I haven't used SQLite, can anyone with experience using it please comment?
I use amaroK, which uses sqlite for storing its stuff, and for all I care it behaves just like a normal desktop app to me. I guess adding the thing to Firefox won't make it any worse either.
I really can't understand what is wrong with a simple text file.
Oh, there's nothing wrong with a "simple text file". It's just that there's like six different kinds of "simple text files" used by Mozilla. One of them is not "simple" either, it's really damn stupid, actually.
And Mozilla certainly doesn't use "simple text files". The moment you throw XML in it, it turns non-trivial. And as for Mork mentioned above, well, I challenge you to come up an "Art of Unix Programming" solution that's better than this.
Plus, as everyone who has programmed anything knows, "simple" text files, ultimately, aren't.
This will also almost certainly kill any chance of reusage of bookmark data by other programs
Au contraire, this will make reuse of bookmark data much simpler. Just load up your sqlite driver in your favorite scripting language and do a few SQL commands. Perl, Ruby and Python are already well supported.
So you have to update the package list manually in Debian. Big cry and gnashing of teeth.
Big deal. I do "apt-get update" only if "apt-get install" fails or if I know a new version of the package in question is out. If the thing queried and refreshed a couple of dozen repository mirrors every time I wanted to update a package, I'd go nuts.
If you want automagical package list updates, look up "alias" from the Bash manual. It can be handy at times.
Curses and woe upon me for being a Battletech fan who jumped to Linux. And, of course, they released just the 'mech game I don't have. How about MechWarrior 3 instead? Or the original MechCommander? (MW4 is too much to ask, obviously?) And less silly license, please?
I guess I have to go back to regularly scheduled MegaMek...
Were you living behind the moon for the last years? There are only a few CAPTCHA-types left capable of defeating scripts...
Yeah, but the point is, so far there isn't an anti-CAPTCHA tool that can automatically guess any CAPTCHA, ever. Current tools usually are based on a groundwork done by a living simian.
And say what you want about the repetitiveness of pr0n, at least from machine vision point of view it's pretty hard to tell apart pr0n and non-pr0n. =)
Yeah, but my right mouse button is closer than desktop edges, so I guess I can just keep launching programs in WindowMaker, while MacOS newbies wonder how the heck to make the dashboard disappear when it appears so often by accident. =) I like the RMB menu. Too bad WindowMaker has problems with most of the KeWl GNOME desktop features, but I really like the applications. Nautilus + Beagle seems like a cool idea. Can't wait next Christmas when Debian gets GNOME 2.14. =)
Eh, at least I can ramble on-topic. =/
And by the way, regarding your signature - Google sees Slashdot with the eyes of an AC, and thus can't see that kind of commentary. =)
But you can decompile C/C++ apps too. Okay, perhaps you don't get the same level of information out of them. You can mess up the binaries with obfuscators, but no level of object code obfuscation is enough if you're paranoid, I mean really paranoid, about decompiling.
If Microsoft were worried about decompiling their apps, they'd stop making operating systems and implement everything as a web (or any other dumb-client, everything-fancy-on-server-side model) application.
Wrong wrong wroooong, I'm afraid! ImageMagick is very much in the Unix league! It is not a monolithic application, it's a monolithic library. ImageMagick itself is spread across multiple programs (convert, identify, composite, montage, compare, display, animate, import, conjure) that do different kind of things. Heck, people should look at convert and identify alone as a good example of The Unix Way!
And last I checked you don't need to recompile any apps to do unusual things with the graphics data, you can get the raw data in an application using ImageMagick library and play with it to your heart's content, or use the cool features in the library... The only difference with netpbm is that you don't pipe your data from app to another, you manipulate it in a normal programming language. Is writing Perl or Ruby scripts to do repetitve much less about The Unix Way? (In my experience, my most frequently used shell scripts tend to mysteriously turn into Perl scripts sooner or later anyway =)
As I've understood it, BIOS is a hack-built-on-a-hack-built-on-a-hack. It's a solution to problem that works, but it could be more elegant. EFI and OpenFirmware are the "elegant" solutions that also work.
And the problem lies in the fact that BIOS is good enough for everyday use by most people, and it's a stumbling block for very few developers (ie, the folks who write OS kernels and bootloaders, mostly). Few people will see the need to go to EFI or OF just because it's new and better. If it ain't broke...
