I'm not sure how you got modded up, but did you RTFA? This doesn't affect the REAL content on the site, it only affects the order of placement for the ads that are already there. They're not going to change to mixing-content-with-ads like almost all the other search engines.
But, since Hemos' comments went unnoticed, allow me to quote the article: The system lets Web sites raise their bids to increase their chances for higher placement on the section of Google's site that's devoted to sponsored links. [emphasis mine]
Is that clear enough, or do we have to break it down into exclusively monosyllabic words for you?
While I'm extremely anxious about the idea of ubiquitous surveillance, this is the one instance under which I'd at least *allow* for such a thing. If we all must be watched, we all must be allowed to do the watching as well.
Duh! Dude, don't you know you can just get all your music for free with Kazaa and stuff! You're such a sucker for actually BUYING music!
</sarcasm>
but really... I feel ya. I take it up the ass on huge middle-man markup in the name of trying to do the honest thing by paying for my music, and then 10,000 kiddies all go and reinforce the idea that copy-prevention is a required technology for all new media formats. *sigh*...
So, why, why WHY would somebody waste their time installing Linux on such a machine?
Hrm.. now THAT'S a rather condescending presumption...
If we're going to go that route, how about I insist that you're an idiot for thinking OS X is of any use, when all the real application support out there is with the Win32 side of the industry?
Perhaps it's possible that some people just really LIKE Linux? Maybe we GENUINELY PREFER Linux? It's not just an OS for people that can't afford commercial operating systems, y'know. For one thing, OS X is a BSD-like system, and I personally can't stand BSD. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think "BSD sucks" or something. Rather, I just prefer the GNU way of doing things, both in method and in license. Why is it immature of me or any other Linux user to prefer Linux to any other system? To each their own!
I'm already finding that I have to read the small print for every damn piece of software/code that I use just in case I end up using something which I will have to pay for or be prohibited from using if I use it commercially. Pain in the backside.
So with commercial software you have to read a small-print license AND pay for it AND can'd modify/redistribute it without retribution.
With Free software, you'd probably be best to read the license, but you typically don't have to pay for it, and when you have a copy, you can do basically ANYTHING you want to it except for denying others the freedoms given to you when you received the software. The problem here is where?:)
Oh, I knew, but it doesn't make me any less pissed off about it.;)
I had a similar change of heart about exploring a.NET clone in Mono after reading Miguel's extended statement on Mono and Gnome, so I was, in part, sympathizing with my comment...
how the hell was this modded down as a Troll? fscking stupid moderators...
Re:Give me Jabber or give me death!
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 2
But that's just it - with Windows vs. Linux, they're pretty much mutually exclusive. With IM's, there's no reason they can't just run 2 at a time - they don't have to leave one to try another. This is why it's easy to get people to try stuff like Jabber - it's Free, it works well, and it doesn't prevent them from keeping what they had before.
uh.... what? Jabber works fine, thanks. Perhaps it doesn't work with AIM all the time, but then you MISSED MY POINT in the above post...:P
Re:The IM world is a damn mess...
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 2
(karma whoring for fun and profit...)
Wow. You're so right.... thankfully, your prayers are ALREADY answered. See my post below regarding Jabber!:)
Give me Jabber or give me death!
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 2
Brothers and sisters, release yourselves from the shackles of cheesy corporate IM crapware! You have nothing to lose but your chains, and a scalable, open-standards based IM system to gain!
But seriously...
AOL should be *irrelevant* to our IM needs. (the "we" here being/.'ers) Why should we be beholden to AOL, MSN, or any of the others when there's already a great alternative out there in Jabber? There are plenty of good clients out there. For Windows, there's Psi Messenger, for Linux/*BSD, there's the excellentGabber, and for OSX, there's JabberFox, and Mac OS uh... "<X" has Jabbernaut*.
And, for the uber-geeks among us, you can even run your own Jabber *server*, too.
