While I don't doubt that things will change, the article does seem to downplay the fact that linux!=redhat (although they are clearly aware of it). But they ignore the existence of such projects as Debian entirely, which is odd for an apparently well-informed article.
in my experience, Suck exists to shit on everything (have you ever seen a positive piece by them? I haven't); they like to play up the negatives to fire up the readership. Take away the apocalyptic tone, and what they say is probably correct; but the rest seems to be a variant on the "linux is fragmenting" theme.
I cannot understand why anyone would pay for linux. It is free software. Why buy something when you can get it for free... or really cheap from cheapbytes. I would pay for Myth 2, or starcraft, but not stuff i can download or pay a nominal fee for.
disclaimer - I am a student and $60 is a weeks worth of groceries.
One reason is that they might want to support Linux companies in the easiest way available to them. Or, if you don't like the commercial aspect of things, you can make a donation to Debian with your order from (IIRC) lsl.
Another is that the official distro might include some software that's not easily available through other means. e.g. I needed an office package and SuSE included SO 5.0 for $30... so, rather than face a 50mb download over my PPP connection, I laid out the dough.
I'm in much the same situation as you, it's a question of priorities (I just cut back on the beer and eating out that month).
hmmm... note that I was explicitly comparing the official versions, and anyhow, surprise surprise you can get GPL SuSE from various sources, e.g. www.linuxmall.com for the same price. I note that cheapbytes doesn't do that, but then don't get fooled into thinking they're the only source for cheap linux CDs. And you can download SuSE too, so it's all even.
I happen to like it very much for it's not-so-steep learning-curve and the wealth of programs on the 6 CDs.
Just for the record: a "steep learning curve" is a good thing for learning: how much knowledge you have is plotted against time in a learning curve, so the steeper, the faster you learn. Not that this matters, it's like "hacker/cracker" in the mainstream media, but I felt pedantic today.
Just to keep on-topic: I find SuSE is pretty easy to administrate, and the fact that it comes with a buttload of software and is waaaay cheaper than official redhat is also a goodmaking feature. If you're a "nothing but GPL" fan, though, I suppose it might not be for you.
To the original poster: "suse sucks" != "I tried it and found it worked differently than redhat" Saying it sucks makes it sound like you have a reason for disliking it that anyone else should agree is valid for them; but you don't.
I doubt it. The US is exceedingly poweful in trade. Witness the recent banana wars[1], and the hormone-treated beef affair[2]. In both these cases, the EU attempted to choose what to buy and where to buy it from, and got its wrists slapped by the World Trade Organisation, which habitually favours the US, because that`s where many of its members and much of its funding comes from. So, I`m afraid, as far as trade goes, the EU and its regulations don`t really count for very much.
Except that no large department of the US government is currently litigating against US banana growers or hormone-using ranchers. If the EU goes after MS *now*, or after any kind of judgment against MS, I don't see how anyone could (rationally or, what is all too distinct, politically) attempt to impose sanctions on the EU for stopping MS from trying to enforce a monopoly outside of the US.
This sounds interesting. Just another thing to add: since faculty have tenure at most universities, this might also help to create a stable environment where ongoing development of a project could take place, with a faculty member as coordinator/'sponsor'.
Well, here's some observations from someone who hasn't used Linux that long and does, at least in part, because of a dislike for MS, and also because it's cool. My chief reason is that I like that I can now get my computer to do what I want the way I want it to, and it comes with a boatload of *useful* software. It's the best tool for the jobs I want to do (where that calculation includes what I can afford to pay).
One of the key advantages claimed for the open-source development model is that development of completely new apps, as well as bugfixes and enhancements for ones that already exist is much faster than under the closed-source model. But now that seems to be becoming a bit of a problem for those who've been using Linux for a while. They remember the 'good old days', when real linux users could hack together some ingenious solution to almost any problem with a few lines of code.