Really, it's the same issue I saw with GRUB - I went to GRUB and I really enjoy its flexibility, but people still use LILO. "Yeah, been too lazy. It works for me." There's no use get people to new bootloaders kicking and screaming. What works, works.
There's little "fun" in updating the thingy you see every 100 days if you're unlucky, and take pride in seeing it as little as possible. =)
Oh yes. Blown to bits with cannons, poisoned, got a great big plaque on his head, sworded with the leetest weapon imaginable, and also fried to crisp online before the game even got out of beta. Just a couple of things I've heard about, my favorite is still the plaque. =)
"In the late '80s and early '90s, the games industry could do little more than ask nicely that you not pirate their wares.
Annoying copy protection existed back then. We once mailed a Commodore 64 game collection back to the store because two of the four games didn't work. They came back with a note: "The games work just fine! If they don't, flip the disk drive to stand on its side." I flipped the disk drive to vertical position and lo! The games worked.
But yeah, I really fear about over-enthusiastic copy protection. Back in the 64 days, I didn't play some of the games I couldn't copy with my ordinary floppy duplicator or cartridge's freezer. I was kind of worried about wearing down the floppies (never mind that 99% of my C64 floppies still work.)
And now, I have one game that has StarForce in it. Assuming I had a Windows 2000 or better, which I don't (unless you count Linux as "better", har har har ho ho ho), I'd need some intricate procedures to play the game, like powering down, opening the case, disconnecting the hard drive that has Linux, installing a spare HD, closing the case, installing the operating system on it, and then the games, and play. Yeah, insane compartmentalization just to play a few games! Why? Heard rumors that Starforce can hose entire HDs. Would not be fun to lose Linux partitions due to some idiotic copy protection scheme?
I'm also kind of worried about another thing - legislating the copy protection. Here we have things like Starforce or the Sony CD copy protection, they're trivial to break with a little bit of hackery, but hey, that's illegal. People can get away with killing people if the person in question was trying to kill them, but it's not okay to protect your own data and information confidentiality from insidious copy protection systems that are trying to destroy your stuff! Would it be use arguing that breaking a known, provenly harmful copy protection system is nothing but self-defense? Hmm...
The Japanese version is a port of the original version. During the late 80s it was ported to PC98 series...
Arrrrgh! The Japanese got some good ports.
Just today I ran into a look at FM-TOWNS version of Ultima VI. That's full speech. The rest of the world had to wait for Ultima IX to get our share of awful voice acting. (The samples on the above page are absolutely brilliant compared to U9's garbage.)
As for what this has to do with the article... um... oh yeah, I'm glad Ultima III got 7 places out of top 10, and there was an Actually Good Game on rank 10. =) =) =)
I'm sure Microsoft has held competion to do so as well.
Microsoft did a Windows 2000 hacking competition. I think they claimed a success or something.
I can't remember much of the details except that it was covered in Slashdot. The server itself was pretty damn unresponsive all the time through. I remember they had a log of stuff that showed a suspiciously large number of reboots. (I can't remember if "Changed the desktop wallpaper, needed to reboot" was someone's attempt at humor or a genuine entry, I suspect the former =)
An anon user already mentioned CMD drives. Another option is IDE64 with which you can use disks or CF cards as big as 8 gigs, and CD-ROMs of course.
Me? This would be cool, but right now, I'm kind of attached to my 1541 + The Final Cartidge III. Who cares about hard drives if I can turboload the Mini Office II word processor in a couple of seconds from a floppy, anyway... =)
Yeah, I know WordPerfect is still available, I hear it turned into a Yet Another WYSIWYG Program. And I hear WP5.1 for DOS is still available from somewhere, to US customers only, with that krazy kapitalist invention kall'd 'kredit kard'. =)
I'll take a word processor from 10 years ago any day over any new word processors, thank you very much.
Back when I first got to PC world in early 1990s, we had some great word processors that were good for word processing. You wrote stuff. If you wanted it printed, you carried it to that Mac person with who did those "DTP" things. People realized the word processors sucked at typesetting. They were tools you used to produce ASCII files with for someone else to process properly.
While modern word processors try to be the ultimate solutions to all electronic communications. Microsoft wants Office users to be able to do everything - and only succeeds at users being able to do some tasks at some level. Want to write a little bit? Can do. Want to typeset? We suck. Want to add tons of numbers up? Can do. Want to do something a bit more complex with numerical data? Not that easy or flexible, come to think of it.
I'm not saying OpenOffice.org is much closer to Microsoft's utopia though.
