Communist-type dictatorships do not run on good will, they run on coercion
... except when it comes to software development, eh? Or is the "bazaar" anything but?
I am surprised that such a non-judgemental post would use so many politically-loaded words
Excuse me for making use of the English language. Besides, if it's a duck and all that, well...
Perhaps, now that you've pinpointed the problem, you could start your own branch called the "EgolessBSD"?
Ohhhh, the classic "if you don't like it, fuck off" or it's more popular variation "stop complaining and [write some code|fork the source]" post. Hadn't seen that one in a while.
I do. I think it's a great browser, and it's better at rendering CSS than IE is in some cases (scrolling overflow anyone?)
But it's waaaaaay too slow to load. IE6 loads in about 1/4th of a second, where Mozilla 1.2 takes about 6-7 seconds. That's really my only beef with it - other than that I like it a lot.
I can't seriously believe you are arguing that FreeBSD is somehow a big bad dictatorship when you've just compared it to Linux.
They are, both. Except that FreeBSD has a Politburo, whereas Linux only has a premier.
Like I said, I'm not making any judgements on whether or not that's good - their software, their system, their rules. I do however find the whole "core team" thing to be a bit of an elitist thing, especially -like I said- in a project that runs on the goodwill of the people who contribute to it.
I tried the Proxomitron for a while, but I ended up not minding the popups since, again, nobody's making any money on them. Everything else is covered by the hosts file.
Well, personally I use IE, and thanks to a well-maintained boffo hosts file I've yet to see an ad in just about any commercial website, including those that use iframes (no page, no ad). That includes Slashdot.
The popunders or popups I don't really care about so long as I know no revenue is going to anyone for the page hit (since the browser window comes up with a 404 anyway).
99% effective, in my experience. No openness needed, just a little bit of common sense and some network know-how. Not that openness is not good and all.
the use of "core developer" in the title of the article could be misleading
No, actually it's indicative of elitism. It separates the haves from the have nots in the worst way possible. "You're not a member of the core team, you can't commit" as opposed to the way it's done in Linux, where the lines are well-defined but not labeled.
Any projects needs leadership, but even avoiding dumb lofty titles and meaningless labels go a long way towards improving what is, in the end, a communist-type dictatorship that runs largely on good will (and I make no judgement regarding that, that's just what it is).
The time when viruses like Pong and Natas infected binaries are fading fast. Instead we have worms that are far more effective because they can infect other machines as opposed to just other applications on the same box. Before, you were scewed. Today, the whole goddamn Internet is screwed. It's just a matter of scale and opportunity.
Or are you saying that Windows executables are somehow more infection prone than ELF or Mac binaries?
Taco waxes poetic in his most recent journal entry about the changes he's planning for the site, but he manages to explain absolutely nothing. I can't see what was wrong with the moderation system, but I suppose he (they) need something to keep them busy and justify a budget. Or whatever.
Oh, and apparently, they don't have a spare $600 box to test, so they dick around on the live production servers. Yay!
Again you are flinging accusations without backup.
I'm merely voicing my opinion. You don't think they have an agenda, I do. I suppose we can agree to disagree, but I find it interesting that you are defending them so (?) even though you disclosed you had never used their "services".
And yes, you do hate those CleanFlicks bastards, admit it.
"Hate" is a very strong word, better used in other, more relevant contexts. "Dislike" would be a better term, here.
I think that you would change #3 to "Power in the hands of CleanFlicks," right?
There are two things here, one of which I didn't include in my original post. First, IMO it's stupid to want to watch a movie that has been "sanitized". If you disagree with a section of one of Michelangelo's paintings that contains nudity, do you put some tape on top of it in the name of morality? Isn't that also part of the work of art as a whole? Can you claim to understand a director's work by looking at his/her work under blurred patches and bleeped dialog? And I'm not talking about B movies or Tom Green, I'm talking about movies like Black Hawk Down, HEAT, The Godfather, Memento, etc. etc.
Second, if you must do it anyway (and here I recognize that yes, some people would rather sanitize a movie and let their children watch it rather than not let them watch it in the first place), then it's far better for you to decide which parts to take out. Gore and sex? Or just Gore? Or maybe just sex? It's up to you, not up to the wankers @ CleanFlicks.
"Oh no CleanFlicks is from Utah, there must be an agenda!" You are silly.
You can make up your own mind about all that, but I will say this: whenever some [company|group|cult|person] tells me they're going to save my children from myself, I have a problem with it. No, I don't have to buy from them, but that's not the point. My point was that the consumer-driven system is far better because they can determine what to clean and what to leave. What you consider tastless I may find interesting, or even funny (hey, look at the/. moderation system). YMMV. But before even that happens, I have to ask myself why someone would even consider watching a movie if they find it offensive.
If I had children I would prefer that they not hear that. Call me a wacko.
Wacko. Now that that's out of the way, at least you won't have to send your movie to CleanFlicks, because they may or may not find "Oh my god" or "jesus fucking christ" offensive (well, they will, but you get the idea).
You still haven't addressed my main point, which is that while an on-the-fly system (which I agree is superior) and CleanFlick are different in some ways, they are not so different that one is commendable while the other is contemptible.
See above. I didn't say the interactive system was good, I said it was better than the alternative, which is CleanFlicks.
Slashdot Mirror
Proof?
