MY first computer was a Vic-20 back in '80. Had a blast with that thing -- especially when we upgraded a year or so later to have a floppy and the 16K RAM upgrade.
My first exposure to a computer was in the early 70's, when I typed on the keypunch machines at my father's job; they had an IBM 360.
My first exposure to computer *stuff* would be the late 60's. For all intents and purposes, I got to teethe on write protect rings. Now that my wife's pregnant, wish I could find me some of them. (Got some? I'll buy 'em. See my e-mail address.)
I think you need to also factor in the fact that both the thinking itself, and the perception of the outcome of an event, are both filtered through a given individual's biases and prejudices. Mind you, I'm not discussing simply the traditional use of the word "prejudice," but also (as easy examples) anyone who's a conspiracy theorist adherent, or dogmatic democrat/republican, and so forth. As a previous/. story (last week?) pointed out, domgatic political adherents actually stop thinking about, and instead simply start believing, their biases. I imagine that that had something to do with the need to have a statistical sampling in order to get valid results, as humans tend to be an ornery, anecdotal lot.
Look, guy: I'm glad you can explain women away so easily. If that's all it is, please explain to me, precisely, the workings of "conscience." Let's face it: science isn't about what you know, it's about how you come to know it. ANYONE whose IQ even approaches, say, 90, can practice scientific principle (including your much pitied "Joe Sixpack"). And, once you're practicing scientific principle, and apply it on a daily basis, as far as I'm concerned, you're a scientist. You may not be pulling down the big bucks as a lab assistant , but neither are you letting other people do your thinking for you.
I note that your description pretty much includes the whole set of conspiracy theorists. People whom I generally classify as NON-scientific. So, do me a favor: take your elitist views, and start being objective, instead of elitist.
One of the most eye-opening experiences I've ever had was being on jury duty. The case was an incredibly boring look at real estate transactions. My co-jurors were the very Joe Sixpacks you disdain so dearly. And guess what? I'm no slouch in the IQ dep't, but these guys were on the ball -- they remembered judge's instructions, incredible real estate arcana, and hours of testimony, that I was certainly having trouble keeping straight. Truth be told, it made me proud to be an American, and put to shame (IMHO) the cracks about being judged by people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Last, but not least, please tell me how this sentence is supposed to parse: "because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...". Methinks it might be time for you to become acquainted with Lynne Truss' excellent _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_.
Valid point re: bitching about 8 GB. BUT, batteries are the one place in miniaturization where substantial improvements have been lacking. I still think I'll stand by my words -- that we'll see 8 GB (or maybe 16 GB) flash cards before we'll see widespread acceptance of hard drives. Small hard drives have been out for
OVER TEN YEARS
and have never caught on; there was even a 1.6" standard back in the early 90's that went NOWHERE. I see no reason to start believing it'll change now, especially when flash does have many advantages.
As for remembering small hard drives, well... my first, second, third, fourth, and, yes, fifth computers didn't even HAVE hard drives. (Respectively: Vic-20, Kaypro IV, C=64, C=128, and Amiga.) Hell: I was happy when we bought the FLOPPY drive for my Vic, and I could stop using the datasette.
And, yes, I -did- learn to type on punch cards.;-)
Sheesh. Here you dare to submit your own story, which asks legitimate questions, and even asks for feedback. The hubris!
You're lucky that the feedback has (as far as I read) thus far only accused you of
- Cronyism - Faking user identities - Taking kickbacks for posting stories - General stupidity.
OKAY, FOLKS. TIME TO WAKE UP.
Let's take 'em, here: Cronyism/faking poster names. IF ROB WANTED TO POST FAKE USERNAMES, DON'T YOU THINK HE MIGHT TRY TO COVER HIS TRACKS A LITTLE BETTER? Occam's razor kinda dictates that this Beatles Beatles guy is legit, 'cause Rob could cough up as many accounts as he wanted if here were attempting to run a propaganda site.
