I would rather them concentrate on fixing the memory leaks then who they should trust.
Precisely. He doesn't trust Google. I don't trust Firefox. At least I have valid reasons -- it keeps crashing,
it's slow and bloated beyond all belief, and the development team don't seam to have much of a clue. And yet,
despite all that, it's still the only viable choice for a web browser. That thought in itself is
somewhat depressing:-(
PHP is great for "toy" web sites (by toy, I mean non-scalable SMB at most).
Non-scalable like Yahoo, the world's busiest web site, you mean? Yeah, thought so.
Don't get me wrong, PHP has many problems[1]. The biggest of them is probably
the ease with which an incompetent
moron can create terrible code (a trait it shares with Perl). But to claim it
doesn't scale is pure religious bigotry rather than being based in fact.
[1] As indeed does Java. But that's a discussion for another day.
Fortunately, db4 seems to be dead: it's been replaced in such lightweight applications by SQLite
Ha! Ha ha ha! Ha ha! That's a good one. You should consider doing standup. FWIW, SQLlite doesn't even come
close to either the functionality or performance of Berkeley DB, nor its ubiquity (IIRC, it's the world's
most widely used database).
APT has an easier time of managing dependencies than yum. That's because Debian's (well-thought-out) way of doing it was to have packages dependent upon packages, rather than specific files.
Bollocks. You might claim (although I'd probably disagree) that apt under Debian has an easier time of resolving dependencies than does
yum under Red Hat. But apt under Fedora vs yum under Fedora? Probably fairly equal, I'd say. I'm also slightly bemused by your implication
that RPMs are dependent on files, rather than on other packages. Where on earth did you get that one from?
Different ways to solve the problem, mostly. While yum checks each remote repository on every run, apt caches details about
the repositories locally. That makes apt much faster, but runs the risk of having out of date information. As with so
many things in the IT world, the difference lies in the choice of tradeoffs the authors of each app made.
Apache isn't itself the leech. The multibillion dollar oil company that runs Apache all over the place and hasn't ever contributed a cent to the Apache project is.
Is it? When I worked for a multibillion pound megacorp, I used Apache extensively. It never once
crossed my mind to make a donation to the Apache project. Why should it? The thing is, a web
server is such a trivial piece of software to write. It just happened that someone else had
already done it for me, so I didn't need to write it myself. I'm pleased they had. But I just
don't see the need to fund an entity like ASF (indeed, I'm not sure I see the need for the ASF
at all). I did, however, try to get them to donate to the OpenBSD project.
I haven't figured out what the deal is with the yearly rash of large-scale layoffs from various companies in the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
In the UK financial sector, at least, January is bonus time. Hence December frequently sees a
round of redundancies, which are often cheaper than paying the bonuses...
why would you post a link to anything that contained statements like this?
Quite. Particularly when the author so blatantly displays his lack of understanding of
the subject. He's unable to see the difference between distributions shipping GPLv2 and GPLv3
code and a program that mixes code with both licenses.
the free ride will be over for companies like RedHat.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but to claim Red Hat are getting a free ride is just plain ridiculous.
I'd like to be pointed to a single organisation, commercial or otherwise, that has done more for the free
software community than Red Hat. And yes, I'd probably say they even eclipse the FSF in that respect now.
I think the main problem here is that Firefox has pretty much reached perfection.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You really ought to consider a career as a stand up comic. I haven't heard anything
that funny in years. I can't even begin to express how far from perfection Firefox is. Perhaps it'd be
closer to perfection if it handled cookies properly, handled unknown content types in a sane manner, and
most importantly, had a rendering engine that didn't suck (or at least, a development team that was
interested in fixing rendering bugs, rather than adding on yet more new and pointless features and eye
candy instead).
Wont this open up the system to many more phishing attacks involving addresses which include non-latin characters which look similar to latin ones?