Also, contrary to popular belief, it's really not very hard to get all your current ICQ/AOL/MSN addicted friends to try out Jabber. I thought it would be difficult when I first started trying to convince my friends and family to use Jabber to talk to me, but they were actually happy to try it. People are so accustomed to running 2 or 3 IM programs (thank you, proprietary networks and protocols!) that they don't seem to mind one more. I've even gotten a few compliments on Jabber's lack of IM spam or ads. Plus, Psi for windows is pretty damn stable, so no worries about recommending a broken client. (how embarassing!)
So before you bitch about AOL, DO something about it instead. Support an already open, and far *superior* IM standard. Because it is AOL's right to say who does and doesn't get to use their networks and IM servers - after all, it's their stuff. But conversely, it's OUR right to say "FSCK YOU AOL!" and use and promote something BETTER.
*(for the sake of fairness, Jabbernaut really sucked hard last time I saw it, so Mac users not running OS X have my sympathy. Perhaps you should try one of the Java clients, like Shaolo...)
Really, I still do not understand what the point of patch-release announcements are on/.!
I have to agree, but only because this is a *testing* kernel. For all stable releases (ie: 2.4.x for now), I think announcments of new versions is a cool thing - it allows the much much larger base of linux 2.4.x users (as compared to 2.5.x) to discuss the new features/caveats/etc of the latest stable kernel.
since M$ has announced that it will stop supporting Win98X in 2003, this might be the window of oppertunity to switch them over to a more sensable alternative.
Exactly. Mozilla and Open Office will be stable and mature by then, and the Gnome 2 and KDE 3 platforms will also be stabilized and (hopefully) ready for Joe Sixpack use. I don't know about KDE 3, so I won't comment either way, but the developments for Gnome 2 are REALLY exciting. Every day I see some really huge improvements over not just the current Gnome, but over the way that Other OS does things. The attention paid to usability (but not forgetting flexability!) is truly impressive. I will be very curious to see how newbies take to Gnome 2 as opposed to say WinXP - both are rather new and foreign, but who's got the easier-to-pick-up-and-run-with desktop environment? I think Gnome may give XP a run for it's money, especially considering that while XP is certainly a lot more *stable* than previous Windows versions, have you checked out it's start menu or control panel? They're visually very "busy" and rather confusing, IMHO. They were MUCH better off before with Windows 9x/2000 style...
Only time shall tell! In the meantime, kudos to both KDE and Gnome teams - we'll have our Windows-killer yet!
I'm sure if Wine 1.0 had no difficulties running MS Office, IE+Outlook Express, Halflife CounterStrike and ICQ
And for that matter, people could actually more fairly compare their linux equivilants. For now, it's true that MS Office currently lacks a full-fledged competitor. OpenOffice looks like it will become exactly that, but it'll be a little while yet in coming, and a transition period will be necessary. Halflife you've got me on too. However, the others you mentioned?
IE? Galeon. It's fast, stable, can use Netscape/Mozilla plugins, and a GREAT Gnome interface. (or Konq, for the KDE people:)
Outlook? Try Evolution. Like Outlook, but without the viruses, and features 35% less Suck(TM)!
And ICQ? GnomeICU, Gaim, Gabber... need I list more?
I really think that with the advent of StarOffice 6.0, Mozilla 1.0, and Ximian Connector, combined with a great, well-refined WINE, we may finally see the beginnings of the Year of Linux on the Desktop(TM)
y'know, I'm a pretty staunch Linux and GPL advocate, but I have to agree with the parent post... (And he's DEFINATELY not a troll - whomever moderated him/her as such should be ashamed.) I mean, Win2k is pretty decently stable, and now that it's been properly Service-Packed(TM), it's at least relatively secure. And while Linux hardware support is pretty good, Win2k's is naturally more broad because of its market share.
What does that leave us with? Software support. But if Lindows really has this many problems running windows apps, AND dumbs down Linux to whittle away many of its advantages... doesn't that really make Lindows a moot point?
Mind you, this is just a beta, as we've all been reminded, but if Lindows wants to succeed, it had better clean up its Windows support, and respect more power users' desire for configurability/flexability.
