One of the things I like best about/. is that most bull***t gets ferreted out rather quickly. Just don't read a discussion for a couple days and let it settle and stratify (word?). Then set your threshold, LOGIN so I can know if you're an idiot or an expert(the default assumption for ACs is "idiot"), be critical of too good to be true stories (and Jesux), and quit bithcing and moaning.
BTW: if you missed the poll, a third of the people who frequent this place are students, take that for what it's worth.
You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship.
Why would you want to talk to people before writing a news article? What were they thinkink? You should just release the tripe and then get all the publicity of being an idiot (dvorak), or pissing people off. Well, that might have worked in the 18-20th century, but dammit, how hard is it to do research now?
Asking expert opinion before writing an article is usually a pretty damn good idea. Censorship in this sense must mean "not publishing erroneous information", that's not censorship, that's editing. Yellow journalism has now become the norm, not the edge. Why has people's trust in the media dropped off so sharply? I'll give you four hints: Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone, Ted Turner, and Lowry Mays.
Words uttered at 18 in the middle of a flame war don't have any real correlation to the actual physical person, maybe two decades later. A lot of people might get tarnished unfairly.
Thats why it's important for people to get more perspectives and gain a better look. American culture is finally gaining an understanding that everyone does stupid stuff. We've been fooling ourselves for a long time, but we're growing up. The U.S. is a teenager internationally and acts like it, but recent events and folks like Ventura just might break through the illusions of expectations we've created,....and make the silly posts you made when you were young, looks like the single tiny bits of the big picture they are.;^P
Sorry, but I liked seeing some of the folks I usually only hear about. It's more of the community side than hard news. I think there's room for both. Keeps things interesting and relates to the people, not just the products.
How many other names have you been here done that with that you can put a face to? Or hear 'em talk and move and advocate? I've got high bandwidth. Include movies with EVERY story. Let's make/. even more freakin' amazing. Get yourself a G4, digival video camera, and start making content. Signal not noise. Maybe in a year or two you can be a milly-on-air like our Taco friend, whatever, just quit bitching.
I agree that/. may not be the most objective site around, but the content creation model they have created (blatantly stolen from Usenet) is exceptional at organizing mass opinions. The moderation system (while it shows some of it's won bias) also helps to filter out the crap. The/. model is a good one to copy for anyone thinking about being a major news source in the 21st century. I mean what's more fun a)reading some comm. major's opinion, or b) reading said opinion and then discussing (bashing) it with 100,000 interested people. Pretty simple decision, besides as this article shows much of the content produced through this "open" "community" style is of much higher quality than the tripe that has to be finished on a deadline. Anecdotal evidence indeed.
(been using Linux 6mo.s, and I play games (win98))
Anyway, for multimedia streaming files (*LOUDCOUGH*) Windows Media Player, blows the pants off (*cough*) the competition. Being aware of previous Microsoft tactics (and the tendency to incorporate everything into the OS) I would not be surprised to find special APIs that Real,Quicktime and the others don't ever see. If they open some of their code (and I think they have to at this point, they're losing too many developers) some of this might come to light. At the very least it's more ideas to...evolve from.
And yahoo didn't mean anything other than yippee until three years ago. A lot of the tech press seems to have this feeling that if something isn't "instantly" popular, it won't stick. I remember things that were instantly popular, we called 'em fads and they disappeared after a month. Google gets my eyeballs 'cause it does what it does the best, period. I would much rather they go the "embedded tech" route vs. the "me2portal", which isn't working for most of them, and definitely won't work for new players.
..M$ has TONS of parts in other companies, in all sort of industries, if the company gets split where do these go? What side does Bill take (*coughMarketingcough*)? This thing is huge. The ramifications go on and on, like linux.
Oh the colors. Can we please have black now? Maybe black and grey? Surely it can't be THAT difficult. I haven't owned a mac in my life, but I did use one from 3rd-6th grade one-day a week, I always got in trouble for makin' games and explosions. They were the first machines I programmed on. If my raise goes thru, I'll get one for Christmas...and that new monitor, that thing KICKS ASS! With DVD, and surround speakers, well thats just cool. I'll have to see how it likes my nework. Anybody got one 'o 'dem 'montors?
...it means you actually DON'T have to buy new machines to expand your network to the web, you can use the "old" machines that can't run win2k (wants>300mhz) but humm along with free stuff.
As in the "not performing to market expectations" kind of Red. Anybody know how Linux is performing to "market expectations?" (If anybody mentions RH, I'm gonna slap 'em.)
I'm an admin running about 20 or so NT4 machines and an NT server. The last two machines I bought are Linux web/file servers. We will not be upgrading to Office2000 or Windows2000 until at least 2002 if at all. It's not worth the downtime, now that's everythings M$table. The need to upgrade doesn't exist for most small/medium companies. Microsoft can't have customers not buying software for a couple years. And then after those two years they buy free software, that hurts the 50% annual growth very quickly. How funny is it when an 800-pound Gorilla panics?