The gathering (or, depending on your perspective, already gathered) critical mass of users and developers is resulting in an explosion of alternatives for almost every aspect of a linux system, and even things near the core of the system are being changed by some distributions (the one constant being, of course, the kernel itself). This is perceived as a "watering down" or a "dumbing down" of Linux itself, and is supposed to herald the departure of the bleeding-edgers. I don't doubt that this is true for at least some. But some of the reaction sounds like it's to the mere fact of change -- "things just aren't like they used to be, and that's in itself a Bad Thing".
It also seems inevitable that a bit of a brain drain will happen with *any* technology, because sooner or later, it will reach a point where any idiot can use it. The people who are now working on biologically-based digital storage (to pick a random example) would probably have been hard at work on steam engine technologies in the 18th century (not that any idiot can *fix* an engine, but you all know that just about any warm body over the age of 16 can use one). Moore's law being what it is, no doubt the day will come when Linux reaches the point where further attempts to develop it on the latest hardware will not be cost-effective (in the sense of resources, not just $$$) and things should switch over to whatever younger technology is there to replace it.
But even after a technology hits that 'magic level' where it doesn't take exceptional skill or vision to use it or improve it incrementally, there's still plenty of reason to use it. Internal-combustion engine technology is asymptotically approaching the limits of what can be done with it (and it's probably been like that for your whole lifetime, if you're a/. reader), but how many of you have used one lately for something and find it *indispensible* on a day-to-day basis? (even if you're a Critical-Masser, ICE's get your groceries to the store where you shop) And how many talented designers are still working on improving it? A lot of people in the pits at Daytona and Indy are there because they enjoy hacking away at cars just to get them to work better.
So, yeah, there will probably be a bit of a 'brain drain.' But I won't lose sleep over it, because there's still an influx of new people, and there will (for the future that I can reasonably plan for) be enough gray-matter devoted to developing the software I use.
I will address your last point, please don't consider this flamebait.
Canada and every other country in the western hemisphere is free to spend their money on things besides defense not becaue of their superior political system, but as a matter of geographical convenience. The United States is so heavily armed that, for example, a Mexican Navy would be pretty silly. It is fairly obvious that if anyone tried to attack Canada the United States armed forces would be all over them instantly. (note. emph. added)
I'll agree that having an armed-to-the-teeth chum has been good for Canada economically; but lest you forget (or, to take a not-totally-justified swipe at the US educational system, lest you have never been informed), between what we like to call the "world wars" Canada wasn't terribly well armed, but by the end of the second of those wars, Canada had (IIRC) a navy in the top ten (I want to say top five, but I'm not confident about that) in size and was a significant factor in winning the battle for the Atlantic, not to mention playing a significant role in such actions as D-Day. Canadian armed forces to this day do a lot of good work in peacekeeping. The point being that we are well aware of where our priorities lie and when the time comes, we are always ready to do our part.
Finally: that part of your comment I emphasized suggests that Britain, France, et al. don't "pull their weight" militarily (although I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, so I won't accuse you of having said so outright). But, surprisingly enough, the French and the British have strong militaries and they manage to be more socialistic than the US in the bargain. Oh yeah, and socialism is an economic system, not a political one: other countries in the Western Hemisphere have governments which rule by the will of the people too (a pedantic point about the use of a single word, but one well worth emphasizing).
The original point was that the US is over-militarized; this is not to say that us from outside of the US can't be (grudgingly =) grateful for US willingness to bomb third- and second-world countries every few years =)
(hey, waitaminit, didn't that last bit flame everybody?)
Because a half-hour show, such as the ludicrously funny (to Canadians) This Hour Has 22 Minutes runs for 22 minutes, the other 8 are commercials.
Oh yeah, and the 'loonie' ($CDN) is worth significantly less than the $US to investors around the world for no apparent reason (who eliminated their budget deficit first, hmmm?)
If I understand correctly, they're not allowed to spread buzz, but announcing new business partnerships should be OK. It's not like they should have to go out of business for 6 mos. while they wait for the IPO...