My point is, I've written some stuff all of my life. I can sit in front of my Commodore 64 and be productive, dammit, all I need is disk space. I don't care if Microsoft comes up with new features. Word processing was finished 10 years ago. All you stack on top of that is glitter.
The only reason I'm not going back to WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS are that I think OpenOffice.org's style-definition stuff is niftier, OpenDocument rocks when you think of the future, and thirdly, I don't think I can find an easy way to get a proper license with the means available. Plus WP's file manager UI is kind of crappy.
It's weird how I didn't hear anything odd when listening to a "normal"-quality iTunes-CD-ripped AAC on Apple hardware (ie, the normal speakers of a PowerBook) but did hear a lot of wrong stuff on my own computer (ie, a Linux PC with a SBLive and crappy headphones). On Linux, I usually listen to Vorbis files with -q6 (ie, pretty high bitrate).
The only place where I could hear any artifacts in the AAC was a quiet place in the recording, though. Background noise was amplified into an audible hiss. (Though I'm not sure if Apple's decoder has noise remover somewhere; FAAD probably doesn't have one =)
But yeah, I've frequently heard the difference in bitrates. Vorbis at -q3 isn't very good for electronic music, I've noted, some of the sounds get garbled weirdly. But Vorbis works really nicely for most music at -q6.
I know, all of my data stored on my Commodore 128 can't be ported to my Linux machine since it doesn't have drivers for the 1571.
Well sucks to be you. The data stored on my Commodore 64 could easily be ported through DOS over a cable from my 1541. Go for the more popular models. =)
(Actually, I think Linux is very much doable and other disk drives should be just as compatible with the same cable of course. We just happened to make a cable that only worked in one specific DOS program - be wiser, don't build yourself a Trans64 cable... not that it'd work with non-historic printer ports, anyway =)
And data to convert stuff around on Linux does exist, in VICE package's c1541. Too bad Recode doesn't do PETSCII, but it takes like two minutes to cobble up a converter in Perl...
I saw this happening on #wikipedia a day or three ago. Someone with user/hostname like startkeylogger@....gnauk.co.uk showed up, and bang, a Norton user dropped off line.
I really couldn't believe any people would implement this sort of silliness in firewall/antivirus in this day and age. This was a "feature" of some censorware packages a few years back, I really hoped the folks would have wisened up. It's silly if you try to censor stuff, it's twice as silly if it goes under the guise of computer security.
AltaVista used to be *the* search engine a long time ago.
They also went to the point where everyone and their monkey knew how to manipulate the search rankings, leading to the situation that no one found damn. They knew of the problems with spamdexing and just shrugged and said, "well, we don't know how to make it better than it is, other than nuke spammers if and when we have the resources. Submit the spammer with this form and hope we react within this year." At one point they admitted interesting things, like "oh yeah, the index hasn't been updated this year yet." All the while marketing department kept adding more and more and more and more ads to the page, making it a nightmare to use. You had to spend five minutes squinting at the ads to find the tiny "0 results found" message from among the ads and portal-crap. Oh yeah, and there was competition. All of which never had much power either.
Or that's how I remember then. Then came Google, a search engine that had a clean interface (and when they added ads, that sure didn't jump to the eyes), boasted many times as many pages in the index, and had a new search ranking algorithm that produced relevant results. And over the time, when people have tried fixing stuff, they've fixed the site as the flaws cropped up. Search engine made for people who looked for information, not for people who wanted to click ads like drugged monkeys because the Altavista search engine sure as hell didn't work.
Altavista was like MSIE: They became the best thingie ever, then rested on their laurels, took a good nap, and then all of sudden a technically superior competitor started kicking their butt. Only that Google actually managed to snag the actual market-leader position as well.
Google on the other hand is on the top and still improving the service, while at the same time being very careful not to piss off the existing users.
Actually I think en.wikipedia.org says that it doesn't matter which spelling should be used, and says it's okay to use either, just that one should avoid going on "correction" sprees. I believe the metawiki also had subversive spelling campaigns, but those were clearly marked as jokes.
This rule works for me, as an ignorant foreigner who doesn't know damn about spelling properly either way, much less about pronun..cati..ti..un of this language =)
Speaking of uk.wikipedia.org, it kind of reminds me of one silly Usenet troll who went like "you're really ignorant, like most of the Ukrainians I've seen..."...um, Ukraine is.ua, not.uk, a little bit of discrepancy between the country code and language code there =)
Slashdot Mirror
The Register? Every other article slamming "wikifiddlers" for even tiniest of the flaws?