(IANAPRS) At least not at the official "PR Department" level. PR acts (in the normal business world)as a buffer zone between the media,customers,real world (i.e. public) and the official "word" of the company. It needs to be localized to provide one point of contact, one mouth speaking, one (very important here) point of view. That of the Company. Linux is not, never has been, and never will be a Company. It is a Community. Communities don't have central points of control for information. If you want to know what the Community thinks, you ask it, and you hear many voices, many differing points of view, the overall "feel" of the Community. This is often highlighted by outstanding members of the community, but if they say somethin' we don't like, they get flamed too. Often much too harshly, but heh, this is a wild community, very few rules apply here. BTW: Two sentences back, this "post" turned into a "rant", but, then again, you read it.
And your idea for a nice easy higly distrubuted Myths of Linux: The FAQs (with examples of FUD and rebuttals. I think including 20-30,000 or so examples of "anecdotal" evidence might be enough to sway some people, ahh screw it. Official call to action! If you want to submit a concise (under1page) example of your anecdotal evidence, send it to me at thewah@uswest.net and I'll make it look pretty on the web.)
I believe that what linux truly needs is some sort of a PR "department".
I believe they are referred to as "Advocates". Most definitely not professional (you get what you pay for), but still a presence. This is why it's so important the temper those that do, and will always, flame madly with well-thought out and pleasantly spoken arguments, delivered with lightning quickness. I personally have noticed the tone of articles (featured here and others) shifting from making flippant remarks and unsubstantiated FUD, to what can almost be considered toned-down respect. The fear of reprisal from the Linux community (and/.'ers specifically (what Effect?;^)) has caused behaviour similar to little kids walking quietly around a very aware, and very alert, bully.
Anyway, Linux doesn't need a full-time PR machine. The companies that sell it most certainly do (they've got to keep the zealots AND shareholders happy), but the community as a whole speaks for itself (loudly, and with very big bashing sticks).
Here's a recent interview from FiringSquad with the great JC. The guys a total stand-up, quake rocks, fast cars, open source, and he lives in Dallas, the center of all things cool and computery (wireless what?!).
"You are performing a valuable service to your country," (Fred) Thompson added, "and we appreciate that and want you to continue."
(Ceck out IMDB if you don't know who Fred Thompson was, although they don't mention that he is now a Senator, go figure)
Anyway, just a quick question. To me, it seems that the Hacker Ethic and Open Source Philosophy end up at the same place. The simple idea that information shared is worth more, intrinsically, than information hidden. Can an *expert* (self-appointed would qualify) show me how the two differ?
From the Main article: Q*bert asks:We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism. Do you see the open-source / free-software movement turning into a larger political push for libertarian, minimal government?.snip.
ESR answers: No comment on that first question. But, if you could see my face, I'm wearing a very evil grin....
From the abover (long and very good) comment: By its nature, the community responds indifferently to grand visions, and the definition of success varies from participant to participant, each according to his or her own needs. The aim of open software is to serve the people who write it, and consequently its users react warily to those advocating a de-emphasis of their rights in exchange for money, publicity, or convenience. Because initiatives flow upwards in this population, its ideal leadership is not that of an emperor tending to a legacy, but that of an ambassador speaking for a people. And in the free software movement, just as in government, an overly inventive diplomat is an incompetent one.
This might be a bit much for some of you, but looking at how the OSS community works is a good example of how things *might* be done in other areas (such as government) in the Digital Age. Replace a few of the words in the above paragraph and you gain some insight in how groups think, and how communities can figure out what is best for them, starting on the "what's best for me" level and moving upward. It will take some time before the population as a whole becomes as connected and tech. literate as your average/.'er (probably another generation) but the effects of this could be, should be, will be, system wide and profound. Instant feedback is good for organisms of all shapes and sizes, communication helps spread and distill ideas. Anyway, just something I was thinking about as I moved through this thread..
To me it seems more like race wars within the same species. Those that start and continue such flame wars should be considered the equivelent of "racists" in the real world. "My strain is better" (nope, just different)
(disclaimer: unless you are bashing Micro$oft, they are akin to the evil alien race that has enslaved the ignorant and lazy and are trying to steal the Helping Phriendly Book)
Slashdot Mirror
One of the things I like best about /. is that most bull***t gets ferreted out rather quickly. Just don't read a discussion for a couple days and let it settle and stratify (word?). Then set your threshold, LOGIN so I can know if you're an idiot or an expert(the default assumption for ACs is "idiot"), be critical of too good to be true stories (and Jesux), and quit bithcing and moaning.