I gotta agree at least partially here. If, say, these posters were Lilly employees disclosing stuff against NDAs they had signed, it's not clear to me that they deserve much protection from Yahoo (who could also conceivably be found liable here for their 'contribution', however unwitting).
It seems to me that with freedom comes responsibility. Where, pray tell, do people think they have the right to say anything to anyone at any time without repurcussions? "Damn, he won't hire me because I called him an asshole on/. two months ago in my.sig"
This isn't to say that Yahoo's quick compliance isn't a little worrisome, or that the well-heeled already have a little too much power to effectively gag the not-so-well-heeled. But I think any reaction to this story should be measured.
You would think so, but according to the story no regulations or suggestions (or whatever we call SEC 'directives' that online brokerages like E-Trade tend to follow) have been rescinded or altered.
It's pretty obvious that *somebody* at E-Trade (and the report doesn't tell us how high this thing goes) just told the folks on RedHat's geek list to lie through their keycaps. This may be something like a capitulation, but methinks it's just letting geeks in on a little financier's secret.
I'm sure most of us are laughing along with the folks at the Censorware site, at the lame attempts by various software houses to "protect the children." But I'll be cynical here: I don't expect that it will make much difference until big media houses latch onto the inherent problems with censorware. And even then, I'm suspicious that the "well, nothing's perfect" attitude will still lead to fairly widespread use (think it can't happen? Lemme tell you a story about an OS developed in Redmond...). It looks like part of a slow erosion.
But don't let the cynic in ya keep you down. I suppose that folks interested in this issue should develop an anti-censorware HOWTO and take the message to the streets, Congress and (since I am well aware of my own country's flaws in this respect) to the House of Commons. But far be it from me to tell Americans what they ought to do... at least until the takeover is complete... heh heh.
My point is that, who are Rob et al to say what constitutes a good question?
Umm, the guys who put in many hours of the day running the website? The guys with editorial control over what stories are posted to the site?
/. is not a public service that you pay for (directly) with your tax dollars, nor is Bruce Perens' expertise./. is now, and has always been, a service provided to you by someone else, largely by the sweat of their brows.
It's one thing to question their editorial policies and try to persuade them to do things differently. It's quite another to question their right to tailor the content on the site so it comes out the way they think best. If CT, Hemos, Roblimo and the rest of the gang (sorry to those I left out) became dictatorial and insensitive to the general will of/. readers, a lot of us would stop coming here. But of course they want to have a site that's worth reading. So if they're smart, they won't stop listening, and I think they do a pretty good job at that (at least I see no good evidence that they don't).
Second: the editorial board (if I may call them that) of/. probably has at least a good sense of what's of general interest to the/. community as any one member, and collectively, probably a better one. That's not to say they can't be wrong (geez, guys, the Amiga things are getting me down) But as a policy, if the discussion's going to appear on/., why shouldn't they be allowed to do the filtering? If you have a question that's of interest to you, you can surely ask Mr. Perens in another forum. It's not like this is the *only* time you're ever going to have access to him.
Finally: if Mr. Perens decided that this way of doing things is agreeable to him, then why isn't it agreeable to you? It's ultimately his baby anyhow.
(oh, yeah, and why is it necessary to have a forum on slashdot? I suppose it isn't. But they feel like doing it, a lot of people might get enlightened by it, and not everybody has all day to read seventeen different nerdy sites.)
they [the market, not e-trade] don't want people jumping in on an IPO and selling off at $50 higher per share, at the end of the day.
thus, from what I've heard, they're pulling together and choosing candidates through their past trading experience.
This said, someone who gets in, and immediately sells off like I mentioned before, runs the risk of getting blacklisted.
Let me preface this all with an "if that's true, then..."
Man, this is old-boys-networkism if I've ever come across it. If they truly think that only old hands at the market deserve to be in on IPOs, it amounts to saying to the people who aren't in the game yet that they aren't allowed to make some really big money -- and under the guise of "it's for your own protection."