Potentially, yes. But I'm not too bothered about that. Protecting people from their own stupidity
is rarely a good long term strategy. However, i18n for DNS is a particularly bad idea for purely
pragmatic reasons. Currently, anyone anywhere in the world can go to any URL in the world in their
web browser. If we allow the full range of unicode characters, that simply ceases to be true. When
URLs start containing unicode characters, many people are simply not going to be able to enter them
into their computer (with current input methods, anyway). True, many of those sites will not be of
interest to the average person that doesn't have a convenient way to enter the URL anyway. But there
will always be those that need to grab a data sheet from a Taiwanese electronics manufacturer, or
look at live results from a sporting event in the middle east. That will cease to be possible with i18n.
As you say, the system currently works.
Changing it for political reasons is just stupid.
The correct answer would be 3.487 football fields (sans endzones) high over two Manhattans, or 8,086,748.43 hogsheads. Was that so hard?
Actually, yes. How tall is the Chrysler building? Do you measure to the highest floor? The roof? The top of the antenna?
Then you get into how long is a football field? To most of the world's population, it's typically 105m. But it may be
between around 90 and 120m (excluding those variants which allow for an infinitely sized pitch). So the Chrysler:Football field
ratio can be anywhere between 2.28:1 and 3.54:1.
Perhaps I would do, but for the fact that it's not completely wrong. While it's true that The LOTR was largely written after The Hobbit,
Tolkein himself has said that certain chapters in it were written before The Hobbit was started.
let's be honest: Jackson & Co. made an absolutely amazing film trilogy, by ANY standard you care to measure, so can we fucking end shit like "hideous mess" already?
Errr.... the standard against which I measure is my own opinion. In my opinion, he made a hideous mess. So you disagreed. Good for you.
Your welcome to your opinion, just as I have mine. There's no universal law that says we should all have the same opinion.
Hell, I even liked the first film. But "The two towers" was a disaster that threw away any good will he might have earned and
yes, earned the description "hideous mess".
Given the hideous mess he made of LOTR, I'm relatively pleased that
he won't be butchering The Hobbit in the same way. I am, however,
horrified at the thought of a "prequel" to LOTR, no matter who ends
up directing/producing it.
Show me one.
No state permits internet gaming, not even Nevada
Sure they do. To the best of my knowledge, every single US state permits online gambling.
Residents of any state can quite legally go to an online broker and gamble on commodities or forex futures.
These days there's no way any American coder is going to make beer money - much less a living - when the competition can afford to underbid the way they do.
Agreed. We've just come to the end of one of our rentacoder jobs, and it was done by a guy in Pakistan for peanuts. The
quality is not great, but it's passable, and there's no way we could afford to have hired anyone in the UK to do it.
We're basically outsourcing our noddy projects to rentacoder, and keeping the serious stuff in house. We know we can
afford to pay three different coders to do the same job on rentacoder, and at least one of them will probably churn out
something usable, and it'll still be cheaper than doing it in house or paying someone locally to do it. While it's
worked out for us in this case, I do think that the idea of sealed bids is a good one. Coders being able to see the
lowest price and undercut it is ultimately not good for anyone.
That FAQ sucks. It basically says "replace your yum config with mine, which gets packages from a bunch of additional non-Fedora repos"
as the default instructions for how to use yum. It gives no explanation of why you might want to do this, or of the risks involved.
At the very least, it should explain why the software in those repos isn't shipped by default, and why installing from a third party
repo isn't always a great idea.
I've seen it mentioned (by Chris Wilson, amongst others) that IE7
was never going to pass the ACID2 tests when it shipped. Although
as a web developer, that's not a situation I'm particularly pleased
about, I'm mostly OK with it. I can appreciate that some aspects
of the browsing experience will be propritized above others. However,
I don't think I've ever seen a clear statement from Microsoft that
100% HTML and CSS compliance is even a goal. Can you comment on that?
Is it your goal to render a standards compliant website correctly
in all cases, or are you just aiming to implement those parts of the
spec that are used by the majority of your customers? Naturally,
I can understand prioritizing the things that are hitting your
customers above those that are rarely used in the real world, but
part of the reason the some of them aren't used in the real world
is down to lack of browser support. I find it incredibly frustrating
that some of my site layouts have to be butchered just to get them
to work in the commonly used browsers. If IE fails to render a compliant
page according to the spec, can you commit to actively tracking it as a
bug with a view to fixing it in a future release of IE, even if it only
affects a handful of people?