BTW: if you missed the poll, a third of the people who frequent this place are students, take that for what it's worth.
You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship.
Why would you want to talk to people before writing a news article? What were they thinkink? You should just release the tripe and then get all the publicity of being an idiot (dvorak), or pissing people off. Well, that might have worked in the 18-20th century, but dammit, how hard is it to do research now?
Asking expert opinion before writing an article is usually a pretty damn good idea. Censorship in this sense must mean "not publishing erroneous information", that's not censorship, that's editing. Yellow journalism has now become the norm, not the edge. Why has people's trust in the media dropped off so sharply? I'll give you four hints: Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone, Ted Turner, and Lowry Mays.
Poor article by Cringely. Media to the People!
Words uttered at 18 in the middle of a flame war don't have any real correlation to the actual physical person, maybe two decades later. A lot of people might get tarnished unfairly.
Thats why it's important for people to get more perspectives and gain a better look. American culture is finally gaining an understanding that everyone does stupid stuff. We've been fooling ourselves for a long time, but we're growing up. The U.S. is a teenager internationally and acts like it, but recent events and folks like Ventura just might break through the illusions of expectations we've created,....and make the silly posts you made when you were young, looks like the single tiny bits of the big picture they are.;^P
Sorry, but I liked seeing some of the folks I usually only hear about. It's more of the community side than hard news. I think there's room for both. Keeps things interesting and relates to the people, not just the products.
How many other names have you been here done that with that you can put a face to? Or hear 'em talk and move and advocate? I've got high bandwidth. Include movies with EVERY story. Let's make /. even more freakin' amazing. Get yourself a G4, digival video camera, and start making content. Signal not noise. Maybe in a year or two you can be a milly-on-air like our Taco friend, whatever, just quit bitching.
hmmm, funny or flamebait...you decide.
I agree that /. may not be the most objective site around, but the content creation model they have created (blatantly stolen from Usenet) is exceptional at organizing mass opinions. The moderation system (while it shows some of it's won bias) also helps to filter out the crap. The /. model is a good one to copy for anyone thinking about being a major news source in the 21st century. I mean what's more fun a)reading some comm. major's opinion, or b) reading said opinion and then discussing (bashing) it with 100,000 interested people. Pretty simple decision, besides as this article shows much of the content produced through this "open" "community" style is of much higher quality than the tripe that has to be finished on a deadline. Anecdotal evidence indeed.
It tool all of one visit to get me hooked. Great content, funny crackpots, expert opinion, hey look Ma, it's "New Media"!
(been using Linux 6mo.s, and I play games (win98))
Anyway, for multimedia streaming files (*LOUDCOUGH*) Windows Media Player, blows the pants off (*cough*) the competition. Being aware of previous Microsoft tactics (and the tendency to incorporate everything into the OS) I would not be surprised to find special APIs that Real,Quicktime and the others don't ever see. If they open some of their code (and I think they have to at this point, they're losing too many developers) some of this might come to light. At the very least it's more ideas to...evolve from.
It's the bizarro-Gerald Holmes. Gerald!! Watch out, bad touch go 'xplode, run away!!!
They don't have a brand yet."
And yahoo didn't mean anything other than yippee until three years ago. A lot of the tech press seems to have this feeling that if something isn't "instantly" popular, it won't stick. I remember things that were instantly popular, we called 'em fads and they disappeared after a month.
Google gets my eyeballs 'cause it does what it does the best, period. I would much rather they go the "embedded tech" route vs. the "me2portal", which isn't working for most of them, and definitely won't work for new players.
Bravo, my good man, moderators...
..M$ has TONS of parts in other companies, in all sort of industries, if the company gets split where do these go? What side does Bill take (*coughMarketingcough*)? This thing is huge. The ramifications go on and on, like linux.
Oh the colors. Can we please have black now? Maybe black and grey? Surely it can't be THAT difficult. I haven't owned a mac in my life, but I did use one from 3rd-6th grade one-day a week, I always got in trouble for makin' games and explosions. They were the first machines I programmed on. If my raise goes thru, I'll get one for Christmas...and that new monitor, that thing KICKS ASS! With DVD, and surround speakers, well thats just cool. I'll have to see how it likes my nework. Anybody got one 'o 'dem 'montors?
...it means you actually DON'T have to buy new machines to expand your network to the web, you can use the "old" machines that can't run win2k (wants>300mhz) but humm along with free stuff.
As in the "not performing to market expectations" kind of Red. Anybody know how Linux is performing to "market expectations?" (If anybody mentions RH, I'm gonna slap 'em.)