If somebody understands the stock market at all, they know that *any* stock can tank at just about any time. IF they don't understand that, then sure, don't let them invest. But then, don't let them walk unsupervised out of the institution they are most likely in either.
I suppose the argument you're pointing to is the one that goes "day traders introduce too much instability into stock prices," so it's supposedly bad for the nation as a whole that trading by inexperienced people be allowed. Ahh, but now the vaunted "wisdom of the free market" argument has been largely trashed. It's not free markets, but markets guided by the all-too-visible (but yet, apparently invisible to popular culture) hand of Wall Street bigwigs.
"Y'see, an elected gummint always does wrong, so they shouldn't be allowed to run things. The rich, on the other hand, know what's good for you, so they should be allowed to run things."
I mean, this seems like where this reasoning leads.
Crikey, dunno if the Echelon stories or *this* trend worries me more...
Ticketmaster's main complaint was that users hyperlinking deep into its site were missing several banner ads they would have seen if they had entered through the frontdoor, Hayes said. "They felt they were getting harmed in their ad revenues -- they weren't getting as many eyeballs," he said. Microsoft, meanwhile, argued its links were a First Amendment right."
This argument strikes me as bogus, but, as IANAL, I'll just talk about an analogy: Do TV networks have the right to sue VCR manufacturers who put technology in their players that detect and screen out commercials? Or what about the VCR itself, which allows users to see the shows without watching the ads? The fact is that if they want to prevent access from outside, they can do what everyone else does: require registration, or use cookies.
Anyhow, vote with your mouse clicks: if they want you to go through seventeen pages before they'll give you what you want, you shouldn't bother. I won't use apple's site if I can get away with it, it's one of the worst I've seen in terms of its organization for technical support (just *try* to find a driver for an older piece of hardware there).
Maybe it's journalistic courtesy - if somebody else gets the scoop, you let them have it for a while before publishing your own article?
Yeah, I'd bet it's something like that (what cooperation? but I thought competition was the only good thing...).
Maybe it's also that nobody wants the sites to become mirrors of each other. Hell, if you want the latest greatest Linux news, use the Linux Ticker available from LinuxMall.
But they do have different styles,/. is more of a "community feedback" kinda place on News for Nerds (wider interest) where LT is more "news about Linux." So the focus on/. isn't on scooping at all, it's about posting stories that are gonna generate some interest and discussion among nerds.
Well, hold it: it's one thing for AOL to be wrong here, and another for MS to be "right" in the relevant sense. MS is, according to ESR, on the right side of the debate; but that doesn't make them "right", because there's as yet no indication that they're on the right side *for the right reasons*.
Second, and I don't lay that much confidence in this point, 'cos I think it's pretty murky: part of AOL's claim is that MS's software uses their servers without AOL's consent. Now, since one can put up passwords to block access to a box and no one will gripe, that means that putting a server on the 'net isn't ipso facto putting it up there for just anyone to use. It's one thing to be for open standards (which I doubt in MS' case, as I've already said) , but it's quite another to demand to use a private company's equipment for your own gain, which is what MS is doing. Now, should MS set up their own AIM(-compliant) servers or start paying AOL a fee for the use of the servers, the point I'm making here would certainly be diminished in force; but until they do, I think there's a case to be made for AOL's side. Free (as in speech) software isn't a right, not legally or otherwise, even if Open Source is in general a better way.
(Dylan going electric) was more important than anything the Beatles ever did!
what about Elvis recording "That's All Right Momma" et al at Sun Records in the 50's? Dollars to donuts (god I love that expression) that launched a few musicians into the rock stratosphere.
Side note: I saw BD just recently, he was pretty up and gave a pretty 'rockin' show -- I almost got the impression that his "All Along the Watchtower" was a tribute to Hendrix (speaking of whom, the performance at Monterey and Woodstock has got to count for lots of guitarists).
So are Roger Daltrey and Keith Moon going to be in this?
I hope not... I don't much like looking at corpses or listening to them try to play drums... =)
Now I'm gonna quote Wally Pleasant...