Kickbacks for stories. Ummmm... duh. Let's face it: we read Slashdot (or, at least, *I* read Slashdot -- and have for years; check my user number) because we enjoy the stories, and the commentary. If we EVER found ANY conclusive evidence that Rob was taking kickbacks from advertisers, I think it would be safe to say the site would be abandoned wholesale. Instead, just like UFO abduction stories, people love to discuss potential cabals and conspiracies, but offer no proof whatsoever. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
General stupidity. Okay, maybe this one's valid, maybe it isn't. But, akin to Howard Stern's take on similar situations, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, STOP READING. I can think of no better vote. No, you DON'T own the site. Rob does. (Or the media conglomarate. Not sure. Doesn't matter.) But we, the users, in a very real sense do dictate the site's future. If we stopped reading, it would go away. So, if you're so pissed, STOP READING. If you think the stories that are posted are stupid, STOP READING. There are plenty of other sites that are spawned in Slashdot's image, that offer different editorial direction and/or mechanisms. Feel free to avail yourselves of them. And, while we're at it, if it's not to the point where you want to wholesale abandon the site, you can -- gasp -- get mod points to change the feel of a story's discussion. Use 'em.
In the meantime, I think Rob and the crew -- with the odd exception (see: magnetic longevity rings) -- try hard, and succeed most of the time. Certainly enough that Slasdhot's one of the sites I refresh the most. I, personally, will continue reading, as long as CmdrTaco and Hemos are associated with the site. They ain't perfect, but they do a damn good job, and have done it long enough and well enough to show it ain't a fluke.
Huh? Why, in the world, have a 10 GB HD, when -- by 2009 -- you'll be able to have (for a slightly higher premium) 8 GB of flash? Lessee:
Flash uses less energy Doesn't need to spin up Won't "crash" [flash can have its own problems, but the heads ain't one of 'em] Can be easily extracted and plugged into external devices Etc.
I love hard drives, but the super-duper-really-small stuff has never (and, IMHO, will never) catch on; flash has that pretty much sewn up.
I'm sure someone else has already pointed that out, but figured I'd throw in my two cents' worth. Really. What *good* music has come out lately? Let's go back in time:
60's: so much good music, it's hard to keep track of. [And a lot of bad, drug-induced music, but the good music easily trumps that.]
70's: okay, so there was disco. But at least it "had a beat and you could dance to it." There were also bands like Heart, Yes, and others that actually did have really good music.
80's: again, a bit tepid. But some of Madonna's songs rocked, Cindy Lauper did some fun stuff. Genesis really hit stride with Phil Collins. And will anyone ever forget 99 Red Ballons?
90's: music hits a big upswing with grunge. Not to mention Red Hot Chili Peppers. Some truly amazing stuff comes out of the early 90's, and some pretty decent rap comes out from the late 90's, early 2000's. Even Justin Timberlake's solo stuff is decent.
2005: Nothin'. Jesse McCartney for the teeny boppers. But, really, what good music has come out in the past 18 months? Diddly squat. Eminem's gone into hiding or something. Same for Justin. The Backstreet Boys are even trying to make a comeback, which just shows how pathetic the competition is. There are a few decent small bands out, but certainly nobody that's going to effect big sales at retail/online stores.
In a nutshell -- kinda like the movies -- there just isn't enough good stuff out there to *warrant* people spending money. The studios are backing pathetic groups/movies, and not willing to take risks. [Obvious exception here is $200+ million on King Kong, but Jackson already had a proven track record.] The fact that _all_ the front-runners for Oscars this year (again, barring the recently released KK) were $30 million productions shows that indy work -- both in film and song -- is really the only place that good stuff is coming from.
Nutshell: studios are in trouble. And, once the indies really start to hit their stride and (*GASP*) _use_ the Internet as the incredible distribution network it could be, instead of fearing it, the studios may actually start having some writing on the wall.
It won't happen today, or even tomorrow. But I'd say that, by 2010, things will be looking pretty different than they are today.
Holy freaking crow. If that's really-truly the case, I'm going to dump Gnome. I'll still use some of its stuff (obviously), but KDE will be the "framework" in which it resides.
I like Gnome. A lot. I like not having to be tied into the KDE window manager. I like all sorts of its nifty functionality.
Except, as noted, when said functionality goes away.
This has been happening for *years*. With every new incarnation of Gnome, I wonder what feature is either gone, or disabled by default. Now, granted, disabled-by-default isn't a bad thing, per-se. If you're a savvy user, it's expected that you'll be able to figure out how to enable it. But sometimes, it ain't that easy -- especially when the menu options aren't all that intuitive.
I mean, what the hell's up with their whole funky "system paradigm" in Nautilus? "Intuitive," my ass. How about a simple hierarchy like most every GUI OS sine the Mac, fer Pete's sake?