I am surprised that such a non-judgemental post would use so many politically-loaded words
Excuse me for making use of the English language. Besides, if it's a duck and all that, well...
Perhaps, now that you've pinpointed the problem, you could start your own branch called the "EgolessBSD"?
Ohhhh, the classic "if you don't like it, fuck off" or it's more popular variation "stop complaining and [write some code|fork the source]" post. Hadn't seen that one in a while.
d00d, if ads make up content for you, may I suggest something different?
Ah, I get it. No, I do =)
However, you are stealing
Are you a subscriber?.
I do. I think it's a great browser, and it's better at rendering CSS than IE is in some cases (scrolling overflow anyone?)
But it's waaaaaay too slow to load. IE6 loads in about 1/4th of a second, where Mozilla 1.2 takes about 6-7 seconds. That's really my only beef with it - other than that I like it a lot.
They are, both. Except that FreeBSD has a Politburo, whereas Linux only has a premier.
Like I said, I'm not making any judgements on whether or not that's good - their software, their system, their rules. I do however find the whole "core team" thing to be a bit of an elitist thing, especially -like I said- in a project that runs on the goodwill of the people who contribute to it.
I tried the Proxomitron for a while, but I ended up not minding the popups since, again, nobody's making any money on them. Everything else is covered by the hosts file.
Well, personally I use IE, and thanks to a well-maintained boffo hosts file I've yet to see an ad in just about any commercial website, including those that use iframes (no page, no ad). That includes Slashdot.
The popunders or popups I don't really care about so long as I know no revenue is going to anyone for the page hit (since the browser window comes up with a 404 anyway).
99% effective, in my experience. No openness needed, just a little bit of common sense and some network know-how. Not that openness is not good and all.
BTW, do you know the expression "YHBT"? Well, YHBT.
No, actually it's indicative of elitism. It separates the haves from the have nots in the worst way possible. "You're not a member of the core team, you can't commit" as opposed to the way it's done in Linux, where the lines are well-defined but not labeled.
Any projects needs leadership, but even avoiding dumb lofty titles and meaningless labels go a long way towards improving what is, in the end, a communist-type dictatorship that runs largely on good will (and I make no judgement regarding that, that's just what it is).
It's either that or you need to work on your post titles, Boromir.
I'm no 1337 geek, but it sounds like breakfast to me. Maybe it has something to do with the Slashdot omelette?
Relax und watch das blinken cursor.
Now, now. That's just your inner zealot speaking.
Pronounced "Joe Smith"
Nice to meeting u.
Or are you saying that Windows executables are somehow more infection prone than ELF or Mac binaries?
It pulls everything down the tubes
Now, now. That's just your inner zealot speaking.
ROFL
Oh, and apparently, they don't have a spare $600 box to test, so they dick around on the live production servers. Yay!
Dude, Microsoft retired Windows 3.1 a few years ago. I say it's high time to an upgrade - try Windows 2000. You'll like it.
Isn't it way past your bedtime?
That's impressive to say the least. I'm not familiar with these images - the 'DBZ' color scale, is that temperature? density? altitude?
No shit?
I'm merely voicing my opinion. You don't think they have an agenda, I do. I suppose we can agree to disagree, but I find it interesting that you are defending them so (?) even though you disclosed you had never used their "services".
And yes, you do hate those CleanFlicks bastards, admit it.
"Hate" is a very strong word, better used in other, more relevant contexts. "Dislike" would be a better term, here.
I think that you would change #3 to "Power in the hands of CleanFlicks," right?
There are two things here, one of which I didn't include in my original post. First, IMO it's stupid to want to watch a movie that has been "sanitized". If you disagree with a section of one of Michelangelo's paintings that contains nudity, do you put some tape on top of it in the name of morality? Isn't that also part of the work of art as a whole? Can you claim to understand a director's work by looking at his/her work under blurred patches and bleeped dialog? And I'm not talking about B movies or Tom Green, I'm talking about movies like Black Hawk Down, HEAT, The Godfather, Memento, etc. etc.
Second, if you must do it anyway (and here I recognize that yes, some people would rather sanitize a movie and let their children watch it rather than not let them watch it in the first place), then it's far better for you to decide which parts to take out. Gore and sex? Or just Gore? Or maybe just sex? It's up to you, not up to the wankers @ CleanFlicks.
You can make up your own mind about all that, but I will say this: whenever some [company|group|cult|person] tells me they're going to save my children from myself, I have a problem with it. No, I don't have to buy from them, but that's not the point. My point was that the consumer-driven system is far better because they can determine what to clean and what to leave. What you consider tastless I may find interesting, or even funny (hey, look at the /. moderation system). YMMV. But before even that happens, I have to ask myself why someone would even consider watching a movie if they find it offensive.
If I had children I would prefer that they not hear that. Call me a wacko.
Wacko. Now that that's out of the way, at least you won't have to send your movie to CleanFlicks, because they may or may not find "Oh my god" or "jesus fucking christ" offensive (well, they will, but you get the idea).
You still haven't addressed my main point, which is that while an on-the-fly system (which I agree is superior) and CleanFlick are different in some ways, they are not so different that one is commendable while the other is contemptible.
See above. I didn't say the interactive system was good, I said it was better than the alternative, which is CleanFlicks.
Congratulations. You are one of thirteen people over the age of 14 who post here. mad propz.