First, nobody knows if lawyers (or judges, they still exists, you know) could "break" the GPL. Right now, we only know nobody tried it yet.
This is a legitimate worry, but I'd like to say it's probably not too much of a concern. If M$ or some other megacorp thought they could break the GPL, they would have tried by now. Running "strings" on some of their command line TCP/IP utilities tells us that M$ has no problem using open source code, so if they REALLY wanted to steal GPL'd work, they would have done it by now. Destroying the validity of the GPL through legal precedent would be a big win for them, but if they were going to do it, I think they would have tried by now...
(In fact, I don't even know if all their software is - AFAIK SuSEs Yast is closed source, e.g.
Actually, I'm not sure that RH includes *any* closed source stuff anymore. I think Netscape 4.x might be the only thing, and with RH's next release, that's going to be replaced by Mozilla completely. That's one thing I have to hand to RH - they really are "dedicated" to Open Source.
Do I like AOL/TW? Of course not. I think they're a bunch of left-leaning liberal hand wringers who would sell you out in a second if it made them money
Yeah, cause if they were right-leaning conservative hand wringers, they'd stand up for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, and never sell out the Linux community just to make a quick buck!
If AOL offers enough money, RedHat is obliged to accept, even if they believe that being bought by AOL will mean the end of the RedHat distribution.
Is this really true!? What if Red Hat thought the money was good, but didn't believe that AOL would properly make use of RH's assets, etc, and would end up running the company into the ground? Then it wouldn't matter HOW much they bought it for, would it? Would they still be "obliged" to take the $$$? (This isn't rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious here...)
This is quite true! Unfortunately, that's what the vast majority of the material "traded" on Kazaa, et al., is: copyrighted content. So my argument isn't necessarily flawed, but yes, I agree it's a shame that the *legitmate* uses of peer networking and filesharing can't be better explored, because people are too cheap to go out and buy the music of the artists they claim they love...:/
Slashdot Mirror
the 1 button trackpad is the only reason I don't own an iBook...
I'm not sure how you got modded up, but did you RTFA? This doesn't affect the REAL content on the site, it only affects the order of placement for the ads that are already there. They're not going to change to mixing-content-with-ads like almost all the other search engines.
But, since Hemos' comments went unnoticed, allow me to quote the article:
The system lets Web sites raise their bids to increase their chances for higher placement on the section of Google's site that's devoted to sponsored links.
[emphasis mine]
Is that clear enough, or do we have to break it down into exclusively monosyllabic words for you?
Not much else to say, but my best wishes to you both!
All I can say to that is to quote the 'Almighty Tallest' from Invader Zim: "It's not stupid, it's advaaaanced!"
While I'm extremely anxious about the idea of ubiquitous surveillance, this is the one instance under which I'd at least *allow* for such a thing. If we all must be watched, we all must be allowed to do the watching as well.
<sarcasm>
Duh! Dude, don't you know you can just get all your music for free with Kazaa and stuff! You're such a sucker for actually BUYING music!
</sarcasm>
but really... I feel ya. I take it up the ass on huge middle-man markup in the name of trying to do the honest thing by paying for my music, and then 10,000 kiddies all go and reinforce the idea that copy-prevention is a required technology for all new media formats. *sigh*...
Is this really such a hot idea? Compatability is cool, but wouldn't developers' time be better spent improving or coding for OpenGL?
So, why, why WHY would somebody waste their time installing Linux on such a machine?
Hrm.. now THAT'S a rather condescending presumption...
If we're going to go that route, how about I insist that you're an idiot for thinking OS X is of any use, when all the real application support out there is with the Win32 side of the industry?
Perhaps it's possible that some people just really LIKE Linux? Maybe we GENUINELY PREFER Linux? It's not just an OS for people that can't afford commercial operating systems, y'know. For one thing, OS X is a BSD-like system, and I personally can't stand BSD. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think "BSD sucks" or something. Rather, I just prefer the GNU way of doing things, both in method and in license. Why is it immature of me or any other Linux user to prefer Linux to any other system? To each their own!