Argh. It ain't enough to make me switch to KDE -- I *like* Enlightenment, dammit -- but I certainly see where Linus is coming from, and agree wholeheartedly.
I'm sorry, Miguel, Havoc, etc., but in your attempt to figure out how to appeal to the lowest common denominator, you're pushing away "real" users -- the ones who started using Gnome in the first place, 'cause it didn't try to wrap them up in KDE-cotton.
Y'know what? I thought about it. And, to an extent, I agree with you.
Nevertheless, I wrote nothing but the truth.
Frankly, if he sues me, that'll make a far bigger splash of my words than anything I, personally, could do.
So, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But I didn't take the cop-out route, and post anonymously. Because, to be honest, I'm still pretty darn irked at the whole affair.
Okay. Maybe that's a bit strong. But my former company, Summa Four, Inc. (since acquired by Cisco), made just such a move. We brought in an outside development team to help with our next-generation telecom switch. Four really nice guys would then show up from time to time for dog-and-pony shows, including their president, one Ted Griggs. Ted would bring along his wife. She would -- no kidding -- make really excellent cookies.
THE ONLY THING THE WHOLE GROUP EVER SHIPPED ON TIME WERE HER COOKIES.
On top of that, their foot dragging during the Cisco acquisition cost we lowlife employees HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in stock, while they made out like bandits.
I wouldn't trust those bozos as far as I could throw them.
Now, naturally, this is anecdotal; I'm sure there are perfectly good groups out there who do this sort of thing all the time. My suggestions:
- Get references. Get references that overlap chronologically, so they can't shove stuff under the rug. - See some prior work. Sign NDA's if you have to. - Shop around.
Your issue here isn't with Linux. It's with package management. There are several different package managers out there -- Debian (.deb), Red Hat (.rpm), Gentoo (.???), Slackware (.tgz), as well as their spin-offs (eg., Mandrake, which also uses.rpm). The system I'd suggest is Ubuntu -- it's got a really nice setup, is very user-friendly, and uses.deb, which is far-and-away the easiest-to-use package manager in Linux-land. Debian also happens to have -- by far -- the largest software repository out there. True, everything isn't in it, but damn close to everything is. And far, far more than Windows share/free/etc-ware. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
C'mon. If you're an embedded developer, what're you going to (want to) go for? A closed-source, royalty-based model, or an open-source, royalty-free model -- especially wherein you're able to modify the kernel to your whim? MS's marketing will be sure to push the first option, but common sense really makes the second pretty damn attractive.
No, the Democrats do *not* have that "wonderful and storied" history to which you refer. Instead, it was those Southerners who, in a fit of hatred at reconstruction, chose the alternative party to Lincoln. The so-called "Dixiecrats." It was *NEVER* a national Democratic policy -- written or otherwise -- to endorse any of those policies, no moreso than the Republicans felt that David Duke was "their man." So, while I will concede that politicians of all stripes can, indeed, be asses, I think one has to be wary of making sweeping generalizations and assignations like yours.
WTF, people? I go and post a political comment, and people *AGREE*? C'mon! Where's the irrational debate? Where's the namecalling?
Hmmm. Maybe we should form a new party: the Slashdot party! Because, of course, all Slashdot discourse is rational and level-headed.
Okay, maybe not. And, yes, Roosevelt was not without fault -- from the Japanese interment to attempting to stack the Supreme Court, he definitely was someone willing to sacrifice means for an end -- in a way, he reminds me of Rudy. I guess a part of me thinks that a benificent dictator can be a good thing, but then I remember that was pretty much what Hitler portrayed himself as, and then it doesn't feel as warm and fuzzy.
I just want the Democratic idealism of the 50's (Adlai Stevenson, etc.) and 60's -- but with some fiscal conservatism thrown in, to keep things rational. That, and I'd like to emphasize the word "rational," something that's missing from both parties. [And, sadly, I've considered Libertarianism, but I don't think I can fully rationalize it... not that I don't agree with many Libertarian precepts.]
Ahh, hell. Let's go for anarchy. At least it'll be interesting.
Once upon a time, I was a Democrat -- and damn proud of it. Democrats have a wonderful and storied history of going to bat for the little guy. Be it gender, race, disability, religion... you name it, the Democrats were willing to support those unfairly accused or biased against.
And then came the 90's.