Keith Moon started smashing all my stuff
Sid Vicious sat in the corner, trying to look tough Eddie Cochran was gettin' high with Bob Marley Roy Orbison just rode in on his Harley All the dead/all the dead/rock n' roll stars/rock n' roll stars/ were hangin' out in my apartment...
Anybody who likes today's rock has to pay homage to the great Zeppelin.
... who made their name reworking a bunch of delta blues songs...
My point being not that Zeppelin sucks (I count myself a fan, and I'll note that there was some innovation going on in those reworkings; but have a listen to the Jeff Beck Group's "Truth" and you'll see that the Zep weren't the only ones thinking like that) or that we should all forget it after the Beatles, or anything like that.
Mozart, Bach, Schoenberg, Les Paul, and let's not forget one of the ultimate derivative acts, Elvis Presley (the "real" Elvis for me is Costello), all contributed to inspiring whoever your favorite band might be, however indirectly.
So let's leave it at that and let the Tacobeing bask in the glow of the news.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't doubt that things will change, the article does seem to downplay the fact that linux!=redhat (although they are clearly aware of it). But they ignore the existence of such projects as Debian entirely, which is odd for an apparently well-informed article.
in my experience, Suck exists to shit on everything (have you ever seen a positive piece by them? I haven't); they like to play up the negatives to fire up the readership. Take away the apocalyptic tone, and what they say is probably correct; but the rest seems to be a variant on the "linux is fragmenting" theme.
One reason is that they might want to support Linux companies in the easiest way available to them. Or, if you don't like the commercial aspect of things, you can make a donation to Debian with your order from (IIRC) lsl.
Another is that the official distro might include some software that's not easily available through other means. e.g. I needed an office package and SuSE included SO 5.0 for $30 ... so, rather than face a 50mb download over my PPP connection, I laid out the dough.
I'm in much the same situation as you, it's a question of priorities (I just cut back on the beer and eating out that month).
hmmm ... note that I was explicitly comparing the official versions, and anyhow, surprise surprise you can get GPL SuSE from various sources, e.g. www.linuxmall.com for the same price. I note that cheapbytes doesn't do that, but then don't get fooled into thinking they're the only source for cheap linux CDs. And you can download SuSE too, so it's all even.
Oh, and SuSE sells support too.
Just for the record: a "steep learning curve" is a good thing for learning: how much knowledge you have is plotted against time in a learning curve, so the steeper, the faster you learn. Not that this matters, it's like "hacker/cracker" in the mainstream media, but I felt pedantic today.
Just to keep on-topic: I find SuSE is pretty easy to administrate, and the fact that it comes with a buttload of software and is waaaay cheaper than official redhat is also a goodmaking feature. If you're a "nothing but GPL" fan, though, I suppose it might not be for you.
To the original poster: "suse sucks" != "I tried it and found it worked differently than redhat" Saying it sucks makes it sound like you have a reason for disliking it that anyone else should agree is valid for them; but you don't.
Except that no large department of the US government is currently litigating against US banana growers or hormone-using ranchers. If the EU goes after MS *now*, or after any kind of judgment against MS, I don't see how anyone could (rationally or, what is all too distinct, politically) attempt to impose sanctions on the EU for stopping MS from trying to enforce a monopoly outside of the US.
This sounds interesting. Just another thing to add: since faculty have tenure at most universities, this might also help to create a stable environment where ongoing development of a project could take place, with a faculty member as coordinator/'sponsor'.
Well, here's some observations from someone who hasn't used Linux that long and does, at least in part, because of a dislike for MS, and also because it's cool. My chief reason is that I like that I can now get my computer to do what I want the way I want it to, and it comes with a boatload of *useful* software. It's the best tool for the jobs I want to do (where that calculation includes what I can afford to pay).
One of the key advantages claimed for the open-source development model is that development of completely new apps, as well as bugfixes and enhancements for ones that already exist is much faster than under the closed-source model. But now that seems to be becoming a bit of a problem for those who've been using Linux for a while. They remember the 'good old days', when real linux users could hack together some ingenious solution to almost any problem with a few lines of code.