I'm an admin running about 20 or so NT4 machines and an NT server. The last two machines I bought are Linux web/file servers. We will not be upgrading to Office2000 or Windows2000 until at least 2002 if at all. It's not worth the downtime, now that's everythings M$table. The need to upgrade doesn't exist for most small/medium companies. Microsoft can't have customers not buying software for a couple years. And then after those two years they buy free software, that hurts the 50% annual growth very quickly. How funny is it when an 800-pound Gorilla panics?
... we don't need it.
(IANAPRS)
At least not at the official "PR Department" level. PR acts (in the normal business world)as a buffer zone between the media,customers,real world (i.e. public) and the official "word" of the company. It needs to be localized to provide one point of contact, one mouth speaking, one (very important here) point of view. That of the Company. Linux is not, never has been, and never will be a Company. It is a Community. Communities don't have central points of control for information. If you want to know what the Community thinks, you ask it, and you hear many voices, many differing points of view, the overall "feel" of the Community. This is often highlighted by outstanding members of the community, but if they say somethin' we don't like, they get flamed too. Often much too harshly, but heh, this is a wild community, very few rules apply here. BTW: Two sentences back, this "post" turned into a "rant", but, then again, you read it.
And your idea for a nice easy higly distrubuted Myths of Linux: The FAQs (with examples of FUD and rebuttals. I think including 20-30,000 or so examples of "anecdotal" evidence might be enough to sway some people, ahh screw it. Official call to action! If you want to submit a concise (under1page) example of your anecdotal evidence, send it to me at thewah@uswest.net and I'll make it look pretty on the web.)
I believe that what linux truly needs is some sort of a PR "department".
/.'ers specifically (what Effect?;^)) has caused behaviour similar to little kids walking quietly around a very aware, and very alert, bully.
I believe they are referred to as "Advocates". Most definitely not professional (you get what you pay for), but still a presence. This is why it's so important the temper those that do, and will always, flame madly with well-thought out and pleasantly spoken arguments, delivered with lightning quickness. I personally have noticed the tone of articles (featured here and others) shifting from making flippant remarks and unsubstantiated FUD, to what can almost be considered toned-down respect. The fear of reprisal from the Linux community (and
Anyway, Linux doesn't need a full-time PR machine. The companies that sell it most certainly do (they've got to keep the zealots AND shareholders happy), but the community as a whole speaks for itself (loudly, and with very big bashing sticks).
... in this thread
TSR was bought by WotC, which in turn was recently bought by Hasbro, inc.
Hasbro is the Proctor and Gamble of gaming. I just can't wait for D&D Monopoly.
Here's a recent interview from FiringSquad with the great JC. The guys a total stand-up, quake rocks, fast cars, open source, and he lives in Dallas, the center of all things cool and computery (wireless what?!).
"You are performing a valuable service to your country," (Fred) Thompson added, "and we appreciate that and want you to continue."
(Ceck out IMDB if you don't know who Fred Thompson was, although they don't mention that he is now a Senator, go figure)
Anyway, just a quick question. To me, it seems that the Hacker Ethic and Open Source Philosophy end up at the same place. The simple idea that information shared is worth more, intrinsically, than information hidden. Can an *expert* (self-appointed would qualify) show me how the two differ?
From the Main article: .snip.
/.'er (probably another generation) but the effects of this could be, should be, will be, system wide and profound. Instant feedback is good for organisms of all shapes and sizes, communication helps spread and distill ideas. Anyway, just something I was thinking about as I moved through this thread..
Q*bert asks:We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism. Do you see the open-source / free-software movement turning into a larger political push for libertarian, minimal government?
ESR answers: No comment on that first question. But, if you could see my face, I'm wearing a very evil grin....
From the abover (long and very good) comment:
By its nature, the community responds indifferently to grand visions, and the definition of success varies from participant to participant, each according to his or her own needs. The aim of open software is to serve the people who write it, and consequently its users react warily to those advocating a de-emphasis of their rights in exchange for money, publicity, or convenience. Because initiatives flow upwards in this population, its ideal leadership is not that of an emperor tending to a legacy, but that of an ambassador speaking for a people. And in the free software movement, just as in government, an overly inventive diplomat is an incompetent one.
This might be a bit much for some of you, but looking at how the OSS community works is a good example of how things *might* be done in other areas (such as government) in the Digital Age. Replace a few of the words in the above paragraph and you gain some insight in how groups think, and how communities can figure out what is best for them, starting on the "what's best for me" level and moving upward. It will take some time before the population as a whole becomes as connected and tech. literate as your average
To me it seems more like race wars within the same species. Those that start and continue such flame wars should be considered the equivelent of "racists" in the real world. "My strain is better" (nope, just different)
(disclaimer: unless you are bashing Micro$oft, they are akin to the evil alien race that has enslaved the ignorant and lazy and are trying to steal the Helping Phriendly Book)
Many of whom believe AOL *is* the Internet, that's a lot of eyeballs with a Lot of cash.