Bill Clinton still did many good things -- but one of the worst things he did (IMNSHO) was to cause the Democratic party to lose its identity. He frequently took Republican initiatives, rubbed off the serial numbers, and called it "Good." Then came Gore & Kerry -- both of whose campaign platforms could be summed up as "I'm not George W. Bush."
Then we have stuff like the DMCA and the Sonny Bono act, both of which should have been squashed by traditional Democrats... and instead are supported by them.
I'm disgusted. Bring back a JFK. Bring back a Roosevelt! Hell -- even Carter! He made some really dumb mistakes, but nobody doubts his sincere willingness to try to do what he felt was best -- as his continued works with Habitat for Humanity show.
Instead, we get Ted (The One That Wouldn't Go Away) Kennedy, we get Tom (I'm a waste of space and air) Daschle, we get antagonists, footdraggers and backpeddalers.
God, I hope McCain runs next time. I'll vote for him before most any Democratic contender I can think of. Perhaps that's why I'm now a registered independent. *sigh*
There is one huge problem with mirroring, and it has nothing to do with technical issues. Specifically, copyright. A lot of the stories that Slashdot links to are copyrighted. While most of their authors would probably be a) grateful not to be DoS'd, and b) fine with the content showing up somewhere other than their site, SOME would take exception. And guess what? The law would be on *their* side, and it could be nasty. I guess you could argue that sites with an exclusionary ROBOTS file wouldn't be mirrored, and that might work... but a lot of legal things get figured out in courts, and forging a precedent can be a really nasty and expensive way to do stuff, even if you win.
So. I think that calling it a deliberate DoS may be stretching things a little. Perhaps "inevitable DoS". Is it perfect? Hell, no. But it works most of the time, and ISPs have learned to throttle even intentional DoS attacks reasonably well -- and virtually ALL ISPs are familiar, to one extent or another, with what "Slashdotting" is.
In other words, I find a lot of your critique to be valid and interesting, but I do think certain elements should be given more thought.
-Slarty
P.S. And yes, I have a lower UID than you.;-) Though I can't claim to have been a reader in Chips 'n Dips days, I was on just after Slashdot went live. Wish I hadn't waited so long to be a subscriber, I'd be freakin' double digit! *sigh*
If you zoom in to maximum resolution, you'll find "proof" we never landed there.;-)
That's just silly. And here's why.
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"All the so-called new OSS products are just copies of..." Maybe you hadn't noticed, but a LOT of the products you're describing -- eg., the browser -- existed in the OSS sphere before it did in the closed-source sphere. Let's list the "killer apps": Spreadsheet Word Processor Database E-mail Browser
Of those five, only the spreadsheet and word processor got their starts as closed source. (Well, okay, the database is a tough one; see Ashton Tate v. Fox Software for details.) Regardless, there are damn few ideas for software these days that didn't exist ten years ago. In other words (and here's the whole point, so pay attention) MOST ALL SOFTWARE, REGARDLESS OF LICENSE, IS DERIVATIVE THESE DAYS. Or, in a nutshell, your argument is specious, ill-informed, and simply dumb.
HOWEVER: Larry might be right, but for the wrong reason. The ONLY thing that drives corporate (as opposed to individual) innovation, as far as I'm concerned, is competition. If competition goes away, innovation stops. See myriad Microsoft cases (eg., DOS 3.x vs. DR DOS, IE vs. Firefox, etc.).
Google's great... for general searches. But say, for example, that I want to make a case-sensitive search for things that occured between 12/1/97 and 12/15/97 -- there's no way to do it on Google. Altavista's "near" quasi-boolean flag is also nifty, doing a good job of ensuring relevance of your multiple criteria. All in all, I think Google's the superior engine, but Altavista has many features that are sometimes sorely lacking in Google-land.
I'd put my text into gedit so's I could cut-and-paste it into Slashdot. Probably wrapped on the hyphen. Thanks for the catch! [I normally check my links for Slashdot posts, but since this was actually a paste of an e-mail, it didn't occur to me.]
Slashdot Mirror
MY first computer was a Vic-20 back in '80. Had a blast with that thing -- especially when we upgraded a year or so later to have a floppy and the 16K RAM upgrade. My first exposure to a computer was in the early 70's, when I typed on the keypunch machines at my father's job; they had an IBM 360. My first exposure to computer *stuff* would be the late 60's. For all intents and purposes, I got to teethe on write protect rings. Now that my wife's pregnant, wish I could find me some of them. (Got some? I'll buy 'em. See my e-mail address.)