The gathering (or, depending on your perspective, already gathered) critical mass of users and developers is resulting in an explosion of alternatives for almost every aspect of a linux system, and even things near the core of the system are being changed by some distributions (the one constant being, of course, the kernel itself). This is perceived as a "watering down" or a "dumbing down" of Linux itself, and is supposed to herald the departure of the bleeding-edgers. I don't doubt that this is true for at least some. But some of the reaction sounds like it's to the mere fact of change -- "things just aren't like they used to be, and that's in itself a Bad Thing".
It also seems inevitable that a bit of a brain drain will happen with *any* technology, because sooner or later, it will reach a point where any idiot can use it. The people who are now working on biologically-based digital storage (to pick a random example) would probably have been hard at work on steam engine technologies in the 18th century (not that any idiot can *fix* an engine, but you all know that just about any warm body over the age of 16 can use one). Moore's law being what it is, no doubt the day will come when Linux reaches the point where further attempts to develop it on the latest hardware will not be cost-effective (in the sense of resources, not just $$$) and things should switch over to whatever younger technology is there to replace it.
But even after a technology hits that 'magic level' where it doesn't take exceptional skill or vision to use it or improve it incrementally, there's still plenty of reason to use it. Internal-combustion engine technology is asymptotically approaching the limits of what can be done with it (and it's probably been like that for your whole lifetime, if you're a /. reader), but how many of you have used one lately for something and find it *indispensible* on a day-to-day basis? (even if you're a Critical-Masser, ICE's get your groceries to the store where you shop) And how many talented designers are still working on improving it? A lot of people in the pits at Daytona and Indy are there because they enjoy hacking away at cars just to get them to work better.
So, yeah, there will probably be a bit of a 'brain drain.' But I won't lose sleep over it, because there's still an influx of new people, and there will (for the future that I can reasonably plan for) be enough gray-matter devoted to developing the software I use.
You said it. Anybody reading this far: don't give 'em the ammo.
I'll agree that having an armed-to-the-teeth chum has been good for Canada economically; but lest you forget (or, to take a not-totally-justified swipe at the US educational system, lest you have never been informed), between what we like to call the "world wars" Canada wasn't terribly well armed, but by the end of the second of those wars, Canada had (IIRC) a navy in the top ten (I want to say top five, but I'm not confident about that) in size and was a significant factor in winning the battle for the Atlantic, not to mention playing a significant role in such actions as D-Day. Canadian armed forces to this day do a lot of good work in peacekeeping. The point being that we are well aware of where our priorities lie and when the time comes, we are always ready to do our part.
Finally: that part of your comment I emphasized suggests that Britain, France, et al. don't "pull their weight" militarily (although I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, so I won't accuse you of having said so outright). But, surprisingly enough, the French and the British have strong militaries and they manage to be more socialistic than the US in the bargain. Oh yeah, and socialism is an economic system, not a political one: other countries in the Western Hemisphere have governments which rule by the will of the people too (a pedantic point about the use of a single word, but one well worth emphasizing).
The original point was that the US is over-militarized; this is not to say that us from outside of the US can't be (grudgingly =) grateful for US willingness to bomb third- and second-world countries every few years =)
(hey, waitaminit, didn't that last bit flame everybody?)
Because a half-hour show, such as the ludicrously funny (to Canadians) This Hour Has 22 Minutes runs for 22 minutes, the other 8 are commercials.
Oh yeah, and the 'loonie' ($CDN) is worth significantly less than the $US to investors around the world for no apparent reason (who eliminated their budget deficit first, hmmm?)
title sez it all
If I understand correctly, they're not allowed to spread buzz, but announcing new business partnerships should be OK. It's not like they should have to go out of business for 6 mos. while they wait for the IPO ...