I'm already finding that I have to read the small print for every damn piece of software/code that I use just in case I end up using something which I will have to pay for or be prohibited from using if I use it commercially. Pain in the backside.
:)
So with commercial software you have to read a small-print license AND pay for it AND can'd modify/redistribute it without retribution.
With Free software, you'd probably be best to read the license, but you typically don't have to pay for it, and when you have a copy, you can do basically ANYTHING you want to it except for denying others the freedoms given to you when you received the software. The problem here is where?
I had a similar change of heart about exploring a
oh, well...
how the hell was this modded down as a Troll? fscking stupid moderators...
But that's just it - with Windows vs. Linux, they're pretty much mutually exclusive. With IM's, there's no reason they can't just run 2 at a time - they don't have to leave one to try another. This is why it's easy to get people to try stuff like Jabber - it's Free, it works well, and it doesn't prevent them from keeping what they had before.
uh.... what? Jabber works fine, thanks. Perhaps it doesn't work with AIM all the time, but then you MISSED MY POINT in the above post... :P
(karma whoring for fun and profit...)
:)
Wow. You're so right.... thankfully, your prayers are ALREADY answered. See my post below regarding Jabber!
But seriously...
AOL should be *irrelevant* to our IM needs. (the "we" here being /.'ers) Why should we be beholden to AOL, MSN, or any of the others when there's already a great alternative out there in Jabber? There are plenty of good clients out there. For Windows, there's Psi Messenger, for Linux/*BSD, there's the excellent Gabber, and for OSX, there's JabberFox, and Mac OS uh... "<X" has Jabbernaut*.
And, for the uber-geeks among us, you can even run your own Jabber *server*, too.
Also, contrary to popular belief, it's really not very hard to get all your current ICQ/AOL/MSN addicted friends to try out Jabber. I thought it would be difficult when I first started trying to convince my friends and family to use Jabber to talk to me, but they were actually happy to try it. People are so accustomed to running 2 or 3 IM programs (thank you, proprietary networks and protocols!) that they don't seem to mind one more. I've even gotten a few compliments on Jabber's lack of IM spam or ads. Plus, Psi for windows is pretty damn stable, so no worries about recommending a broken client. (how embarassing!)
So before you bitch about AOL, DO something about it instead. Support an already open, and far *superior* IM standard. Because it is AOL's right to say who does and doesn't get to use their networks and IM servers - after all, it's their stuff. But conversely, it's OUR right to say "FSCK YOU AOL!" and use and promote something BETTER.
*(for the sake of fairness, Jabbernaut really sucked hard last time I saw it, so Mac users not running OS X have my sympathy. Perhaps you should try one of the Java clients, like Shaolo...)
Really, I still do not understand what the point of patch-release announcements are on /.!
I have to agree, but only because this is a *testing* kernel. For all stable releases (ie: 2.4.x for now), I think announcments of new versions is a cool thing - it allows the much much larger base of linux 2.4.x users (as compared to 2.5.x) to discuss the new features/caveats/etc of the latest stable kernel.
since M$ has announced that it will stop supporting Win98X in 2003, this might be the window of oppertunity to switch them over to a more sensable alternative.
Exactly. Mozilla and Open Office will be stable and mature by then, and the Gnome 2 and KDE 3 platforms will also be stabilized and (hopefully) ready for Joe Sixpack use. I don't know about KDE 3, so I won't comment either way, but the developments for Gnome 2 are REALLY exciting. Every day I see some really huge improvements over not just the current Gnome, but over the way that Other OS does things. The attention paid to usability (but not forgetting flexability!) is truly impressive. I will be very curious to see how newbies take to Gnome 2 as opposed to say WinXP - both are rather new and foreign, but who's got the easier-to-pick-up-and-run-with desktop environment? I think Gnome may give XP a run for it's money, especially considering that while XP is certainly a lot more *stable* than previous Windows versions, have you checked out it's start menu or control panel? They're visually very "busy" and rather confusing, IMHO. They were MUCH better off before with Windows 9x/2000 style...