I think you need to also factor in the fact that both the thinking itself, and the perception of the outcome of an event, are both filtered through a given individual's biases and prejudices. Mind you, I'm not discussing simply the traditional use of the word "prejudice," but also (as easy examples) anyone who's a conspiracy theorist adherent, or dogmatic democrat/republican, and so forth. As a previous /. story (last week?) pointed out, domgatic political adherents actually stop thinking about, and instead simply start believing, their biases. I imagine that that had something to do with the need to have a statistical sampling in order to get valid results, as humans tend to be an ornery, anecdotal lot.
Look, guy: I'm glad you can explain women away so easily. If that's all it is, please explain to me, precisely, the workings of "conscience." Let's face it: science isn't about what you know, it's about how you come to know it. ANYONE whose IQ even approaches, say, 90, can practice scientific principle (including your much pitied "Joe Sixpack"). And, once you're practicing scientific principle, and apply it on a daily basis, as far as I'm concerned, you're a scientist. You may not be pulling down the big bucks as a lab assistant , but neither are you letting other people do your thinking for you.
I note that your description pretty much includes the whole set of conspiracy theorists. People whom I generally classify as NON-scientific. So, do me a favor: take your elitist views, and start being objective, instead of elitist.
One of the most eye-opening experiences I've ever had was being on jury duty. The case was an incredibly boring look at real estate transactions. My co-jurors were the very Joe Sixpacks you disdain so dearly. And guess what? I'm no slouch in the IQ dep't, but these guys were on the ball -- they remembered judge's instructions, incredible real estate arcana, and hours of testimony, that I was certainly having trouble keeping straight. Truth be told, it made me proud to be an American, and put to shame (IMHO) the cracks about being judged by people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Last, but not least, please tell me how this sentence is supposed to parse: "because it happens so, that there's if any then negative correlation between IQ and popularity...". Methinks it might be time for you to become acquainted with Lynne Truss' excellent _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_.
Yours sincerely,
-Slarty
Valid point re: bitching about 8 GB. BUT, batteries are the one place in miniaturization where substantial improvements have been lacking. I still think I'll stand by my words -- that we'll see 8 GB (or maybe 16 GB) flash cards before we'll see widespread acceptance of hard drives. Small hard drives have been out for
;-)
OVER TEN YEARS
and have never caught on; there was even a 1.6" standard back in the early 90's that went NOWHERE. I see no reason to start believing it'll change now, especially when flash does have many advantages.
As for remembering small hard drives, well... my first, second, third, fourth, and, yes, fifth computers didn't even HAVE hard drives. (Respectively: Vic-20, Kaypro IV, C=64, C=128, and Amiga.) Hell: I was happy when we bought the FLOPPY drive for my Vic, and I could stop using the datasette.
And, yes, I -did- learn to type on punch cards.
Sheesh. Here you dare to submit your own story, which asks legitimate questions, and even asks for feedback. The hubris!
You're lucky that the feedback has (as far as I read) thus far only accused you of
- Cronyism
- Faking user identities
- Taking kickbacks for posting stories
- General stupidity.
OKAY, FOLKS. TIME TO WAKE UP.
Let's take 'em, here:
Cronyism/faking poster names. IF ROB WANTED TO POST FAKE USERNAMES, DON'T YOU THINK HE MIGHT TRY TO COVER HIS TRACKS A LITTLE BETTER? Occam's razor kinda dictates that this Beatles Beatles guy is legit, 'cause Rob could cough up as many accounts as he wanted if here were attempting to run a propaganda site.
Kickbacks for stories. Ummmm... duh. Let's face it: we read Slashdot (or, at least, *I* read Slashdot -- and have for years; check my user number) because we enjoy the stories, and the commentary. If we EVER found ANY conclusive evidence that Rob was taking kickbacks from advertisers, I think it would be safe to say the site would be abandoned wholesale. Instead, just like UFO abduction stories, people love to discuss potential cabals and conspiracies, but offer no proof whatsoever. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
General stupidity. Okay, maybe this one's valid, maybe it isn't. But, akin to Howard Stern's take on similar situations, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, STOP READING. I can think of no better vote. No, you DON'T own the site. Rob does. (Or the media conglomarate. Not sure. Doesn't matter.) But we, the users, in a very real sense do dictate the site's future. If we stopped reading, it would go away. So, if you're so pissed, STOP READING. If you think the stories that are posted are stupid, STOP READING. There are plenty of other sites that are spawned in Slashdot's image, that offer different editorial direction and/or mechanisms. Feel free to avail yourselves of them. And, while we're at it, if it's not to the point where you want to wholesale abandon the site, you can -- gasp -- get mod points to change the feel of a story's discussion. Use 'em.
