Actually, it's owned by Andover.net. Rob is one of their employees who runs the site.
"It's Rob's site" might also mean that he has editorial control, which, IIRC and the reports were accurate, he retained even after Andover.net bought the site. We often say "A Richard Donner movie" or whatever even though only folks like Spielberg, Lucas, and the dearly departed Kubrick had anything like *complete* control over the final content (reports that Kubrick didn't have complete control over EWS are a) exaggerated and b) to the extent that they are true, mitigated by the fact that he died before its release).
I doubt Andover.net would be concerned about the content of/. unless the readership started leaving in droves, and the occasional bit of self-indulgence ain't gonna start that.
Cafe Patron: What are you rebelling against?
Brando: What do you got?
Rebel Without a Cause is James Dean's most famous film. With Mr. Howell/Magoo as his dad! (man, I was born too late to watch that movie and take the father character seriously!)
Otherwise, good summary (I just had to do the slashdot thing and point out a minor mistake); if you want "infotainment" on the mods/rockers thing, Quadrophenia isn't a bad place to start.
>and full of pith and vinegar. Where do you come up with this stuff? Mr. Burns. >Don't count your uptime until it's happened I will put linux uptime againt your M$ uptime anyday!
Wow, you think I'm Bill Gates? Nope, I'm proud to say I now do all my work in Linux.
Have you ever even administered a system? Do you know the joy of installing a new program or changing network setings without having a reboot? NOT WITH WINDOWS!
In my humble way, I have known such joys. And you're right, not with windows.
>I need a better catchphrase paraphrase
Yes you do.
Oh beaked and inebriated one, in the spirit of Open Source, I beseech thee, this wert a call for a little tweaking, not an invitation to a brusque reply!
>I don't think RH's little "solution" here will >make any kind of significant dent in a market MS >has yet turned its eye to.
And couple of years ago people were saying, "I don't think the linux os will make any kind of significant dent in the market"
Look, my point is pretty much the same as what others -- no less pro-Linux than me, and often more so -- have been saying here: this is a *low-end* package. That's fine; I don't think MS has set its sights on that market, so it may well do some brisk business. But it's not gonna bring down MS all by itself. This is a long and involved process, and at best this is a teeny tiny part of that process. Certainly not worth apocalyptic rhetoric.
Wow, arthurs_sidekick, you are very insightful...NOT.
Continue to ignore the facts, it will be yours and M$ downfall!
... and so the drunken penguin continues the rampage. But let's not make assumptions, 'cos you know what they do to U... and, well, not me, just U in this case.
We all will never learn? HA! Micro$oft is the one who is learning now. Linux is teaching you and the DOJ is teaching you! We will kill your e-business and you will easily fall. Linux is the best and will remain the best. Win2K sux now and will a poor out of date hunk of crap when it is released. Your crowd will learn!
So that is what the esteemed Mr. Torvalds had in mind when he thought up the penguin as a logo. A few beers in 'im and he's all, like "I'm indestructible!" and full of pith and vinegar.
Don't count your uptime until it's happened... damn I need a better catchphrase paraphrase. But I don't think RH's little "solution" here will make any kind of significant dent in a market MS has yet turned its eye to.
Also, now that we have the ability to filter out stories by author, I don't see why anyone bitches about Katz unless they just want to have something to bitch about. In other words, if you hate Katz so much, filter him out.
And lose out on a good source of that crack-for-the-rest-of-us, righteous indignation?
Now there's a story: "Opinionated fail to avail themselves of opportunity to vent about something they need not be confronted with."
Hold the phone a second. Discrimination is wrong when it's unjustified; if you can point to a relevant difference between two people that gives you reason to treat them differently (and there are no overriding reasons to treat them equally), then it's not "discrimination" in the bad sense (I discriminate between oncoming cars and air masses when I cross the street). Nor (as you point out) all discrimination illegal, and not just because the law often doesn't reflect the best reasons. Now, whatever you may think of the "who will think of the children?" kinds of people who advocate all sorts of restrictions on what can be shown in public (and, heck, in private), they at least have something approximating a reason for treating the young differently; the law, being what it is, goes to the side of caution (c'mon, do you really need to be 21 to drink responsibly? Damn, one reason to like Europe better -- but I digress =)
But how is the case he describes discrimination against people over 18? If anything, it treats them exactly the same way it treats the young on this issue, as "guilty until proven innocent." The point from the theater was that their ages hadn't been ratified, and the policy of not selling tickets to *potential* minors was upheld.
Now, the fact that the theater lets MoviePhone sell tickets without ratification, that does discriminate against people who don't have credit cards.