Believe what you want, but I think they cried wolf a few times too many.
Two reasons:
Granularity. Specifically, the ability to kill stuff based on not only the host name, but other components of the path.
Flexibility. Regex matching http://hostname/ad/ or http://ad.hostname/
more fun than adding every one of those to your hosts file.I use amaroK, which uses sqlite for storing its stuff, and for all I care it behaves just like a normal desktop app to me. I guess adding the thing to Firefox won't make it any worse either.
Oh, there's nothing wrong with a "simple text file". It's just that there's like six different kinds of "simple text files" used by Mozilla. One of them is not "simple" either, it's really damn stupid, actually.
And Mozilla certainly doesn't use "simple text files". The moment you throw XML in it, it turns non-trivial. And as for Mork mentioned above, well, I challenge you to come up an "Art of Unix Programming" solution that's better than this.
Plus, as everyone who has programmed anything knows, "simple" text files, ultimately, aren't.
Au contraire, this will make reuse of bookmark data much simpler. Just load up your sqlite driver in your favorite scripting language and do a few SQL commands. Perl, Ruby and Python are already well supported.
So you have to update the package list manually in Debian. Big cry and gnashing of teeth.
Big deal. I do "apt-get update" only if "apt-get install" fails or if I know a new version of the package in question is out. If the thing queried and refreshed a couple of dozen repository mirrors every time I wanted to update a package, I'd go nuts.
If you want automagical package list updates, look up "alias" from the Bash manual. It can be handy at times.
Curses and woe upon me for being a Battletech fan who jumped to Linux. And, of course, they released just the 'mech game I don't have. How about MechWarrior 3 instead? Or the original MechCommander? (MW4 is too much to ask, obviously?) And less silly license, please?
I guess I have to go back to regularly scheduled MegaMek...
Yeah, but the point is, so far there isn't an anti-CAPTCHA tool that can automatically guess any CAPTCHA, ever. Current tools usually are based on a groundwork done by a living simian.
And say what you want about the repetitiveness of pr0n, at least from machine vision point of view it's pretty hard to tell apart pr0n and non-pr0n. =)
1) Don't use the navigation computer to handle the docking sequence...
Yeah, but my right mouse button is closer than desktop edges, so I guess I can just keep launching programs in WindowMaker, while MacOS newbies wonder how the heck to make the dashboard disappear when it appears so often by accident. =) I like the RMB menu. Too bad WindowMaker has problems with most of the KeWl GNOME desktop features, but I really like the applications. Nautilus + Beagle seems like a cool idea. Can't wait next Christmas when Debian gets GNOME 2.14. =)
Eh, at least I can ramble on-topic. =/
And by the way, regarding your signature - Google sees Slashdot with the eyes of an AC, and thus can't see that kind of commentary. =)
But you can decompile C/C++ apps too. Okay, perhaps you don't get the same level of information out of them. You can mess up the binaries with obfuscators, but no level of object code obfuscation is enough if you're paranoid, I mean really paranoid, about decompiling.
If Microsoft were worried about decompiling their apps, they'd stop making operating systems and implement everything as a web (or any other dumb-client, everything-fancy-on-server-side model) application.
I was about to say /usr/share/doc or maybe even /var/spool/news, but I guess ~/public_html/ is a good place too. =)
Wrong wrong wroooong, I'm afraid! ImageMagick is very much in the Unix league! It is not a monolithic application, it's a monolithic library. ImageMagick itself is spread across multiple programs (convert, identify, composite, montage, compare, display, animate, import, conjure) that do different kind of things. Heck, people should look at convert and identify alone as a good example of The Unix Way!
And last I checked you don't need to recompile any apps to do unusual things with the graphics data, you can get the raw data in an application using ImageMagick library and play with it to your heart's content, or use the cool features in the library... The only difference with netpbm is that you don't pipe your data from app to another, you manipulate it in a normal programming language. Is writing Perl or Ruby scripts to do repetitve much less about The Unix Way? (In my experience, my most frequently used shell scripts tend to mysteriously turn into Perl scripts sooner or later anyway =)
As I've understood it, BIOS is a hack-built-on-a-hack-built-on-a-hack. It's a solution to problem that works, but it could be more elegant. EFI and OpenFirmware are the "elegant" solutions that also work.