In the meantime, I think Rob and the crew -- with the odd exception (see: magnetic longevity rings) -- try hard, and succeed most of the time. Certainly enough that Slasdhot's one of the sites I refresh the most. I, personally, will continue reading, as long as CmdrTaco and Hemos are associated with the site. They ain't perfect, but they do a damn good job, and have done it long enough and well enough to show it ain't a fluke.
Party on Way^H^H^H^H Rob.
Party on Hemos.
Huh? Why, in the world, have a 10 GB HD, when -- by 2009 -- you'll be able to have (for a slightly higher premium) 8 GB of flash? Lessee:
Flash uses less energy
Doesn't need to spin up
Won't "crash" [flash can have its own problems, but the heads ain't one of 'em]
Can be easily extracted and plugged into external devices
Etc.
I love hard drives, but the super-duper-really-small stuff has never (and, IMHO, will never) catch on; flash has that pretty much sewn up.
I'm sure someone else has already pointed that out, but figured I'd throw in my two cents' worth. Really. What *good* music has come out lately? Let's go back in time:
60's: so much good music, it's hard to keep track of. [And a lot of bad, drug-induced music, but the good music easily trumps that.]
70's: okay, so there was disco. But at least it "had a beat and you could dance to it." There were also bands like Heart, Yes, and others that actually did have really good music.
80's: again, a bit tepid. But some of Madonna's songs rocked, Cindy Lauper did some fun stuff. Genesis really hit stride with Phil Collins. And will anyone ever forget 99 Red Ballons?
90's: music hits a big upswing with grunge. Not to mention Red Hot Chili Peppers. Some truly amazing stuff comes out of the early 90's, and some pretty decent rap comes out from the late 90's, early 2000's. Even Justin Timberlake's solo stuff is decent.
2005: Nothin'. Jesse McCartney for the teeny boppers. But, really, what good music has come out in the past 18 months? Diddly squat. Eminem's gone into hiding or something. Same for Justin. The Backstreet Boys are even trying to make a comeback, which just shows how pathetic the competition is. There are a few decent small bands out, but certainly nobody that's going to effect big sales at retail/online stores.
In a nutshell -- kinda like the movies -- there just isn't enough good stuff out there to *warrant* people spending money. The studios are backing pathetic groups/movies, and not willing to take risks. [Obvious exception here is $200+ million on King Kong, but Jackson already had a proven track record.] The fact that _all_ the front-runners for Oscars this year (again, barring the recently released KK) were $30 million productions shows that indy work -- both in film and song -- is really the only place that good stuff is coming from.
Nutshell: studios are in trouble. And, once the indies really start to hit their stride and (*GASP*) _use_ the Internet as the incredible distribution network it could be, instead of fearing it, the studios may actually start having some writing on the wall.
It won't happen today, or even tomorrow. But I'd say that, by 2010, things will be looking pretty different than they are today.
-Slarty
Holy freaking crow. If that's really-truly the case, I'm going to dump Gnome. I'll still use some of its stuff (obviously), but KDE will be the "framework" in which it resides.
Thanks!
-Slarty
I like Gnome. A lot. I like not having to be tied into the KDE window manager. I like all sorts of its nifty functionality.
Except, as noted, when said functionality goes away.
This has been happening for *years*. With every new incarnation of Gnome, I wonder what feature is either gone, or disabled by default. Now, granted, disabled-by-default isn't a bad thing, per-se. If you're a savvy user, it's expected that you'll be able to figure out how to enable it. But sometimes, it ain't that easy -- especially when the menu options aren't all that intuitive.
I mean, what the hell's up with their whole funky "system paradigm" in Nautilus? "Intuitive," my ass. How about a simple hierarchy like most every GUI OS sine the Mac, fer Pete's sake?
Argh. It ain't enough to make me switch to KDE -- I *like* Enlightenment, dammit -- but I certainly see where Linus is coming from, and agree wholeheartedly.