YRO aside, it is currently illegal is gamble in most of the United States anyway
Rubbish. It's currently illegal to gamble on certain outcomes (sports, card games, etc.), while being legal to gamble on other outcomes (share prices, for example).
It's a completely arbitrary distinction, that has no logical rationale. Either you
believe that gambling is immoral and should be banned or you don't. To selectively
allow some types of gambling while banning others is just bizarre.
Disclaimer: I make my income from online gambling, so I probably have a certain
amount of bias. Currently very little of that is with US bookies, so this will
have very little monetary impact on me. But it's still a stupid decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely. He doesn't trust Google. I don't trust Firefox. At least I have valid reasons -- it keeps crashing, it's slow and bloated beyond all belief, and the development team don't seam to have much of a clue. And yet, despite all that, it's still the only viable choice for a web browser. That thought in itself is somewhat depressing :-(
Non-scalable like Yahoo, the world's busiest web site, you mean? Yeah, thought so. Don't get me wrong, PHP has many problems[1]. The biggest of them is probably the ease with which an incompetent moron can create terrible code (a trait it shares with Perl). But to claim it doesn't scale is pure religious bigotry rather than being based in fact.
[1] As indeed does Java. But that's a discussion for another day.
That'd be because the article was written in 2005. Unbiased? Maybe. Vague, unscientific and out of date? Definitely.
Ha! Ha ha ha! Ha ha! That's a good one. You should consider doing standup. FWIW, SQLlite doesn't even come close to either the functionality or performance of Berkeley DB, nor its ubiquity (IIRC, it's the world's most widely used database).
Bollocks. You might claim (although I'd probably disagree) that apt under Debian has an easier time of resolving dependencies than does yum under Red Hat. But apt under Fedora vs yum under Fedora? Probably fairly equal, I'd say. I'm also slightly bemused by your implication that RPMs are dependent on files, rather than on other packages. Where on earth did you get that one from?
Different ways to solve the problem, mostly. While yum checks each remote repository on every run, apt caches details about the repositories locally. That makes apt much faster, but runs the risk of having out of date information. As with so many things in the IT world, the difference lies in the choice of tradeoffs the authors of each app made.
xkcd is a work of genius. See, for example, this classic.
Is it? When I worked for a multibillion pound megacorp, I used Apache extensively. It never once crossed my mind to make a donation to the Apache project. Why should it? The thing is, a web server is such a trivial piece of software to write. It just happened that someone else had already done it for me, so I didn't need to write it myself. I'm pleased they had. But I just don't see the need to fund an entity like ASF (indeed, I'm not sure I see the need for the ASF at all). I did, however, try to get them to donate to the OpenBSD project.
In the UK financial sector, at least, January is bonus time. Hence December frequently sees a round of redundancies, which are often cheaper than paying the bonuses...
Quite. Particularly when the author so blatantly displays his lack of understanding of the subject. He's unable to see the difference between distributions shipping GPLv2 and GPLv3 code and a program that mixes code with both licenses.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but to claim Red Hat are getting a free ride is just plain ridiculous. I'd like to be pointed to a single organisation, commercial or otherwise, that has done more for the free software community than Red Hat. And yes, I'd probably say they even eclipse the FSF in that respect now.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You really ought to consider a career as a stand up comic. I haven't heard anything that funny in years. I can't even begin to express how far from perfection Firefox is. Perhaps it'd be closer to perfection if it handled cookies properly, handled unknown content types in a sane manner, and most importantly, had a rendering engine that didn't suck (or at least, a development team that was interested in fixing rendering bugs, rather than adding on yet more new and pointless features and eye candy instead).
