copyright.
You made this up. Completely. What tells you that the RIAA "illicitly" gained access to Internet2?
What does the Fine Article say?
The RIAA declined to explain how it could detect piracy over Internet2 except to say it acted lawfully.
You can jump to all the conclusions you want, but you're just bullshitting when you don't have any evidence, and can't even read the article.
I believe the grandparent's post was that since America got fuzzier, and America is part of The World, then the world also got a bit fuzzier too, since the world is nothing but the sum of (a bunch of things smaller than the world). If a part of a wall is a little bit on fire, the room is a little bit on fire too, since room is comprised of the walls, floor, ceiling, etc.
Saying the US is the best country in the world is nationalism.
"having pride and love for your country" is patriotism.
Patriotism is pride, but nationalism is just arrogance.
Amazing what our society has produced, where if one admits that the US may not be the best country, that it has flaws, and is not superior to all other countries, one is branded as unpatriotic.
On a more related note: above all, I think our schools and society needs to get away from teaching these rediculous absolutes. America is The Best. Edison invented The Lightbulb. Freedom Is Right. Bad People are Bad.
The world is more complex than this.
teh ponite es tat fi u wnate 2 talcker aboot sumethin, eu meyeght wahnt to acteuale canvey waht u gotz 2 sey affectevely.
e s/001843.html
It's like brushing your teeth, standing up with decent posture, wearing clean clothes, i.g... You can say it's big bad academics who are at fault for not listening to every malpropism-ridden sentence anyone has to say, but if you present yourself like an uneducated bum, you're going to be treated like one.
You can appeal to Chaucer all you want, but you negate the effect with your very own statement that language changes. We have dictionaries, and relatively standardized spelling now, much unlike the 15th century. Do you propose we recind the Great Vowel Shift just because it occured after Chaucer?
"I know several phrases in Latin" is a strawman argument. Nobody's saying knowing Latin is the greatest thing in the world. More important is the statement "I can communicate effectively," which is the entire point of language. In some circles it's necessary to know the (correct) Latin to communicate with other people. If this isn't your circle, then nobody's forcing you to learn the Latin, but you can't claim knowing the correct Latin is universally irrelevant or a "sign of hubris".[1]
Final point: yes, language changes. But the ultimate definition of what a word means comes from what others will understand it to mean. If I said "o.k." when I meant "No," then I would clearly be in the wrong. You can argue that "ok" is starting to be understood as "no" by some people, but the question of whether it's "right" or "wrong" lies ultimately with how people will interpret it. That's why (good) dictionaries have usage panels.[2]
[1] Cf. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv
[2] I happen to trust what these people believe to be "right": http://www.bartleby.com/64/12.html
The copyright owners own the content, period, and get to decide how it's used, by whom, and under what conditions, whether you like it or not.
Are you suggesting that copyright owners can exclude me from fair use of their work?
It's sad how pervasive this idea is.
Hopefully never.
Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed in the classical sense. It is not a replacement for peer-reviewed research. It is not a replacement for primary sources or anything else. It is a replacement for the encyclopedia. Do you trust encyclopaedia britanica as much as academic journals? I hope not.
If you're conducting serious research, you are definitly not going to be using an encyclopaedia beyond the first 5 minutes. Wikipedia won't change that. It's good if you just want a quick overview of a subject or a what books an author wrote or something, but it's not a replacement for actual research.
Supporting a paper ballot backup is anti-corporate?