It seems to me that with freedom comes responsibility. Where, pray tell, do people think they have the right to say anything to anyone at any time without repurcussions? "Damn, he won't hire me because I called him an asshole on /. two months ago in my .sig"
This isn't to say that Yahoo's quick compliance isn't a little worrisome, or that the well-heeled already have a little too much power to effectively gag the not-so-well-heeled. But I think any reaction to this story should be measured.
You would think so, but according to the story no regulations or suggestions (or whatever we call SEC 'directives' that online brokerages like E-Trade tend to follow) have been rescinded or altered.
It's pretty obvious that *somebody* at E-Trade (and the report doesn't tell us how high this thing goes) just told the folks on RedHat's geek list to lie through their keycaps. This may be something like a capitulation, but methinks it's just letting geeks in on a little financier's secret.
I'm sure most of us are laughing along with the folks at the Censorware site, at the lame attempts by various software houses to "protect the children." But I'll be cynical here: I don't expect that it will make much difference until big media houses latch onto the inherent problems with censorware. And even then, I'm suspicious that the "well, nothing's perfect" attitude will still lead to fairly widespread use (think it can't happen? Lemme tell you a story about an OS developed in Redmond ...). It looks like part of a slow erosion.
But don't let the cynic in ya keep you down. I suppose that folks interested in this issue should develop an anti-censorware HOWTO and take the message to the streets, Congress and (since I am well aware of my own country's flaws in this respect) to the House of Commons. But far be it from me to tell Americans what they ought to do ... at least until the takeover is complete... heh heh.
Not funny ... informative, worthwhile, insightful, prescient (perhaps), scary-as-hell (how's that for a moderator option). But not funny.
Umm, the guys who put in many hours of the day running the website? The guys with editorial control over what stories are posted to the site?
/. is not a public service that you pay for (directly) with your tax dollars, nor is Bruce Perens' expertise. /. is now, and has always been, a service provided to you by someone else, largely by the sweat of their brows.
It's one thing to question their editorial policies and try to persuade them to do things differently. It's quite another to question their right to tailor the content on the site so it comes out the way they think best. If CT, Hemos, Roblimo and the rest of the gang (sorry to those I left out) became dictatorial and insensitive to the general will of /. readers, a lot of us would stop coming here. But of course they want to have a site that's worth reading. So if they're smart, they won't stop listening, and I think they do a pretty good job at that (at least I see no good evidence that they don't).
Second: the editorial board (if I may call them that) of /. probably has at least a good sense of what's of general interest to the /. community as any one member, and collectively, probably a better one. That's not to say they can't be wrong (geez, guys, the Amiga things are getting me down) But as a policy, if the discussion's going to appear on /., why shouldn't they be allowed to do the filtering? If you have a question that's of interest to you, you can surely ask Mr. Perens in another forum. It's not like this is the *only* time you're ever going to have access to him.
Finally: if Mr. Perens decided that this way of doing things is agreeable to him, then why isn't it agreeable to you? It's ultimately his baby anyhow.
(oh, yeah, and why is it necessary to have a forum on slashdot? I suppose it isn't. But they feel like doing it, a lot of people might get enlightened by it, and not everybody has all day to read seventeen different nerdy sites.)
they [the market, not e-trade] don't want people jumping in on an IPO and selling off at $50 higher per share, at the end of the day.
thus, from what I've heard, they're pulling together and choosing candidates through their past trading experience.
This said, someone who gets in, and immediately sells off like I mentioned before, runs the risk of getting blacklisted.
Let me preface this all with an "if that's true, then ..."
Man, this is old-boys-networkism if I've ever come across it. If they truly think that only old hands at the market deserve to be in on IPOs, it amounts to saying to the people who aren't in the game yet that they aren't allowed to make some really big money -- and under the guise of "it's for your own protection."
If somebody understands the stock market at all, they know that *any* stock can tank at just about any time. IF they don't understand that, then sure, don't let them invest. But then, don't let them walk unsupervised out of the institution they are most likely in either.