I'm sorry, Miguel, Havoc, etc., but in your attempt to figure out how to appeal to the lowest common denominator, you're pushing away "real" users -- the ones who started using Gnome in the first place, 'cause it didn't try to wrap them up in KDE-cotton.
Y'know what? I thought about it. And, to an extent, I agree with you.
Nevertheless, I wrote nothing but the truth.
Frankly, if he sues me, that'll make a far bigger splash of my words than anything I, personally, could do.
So, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But I didn't take the cop-out route, and post anonymously. Because, to be honest, I'm still pretty darn irked at the whole affair.
Okay. Maybe that's a bit strong. But my former company, Summa Four, Inc. (since acquired by Cisco), made just such a move. We brought in an outside development team to help with our next-generation telecom switch. Four really nice guys would then show up from time to time for dog-and-pony shows, including their president, one Ted Griggs. Ted would bring along his wife. She would -- no kidding -- make really excellent cookies.
THE ONLY THING THE WHOLE GROUP EVER SHIPPED ON TIME WERE HER COOKIES.
On top of that, their foot dragging during the Cisco acquisition cost we lowlife employees HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in stock, while they made out like bandits.
I wouldn't trust those bozos as far as I could throw them.
Now, naturally, this is anecdotal; I'm sure there are perfectly good groups out there who do this sort of thing all the time. My suggestions:
- Get references. Get references that overlap chronologically, so they can't shove stuff under the rug.
- See some prior work. Sign NDA's if you have to.
- Shop around.
Good luck!
Your issue here isn't with Linux. It's with package management. There are several different package managers out there -- Debian (.deb), Red Hat (.rpm), Gentoo (.???), Slackware (.tgz), as well as their spin-offs (eg., Mandrake, which also uses .rpm). The system I'd suggest is Ubuntu -- it's got a really nice setup, is very user-friendly, and uses .deb, which is far-and-away the easiest-to-use package manager in Linux-land. Debian also happens to have -- by far -- the largest software repository out there. True, everything isn't in it, but damn close to everything is. And far, far more than Windows share/free/etc-ware. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
C'mon. If you're an embedded developer, what're you going to (want to) go for? A closed-source, royalty-based model, or an open-source, royalty-free model -- especially wherein you're able to modify the kernel to your whim? MS's marketing will be sure to push the first option, but common sense really makes the second pretty damn attractive.
No, the Democrats do *not* have that "wonderful and storied" history to which you refer. Instead, it was those Southerners who, in a fit of hatred at reconstruction, chose the alternative party to Lincoln. The so-called "Dixiecrats." It was *NEVER* a national Democratic policy -- written or otherwise -- to endorse any of those policies, no moreso than the Republicans felt that David Duke was "their man." So, while I will concede that politicians of all stripes can, indeed, be asses, I think one has to be wary of making sweeping generalizations and assignations like yours.
$.02.
WTF, people? I go and post a political comment, and people *AGREE*? C'mon! Where's the irrational debate? Where's the namecalling?
Hmmm. Maybe we should form a new party: the Slashdot party! Because, of course, all Slashdot discourse is rational and level-headed.
Okay, maybe not. And, yes, Roosevelt was not without fault -- from the Japanese interment to attempting to stack the Supreme Court, he definitely was someone willing to sacrifice means for an end -- in a way, he reminds me of Rudy. I guess a part of me thinks that a benificent dictator can be a good thing, but then I remember that was pretty much what Hitler portrayed himself as, and then it doesn't feel as warm and fuzzy.
I just want the Democratic idealism of the 50's (Adlai Stevenson, etc.) and 60's -- but with some fiscal conservatism thrown in, to keep things rational. That, and I'd like to emphasize the word "rational," something that's missing from both parties. [And, sadly, I've considered Libertarianism, but I don't think I can fully rationalize it... not that I don't agree with many Libertarian precepts.]
Ahh, hell. Let's go for anarchy. At least it'll be interesting.
Once upon a time, I was a Democrat -- and damn proud of it. Democrats have a wonderful and storied history of going to bat for the little guy. Be it gender, race, disability, religion... you name it, the Democrats were willing to support those unfairly accused or biased against.
And then came the 90's.
Bill Clinton still did many good things -- but one of the worst things he did (IMNSHO) was to cause the Democratic party to lose its identity. He frequently took Republican initiatives, rubbed off the serial numbers, and called it "Good." Then came Gore & Kerry -- both of whose campaign platforms could be summed up as "I'm not George W. Bush."