And the problem lies in the fact that BIOS is good enough for everyday use by most people, and it's a stumbling block for very few developers (ie, the folks who write OS kernels and bootloaders, mostly). Few people will see the need to go to EFI or OF just because it's new and better. If it ain't broke...
Really, it's the same issue I saw with GRUB - I went to GRUB and I really enjoy its flexibility, but people still use LILO. "Yeah, been too lazy. It works for me." There's no use get people to new bootloaders kicking and screaming. What works, works.
There's little "fun" in updating the thingy you see every 100 days if you're unlucky, and take pride in seeing it as little as possible. =)
Oh yes. Blown to bits with cannons, poisoned, got a great big plaque on his head, sworded with the leetest weapon imaginable, and also fried to crisp online before the game even got out of beta. Just a couple of things I've heard about, my favorite is still the plaque. =)
Annoying copy protection existed back then. We once mailed a Commodore 64 game collection back to the store because two of the four games didn't work. They came back with a note: "The games work just fine! If they don't, flip the disk drive to stand on its side." I flipped the disk drive to vertical position and lo! The games worked.
But yeah, I really fear about over-enthusiastic copy protection. Back in the 64 days, I didn't play some of the games I couldn't copy with my ordinary floppy duplicator or cartridge's freezer. I was kind of worried about wearing down the floppies (never mind that 99% of my C64 floppies still work.)
And now, I have one game that has StarForce in it. Assuming I had a Windows 2000 or better, which I don't (unless you count Linux as "better", har har har ho ho ho), I'd need some intricate procedures to play the game, like powering down, opening the case, disconnecting the hard drive that has Linux, installing a spare HD, closing the case, installing the operating system on it, and then the games, and play. Yeah, insane compartmentalization just to play a few games! Why? Heard rumors that Starforce can hose entire HDs. Would not be fun to lose Linux partitions due to some idiotic copy protection scheme?
I'm also kind of worried about another thing - legislating the copy protection. Here we have things like Starforce or the Sony CD copy protection, they're trivial to break with a little bit of hackery, but hey, that's illegal. People can get away with killing people if the person in question was trying to kill them, but it's not okay to protect your own data and information confidentiality from insidious copy protection systems that are trying to destroy your stuff! Would it be use arguing that breaking a known, provenly harmful copy protection system is nothing but self-defense? Hmm...
Arrrrgh! The Japanese got some good ports.
Just today I ran into a look at FM-TOWNS version of Ultima VI. That's full speech. The rest of the world had to wait for Ultima IX to get our share of awful voice acting. (The samples on the above page are absolutely brilliant compared to U9's garbage.)
As for what this has to do with the article... um... oh yeah, I'm glad Ultima III got 7 places out of top 10, and there was an Actually Good Game on rank 10. =) =) =)
Microsoft did a Windows 2000 hacking competition. I think they claimed a success or something.
I can't remember much of the details except that it was covered in Slashdot. The server itself was pretty damn unresponsive all the time through. I remember they had a log of stuff that showed a suspiciously large number of reboots. (I can't remember if "Changed the desktop wallpaper, needed to reboot" was someone's attempt at humor or a genuine entry, I suspect the former =)
An anon user already mentioned CMD drives. Another option is IDE64 with which you can use disks or CF cards as big as 8 gigs, and CD-ROMs of course.
Me? This would be cool, but right now, I'm kind of attached to my 1541 + The Final Cartidge III. Who cares about hard drives if I can turboload the Mini Office II word processor in a couple of seconds from a floppy, anyway... =)
Yeah, I know WordPerfect is still available, I hear it turned into a Yet Another WYSIWYG Program. And I hear WP5.1 for DOS is still available from somewhere, to US customers only, with that krazy kapitalist invention kall'd 'kredit kard'. =)
I'll take a word processor from 10 years ago any day over any new word processors, thank you very much.
Back when I first got to PC world in early 1990s, we had some great word processors that were good for word processing. You wrote stuff. If you wanted it printed, you carried it to that Mac person with who did those "DTP" things. People realized the word processors sucked at typesetting. They were tools you used to produce ASCII files with for someone else to process properly.
While modern word processors try to be the ultimate solutions to all electronic communications. Microsoft wants Office users to be able to do everything - and only succeeds at users being able to do some tasks at some level. Want to write a little bit? Can do. Want to typeset? We suck. Want to add tons of numbers up? Can do. Want to do something a bit more complex with numerical data? Not that easy or flexible, come to think of it.