Only time shall tell! In the meantime, kudos to both KDE and Gnome teams - we'll have our Windows-killer yet!
I'm sure if Wine 1.0 had no difficulties running MS Office, IE+Outlook Express, Halflife CounterStrike and ICQ
:)
And for that matter, people could actually more fairly compare their linux equivilants. For now, it's true that MS Office currently lacks a full-fledged competitor. OpenOffice looks like it will become exactly that, but it'll be a little while yet in coming, and a transition period will be necessary. Halflife you've got me on too. However, the others you mentioned?
IE? Galeon. It's fast, stable, can use Netscape/Mozilla plugins, and a GREAT Gnome interface. (or Konq, for the KDE people
Outlook? Try Evolution. Like Outlook, but without the viruses, and features 35% less Suck(TM)!
And ICQ? GnomeICU, Gaim, Gabber... need I list more?
I really think that with the advent of StarOffice 6.0, Mozilla 1.0, and Ximian Connector, combined with a great, well-refined WINE, we may finally see the beginnings of the Year of Linux on the Desktop(TM)
y'know, I'm a pretty staunch Linux and GPL advocate, but I have to agree with the parent post... (And he's DEFINATELY not a troll - whomever moderated him/her as such should be ashamed.) I mean, Win2k is pretty decently stable, and now that it's been properly Service-Packed(TM), it's at least relatively secure. And while Linux hardware support is pretty good, Win2k's is naturally more broad because of its market share.
What does that leave us with? Software support. But if Lindows really has this many problems running windows apps, AND dumbs down Linux to whittle away many of its advantages... doesn't that really make Lindows a moot point?
Mind you, this is just a beta, as we've all been reminded, but if Lindows wants to succeed, it had better clean up its Windows support, and respect more power users' desire for configurability/flexability.
Too bad slashdotsucks.com sucks even worse that slashdot itself. ;p
Adequacy.org: Mildly-funny-at-best Humor for Assholes.
First, nobody knows if lawyers (or judges, they still exists, you know) could "break" the GPL. Right now, we only know nobody tried it yet.
This is a legitimate worry, but I'd like to say it's probably not too much of a concern. If M$ or some other megacorp thought they could break the GPL, they would have tried by now. Running "strings" on some of their command line TCP/IP utilities tells us that M$ has no problem using open source code, so if they REALLY wanted to steal GPL'd work, they would have done it by now. Destroying the validity of the GPL through legal precedent would be a big win for them, but if they were going to do it, I think they would have tried by now...
(In fact, I don't even know if all their software is - AFAIK SuSEs Yast is closed source, e.g.
Actually, I'm not sure that RH includes *any* closed source stuff anymore. I think Netscape 4.x might be the only thing, and with RH's next release, that's going to be replaced by Mozilla completely. That's one thing I have to hand to RH - they really are "dedicated" to Open Source.
Do I like AOL/TW? Of course not. I think they're a bunch of left-leaning liberal hand wringers who would sell you out in a second if it made them money
Yeah, cause if they were right-leaning conservative hand wringers, they'd stand up for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, and never sell out the Linux community just to make a quick buck!
that's disgusting. oh well.... i guess that's the problem with capitalism... *sigh*
If AOL offers enough money, RedHat is obliged to accept, even if they believe that being bought by AOL will mean the end of the RedHat distribution.
Is this really true!? What if Red Hat thought the money was good, but didn't believe that AOL would properly make use of RH's assets, etc, and would end up running the company into the ground? Then it wouldn't matter HOW much they bought it for, would it? Would they still be "obliged" to take the $$$? (This isn't rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious here...)
Not everyone downloads copyrighted content
:/
This is quite true! Unfortunately, that's what the vast majority of the material "traded" on Kazaa, et al., is: copyrighted content. So my argument isn't necessarily flawed, but yes, I agree it's a shame that the *legitmate* uses of peer networking and filesharing can't be better explored, because people are too cheap to go out and buy the music of the artists they claim they love...