Then we have stuff like the DMCA and the Sonny Bono act, both of which should have been squashed by traditional Democrats... and instead are supported by them.
I'm disgusted. Bring back a JFK. Bring back a Roosevelt! Hell -- even Carter! He made some really dumb mistakes, but nobody doubts his sincere willingness to try to do what he felt was best -- as his continued works with Habitat for Humanity show.
Instead, we get Ted (The One That Wouldn't Go Away) Kennedy, we get Tom (I'm a waste of space and air) Daschle, we get antagonists, footdraggers and backpeddalers.
God, I hope McCain runs next time. I'll vote for him before most any Democratic contender I can think of. Perhaps that's why I'm now a registered independent. *sigh*
Are those sandpeople?
There is one huge problem with mirroring, and it has nothing to do with technical issues. Specifically, copyright. A lot of the stories that Slashdot links to are copyrighted. While most of their authors would probably be a) grateful not to be DoS'd, and b) fine with the content showing up somewhere other than their site, SOME would take exception. And guess what? The law would be on *their* side, and it could be nasty. I guess you could argue that sites with an exclusionary ROBOTS file wouldn't be mirrored, and that might work... but a lot of legal things get figured out in courts, and forging a precedent can be a really nasty and expensive way to do stuff, even if you win.
;-) Though I can't claim to have been a reader in Chips 'n Dips days, I was on just after Slashdot went live. Wish I hadn't waited so long to be a subscriber, I'd be freakin' double digit! *sigh*
So. I think that calling it a deliberate DoS may be stretching things a little. Perhaps "inevitable DoS". Is it perfect? Hell, no. But it works most of the time, and ISPs have learned to throttle even intentional DoS attacks reasonably well -- and virtually ALL ISPs are familiar, to one extent or another, with what "Slashdotting" is.
In other words, I find a lot of your critique to be valid and interesting, but I do think certain elements should be given more thought.
-Slarty
P.S. And yes, I have a lower UID than you.
Well, a reason not to do, say, oh, I don't know, ANY OF THE GAS GIANTS is because we can't freaking SEE any features that are solid.
Helloooo?
The patented GoogleCam(tm) is vastly superior to any telescope. Intentionally? The conspiracy deepens...
If you zoom in to maximum resolution, you'll find "proof" we never landed there. ;-)
"All the so-called new OSS products are just copies of..."
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but a LOT of the products you're describing -- eg., the browser -- existed in the OSS sphere before it did in the closed-source sphere. Let's list the "killer apps":
Spreadsheet
Word Processor
Database
E-mail
Browser
Of those five, only the spreadsheet and word processor got their starts as closed source. (Well, okay, the database is a tough one; see Ashton Tate v. Fox Software for details.) Regardless, there are damn few ideas for software these days that didn't exist ten years ago. In other words (and here's the whole point, so pay attention) MOST ALL SOFTWARE, REGARDLESS OF LICENSE, IS DERIVATIVE THESE DAYS. Or, in a nutshell, your argument is specious, ill-informed, and simply dumb.
HOWEVER: Larry might be right, but for the wrong reason. The ONLY thing that drives corporate (as opposed to individual) innovation, as far as I'm concerned, is competition. If competition goes away, innovation stops. See myriad Microsoft cases (eg., DOS 3.x vs. DR DOS, IE vs. Firefox, etc.).
If you did, maybe you'd've noticed that it was submitted by a senior editor from Linux Journal, itself, EXPLICITLY SO IT COULD BE WIDELY SEEN.
Or was that perhaps too subtle for you?
Go back to bed; it's Monday, and you're obviously tired.
Google's great... for general searches. But say, for example, that I want to make a case-sensitive search for things that occured between 12/1/97 and 12/15/97 -- there's no way to do it on Google. Altavista's "near" quasi-boolean flag is also nifty, doing a good job of ensuring relevance of your multiple criteria. All in all, I think Google's the superior engine, but Altavista has many features that are sometimes sorely lacking in Google-land.
I'd put my text into gedit so's I could cut-and-paste it into Slashdot. Probably wrapped on the hyphen. Thanks for the catch! [I normally check my links for Slashdot posts, but since this was actually a paste of an e-mail, it didn't occur to me.]