I'm not saying OpenOffice.org is much closer to Microsoft's utopia though.
My point is, I've written some stuff all of my life. I can sit in front of my Commodore 64 and be productive, dammit, all I need is disk space. I don't care if Microsoft comes up with new features. Word processing was finished 10 years ago. All you stack on top of that is glitter.
The only reason I'm not going back to WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS are that I think OpenOffice.org's style-definition stuff is niftier, OpenDocument rocks when you think of the future, and thirdly, I don't think I can find an easy way to get a proper license with the means available. Plus WP's file manager UI is kind of crappy.
It's weird how I didn't hear anything odd when listening to a "normal"-quality iTunes-CD-ripped AAC on Apple hardware (ie, the normal speakers of a PowerBook) but did hear a lot of wrong stuff on my own computer (ie, a Linux PC with a SBLive and crappy headphones). On Linux, I usually listen to Vorbis files with -q6 (ie, pretty high bitrate).
The only place where I could hear any artifacts in the AAC was a quiet place in the recording, though. Background noise was amplified into an audible hiss. (Though I'm not sure if Apple's decoder has noise remover somewhere; FAAD probably doesn't have one =)
But yeah, I've frequently heard the difference in bitrates. Vorbis at -q3 isn't very good for electronic music, I've noted, some of the sounds get garbled weirdly. But Vorbis works really nicely for most music at -q6.
Well sucks to be you. The data stored on my Commodore 64 could easily be ported through DOS over a cable from my 1541. Go for the more popular models. =)
(Actually, I think Linux is very much doable and other disk drives should be just as compatible with the same cable of course. We just happened to make a cable that only worked in one specific DOS program - be wiser, don't build yourself a Trans64 cable... not that it'd work with non-historic printer ports, anyway =)
And data to convert stuff around on Linux does exist, in VICE package's c1541. Too bad Recode doesn't do PETSCII, but it takes like two minutes to cobble up a converter in Perl...
I saw this happening on #wikipedia a day or three ago. Someone with user/hostname like startkeylogger@....gnauk.co.uk showed up, and bang, a Norton user dropped off line.
I really couldn't believe any people would implement this sort of silliness in firewall/antivirus in this day and age. This was a "feature" of some censorware packages a few years back, I really hoped the folks would have wisened up. It's silly if you try to censor stuff, it's twice as silly if it goes under the guise of computer security.
They also went to the point where everyone and their monkey knew how to manipulate the search rankings, leading to the situation that no one found damn. They knew of the problems with spamdexing and just shrugged and said, "well, we don't know how to make it better than it is, other than nuke spammers if and when we have the resources. Submit the spammer with this form and hope we react within this year." At one point they admitted interesting things, like "oh yeah, the index hasn't been updated this year yet." All the while marketing department kept adding more and more and more and more ads to the page, making it a nightmare to use. You had to spend five minutes squinting at the ads to find the tiny "0 results found" message from among the ads and portal-crap. Oh yeah, and there was competition. All of which never had much power either.
Or that's how I remember then. Then came Google, a search engine that had a clean interface (and when they added ads, that sure didn't jump to the eyes), boasted many times as many pages in the index, and had a new search ranking algorithm that produced relevant results. And over the time, when people have tried fixing stuff, they've fixed the site as the flaws cropped up. Search engine made for people who looked for information, not for people who wanted to click ads like drugged monkeys because the Altavista search engine sure as hell didn't work.
Altavista was like MSIE: They became the best thingie ever, then rested on their laurels, took a good nap, and then all of sudden a technically superior competitor started kicking their butt. Only that Google actually managed to snag the actual market-leader position as well.
Google on the other hand is on the top and still improving the service, while at the same time being very careful not to piss off the existing users.
Actually I think en.wikipedia.org says that it doesn't matter which spelling should be used, and says it's okay to use either, just that one should avoid going on "correction" sprees. I believe the metawiki also had subversive spelling campaigns, but those were clearly marked as jokes.
This rule works for me, as an ignorant foreigner who doesn't know damn about spelling properly either way, much less about pronun..cati..ti..un of this language =)
Speaking of uk.wikipedia.org, it kind of reminds me of one silly Usenet troll who went like "you're really ignorant, like most of the Ukrainians I've seen..." ...um, Ukraine is .ua, not .uk, a little bit of discrepancy between the country code and language code there =)