I suppose the argument you're pointing to is the one that goes "day traders introduce too much instability into stock prices," so it's supposedly bad for the nation as a whole that trading by inexperienced people be allowed. Ahh, but now the vaunted "wisdom of the free market" argument has been largely trashed. It's not free markets, but markets guided by the all-too-visible (but yet, apparently invisible to popular culture) hand of Wall Street bigwigs.
"Y'see, an elected gummint always does wrong, so they shouldn't be allowed to run things. The rich, on the other hand, know what's good for you, so they should be allowed to run things."
I mean, this seems like where this reasoning leads.
Crikey, dunno if the Echelon stories or *this* trend worries me more ...
This argument strikes me as bogus, but, as IANAL, I'll just talk about an analogy: Do TV networks have the right to sue VCR manufacturers who put technology in their players that detect and screen out commercials? Or what about the VCR itself, which allows users to see the shows without watching the ads? The fact is that if they want to prevent access from outside, they can do what everyone else does: require registration, or use cookies.
Anyhow, vote with your mouse clicks: if they want you to go through seventeen pages before they'll give you what you want, you shouldn't bother. I won't use apple's site if I can get away with it, it's one of the worst I've seen in terms of its organization for technical support (just *try* to find a driver for an older piece of hardware there).
Don't you mean an i-chip?
Yeah, I'd bet it's something like that (what cooperation? but I thought competition was the only good thing ...).
Maybe it's also that nobody wants the sites to become mirrors of each other. Hell, if you want the latest greatest Linux news, use the Linux Ticker available from LinuxMall.
But they do have different styles, /. is more of a "community feedback" kinda place on News for Nerds (wider interest) where LT is more "news about Linux." So the focus on /. isn't on scooping at all, it's about posting stories that are gonna generate some interest and discussion among nerds.
Well, hold it: it's one thing for AOL to be wrong here, and another for MS to be "right" in the relevant sense. MS is, according to ESR, on the right side of the debate; but that doesn't make them "right", because there's as yet no indication that they're on the right side *for the right reasons*.
Second, and I don't lay that much confidence in this point, 'cos I think it's pretty murky: part of AOL's claim is that MS's software uses their servers without AOL's consent. Now, since one can put up passwords to block access to a box and no one will gripe, that means that putting a server on the 'net isn't ipso facto putting it up there for just anyone to use. It's one thing to be for open standards (which I doubt in MS' case, as I've already said) , but it's quite another to demand to use a private company's equipment for your own gain, which is what MS is doing. Now, should MS set up their own AIM(-compliant) servers or start paying AOL a fee for the use of the servers, the point I'm making here would certainly be diminished in force; but until they do, I think there's a case to be made for AOL's side. Free (as in speech) software isn't a right, not legally or otherwise, even if Open Source is in general a better way.
(Dylan going electric) was more important than anything the Beatles ever did!
what about Elvis recording "That's All Right Momma" et al at Sun Records in the 50's? Dollars to donuts (god I love that expression) that launched a few musicians into the rock stratosphere.
Side note: I saw BD just recently, he was pretty up and gave a pretty 'rockin' show -- I almost got the impression that his "All Along the Watchtower" was a tribute to Hendrix (speaking of whom, the performance at Monterey and Woodstock has got to count for lots of guitarists).
I hope not ... I don't much like looking at corpses or listening to them try to play drums ... =)
Now I'm gonna quote Wally Pleasant ...
My point being not that Zeppelin sucks (I count myself a fan, and I'll note that there was some innovation going on in those reworkings; but have a listen to the Jeff Beck Group's "Truth" and you'll see that the Zep weren't the only ones thinking like that) or that we should all forget it after the Beatles, or anything like that.
Mozart, Bach, Schoenberg, Les Paul, and let's not forget one of the ultimate derivative acts, Elvis Presley (the "real" Elvis for me is Costello), all contributed to inspiring whoever your favorite band might be, however indirectly.
So let's leave it at that and let the Tacobeing bask in the glow of the news.