Potentially, yes. But I'm not too bothered about that. Protecting people from their own stupidity is rarely a good long term strategy. However, i18n for DNS is a particularly bad idea for purely pragmatic reasons. Currently, anyone anywhere in the world can go to any URL in the world in their web browser. If we allow the full range of unicode characters, that simply ceases to be true. When URLs start containing unicode characters, many people are simply not going to be able to enter them into their computer (with current input methods, anyway). True, many of those sites will not be of interest to the average person that doesn't have a convenient way to enter the URL anyway. But there will always be those that need to grab a data sheet from a Taiwanese electronics manufacturer, or look at live results from a sporting event in the middle east. That will cease to be possible with i18n. As you say, the system currently works. Changing it for political reasons is just stupid.
Actually, yes. How tall is the Chrysler building? Do you measure to the highest floor? The roof? The top of the antenna? Then you get into how long is a football field? To most of the world's population, it's typically 105m. But it may be between around 90 and 120m (excluding those variants which allow for an infinitely sized pitch). So the Chrysler:Football field ratio can be anywhere between 2.28:1 and 3.54:1.
Perhaps I would do, but for the fact that it's not completely wrong. While it's true that The LOTR was largely written after The Hobbit, Tolkein himself has said that certain chapters in it were written before The Hobbit was started.
Errr.... the standard against which I measure is my own opinion. In my opinion, he made a hideous mess. So you disagreed. Good for you. Your welcome to your opinion, just as I have mine. There's no universal law that says we should all have the same opinion. Hell, I even liked the first film. But "The two towers" was a disaster that threw away any good will he might have earned and yes, earned the description "hideous mess".
Given the hideous mess he made of LOTR, I'm relatively pleased that he won't be butchering The Hobbit in the same way. I am, however, horrified at the thought of a "prequel" to LOTR, no matter who ends up directing/producing it.
Sure they do. To the best of my knowledge, every single US state permits online gambling. Residents of any state can quite legally go to an online broker and gamble on commodities or forex futures.
WTF is "reauthorized" meant to mean? How about "reauthored", or better, just "rewritten"? Sheesh.
Agreed. We've just come to the end of one of our rentacoder jobs, and it was done by a guy in Pakistan for peanuts. The quality is not great, but it's passable, and there's no way we could afford to have hired anyone in the UK to do it. We're basically outsourcing our noddy projects to rentacoder, and keeping the serious stuff in house. We know we can afford to pay three different coders to do the same job on rentacoder, and at least one of them will probably churn out something usable, and it'll still be cheaper than doing it in house or paying someone locally to do it. While it's worked out for us in this case, I do think that the idea of sealed bids is a good one. Coders being able to see the lowest price and undercut it is ultimately not good for anyone.
That FAQ sucks. It basically says "replace your yum config with mine, which gets packages from a bunch of additional non-Fedora repos" as the default instructions for how to use yum. It gives no explanation of why you might want to do this, or of the risks involved. At the very least, it should explain why the software in those repos isn't shipped by default, and why installing from a third party repo isn't always a great idea.
Is it your goal to render a standards compliant website correctly in all cases, or are you just aiming to implement those parts of the spec that are used by the majority of your customers? Naturally, I can understand prioritizing the things that are hitting your customers above those that are rarely used in the real world, but part of the reason the some of them aren't used in the real world is down to lack of browser support. I find it incredibly frustrating that some of my site layouts have to be butchered just to get them to work in the commonly used browsers. If IE fails to render a compliant page according to the spec, can you commit to actively tracking it as a bug with a view to fixing it in a future release of IE, even if it only affects a handful of people?
Really? You have a strange definition of "proprietary". The specs are available here and have been since PDF was first introduced.
Rubbish. It's currently illegal to gamble on certain outcomes (sports, card games, etc.), while being legal to gamble on other outcomes (share prices, for example). It's a completely arbitrary distinction, that has no logical rationale. Either you believe that gambling is immoral and should be banned or you don't. To selectively allow some types of gambling while banning others is just bizarre.
Disclaimer: I make my income from online gambling, so I probably have a certain amount of bias. Currently very little of that is with US bookies, so this will have very little monetary impact on me. But it's still a stupid decision.
Minor correction: you mean News Corporation. News International is the UK newspaper arm of News Corp.