It's true, all the same, that Libertarianism _does_ define "problems", but to say that any such definition is a "moral" decision is -- while technically true -- stretching the terms of discussion out of conventional form.
Here's my thinking on this: it's not that unconventional to use "moral" to cover things of genuine value (I'll grant that there's a common usage in which it refers mainly to sexual matters). Think of some examples: why shouldn't you steal when you're not going to get caught and the person from whom you're stealing ain't gonna miss it? One answer goes "because your integrity is more important than the doodad," and here, I take it, we are dealing with a moral issue. People with different viewpoints (religious and otherwise) will, of course, disagree about whether (to pick an example out of the air) it's OK to have non-marital sex. What kind of disagreement is it? Yeah, maybe you're right that it's a little bit odd, but that admission that it's "technically" right is at least an indication that we don't have any other comfortable name for the kind of issue I'm pointing at.
Bad governments are immoral; good ones are not.
My basic thought here is that a system of government is going to have to be justified by appeal to what system is the best for the people who have to live in it. Stick whatever name you like on the kind of value appealed to in "best", I'm not married to "moral", although I do think it's the only term that can cover this. I react to "political" because I don't think there's a special kind of "political" value distinct from just plain "value" (or, to the extent that there is, the former is a function of the latter). (hope that counts as an answer to your final question)
> Vague though this principle may be, it is still > clearly a *moral principle*.
No, it's a political principle. Game over, thanks for playing.
Read what I said again: "It is immoral..." Libertarianism is clearly a political philosophy, which I surmise is what you're saying. And you're absolutely right about that. However, libertarianism has to be *grounded* in moral principles (note that in appealing to the idea that governmental interference always makes things worse assumes some principles or other about what things are better and worse, and that's a moral principle. One might also appeal to the value of autonomy in a justification for libertarian views, which is the principle I used as an example).
I like your disentangling of the commitments of Christianity from legal moralism, though.
Can't say I buy your theology, but that wasn't my point to begin with.
Re: My use of the term "Judeo Christian" was intended to point out that there is a commonality of traditions and scriptural sources among the various Christain sects which does have traceable, definite connections to the older Jewish tradition (the Torah does appear in Christian scriptures, though not by that name), and not to suggest that there is a single viewpoint there. My meaning (and the meanings of most people who use the term, I daresay) is that there is a family of viewpoints that can, in some contexts, be usefully grouped together (apparent acceptance of the ten commandments being one such common thread). Heck, when you look at it that way, I was being downright *inclusive*, mentioning that the Jewish tradition is there too, and my parenthetical comment pointed out that the Jewish tradition is more *consistent* on this point, since there isn't as serious a problem as with dealing with the New testament and its teachings in Judaism.
The current context is just such a context. I made no suggestion that there is an "Evil Moral Majority" consisting of all Christian sects and all Jewish sects (I've heard of the Reformation, Northern Ireland, and the Holocaust, and so have most/. readers) together in a concerted effort to dominate the world. That's something *you* read into it, and given the lack of textual justification for that reading, I don't feel at all responsible for it.
But just because umpires will make bad calls at some point, that's no reason to remove them from the game.
Right, umpires sometimes make bad calls and that doesn't disqualify them from being good umpires, or from making calls in the future. Religious sects have made "bad calls" too, and that doesn't mean that there aren't valuable moral insights there. But the umpire has been duly vested with authority, and we can all see from what it derives, and insofar as we have an interest in playing or watching the game of baseball, that is because there is value in seeing that the rules are properly observed and the ump is generally good at seeing that they are. However, if the ump made calls on what he thinks that a vocal portion (I won't say "minority") of the crowd will think of him, then damn straight he should be pulled out of the game. If he's going to make calls on the basis of how he thinks the game should turn out, or because he's made a bet on the outcome, damn straight he shouldn't be there either.
Provided there's a good reason that can be made clear to all for keeping the ump in the game, nobody *should* have a problem. But (shifting back to the case at hand) when the argument comes down to -- as it so often in public life in the US -- "Look, I believe in what's said here in The Book," and there are irresolvable differences over not only whether The Book ought to have absolute authority (and I'd be willing to argue that these are decisive in and of themselves), but also over what The Book says, then it seems to me that appeal to The Book doesn't have a place in a pluralistic society.
All I'm asking for are justifications for moral principles that apply to everybody, and it was only in that where I alluded to libertarianism.
I haven't seen South Park the movie; I find the show highly entertaining, and I would consider it a success as a parent if my children, should I have any, found things like that entertaining too. The idea that children are *harmed* merely by exposing them to alternate viewpoints and treating serious subjects in an irreverent fashion doesn't wash. If it leads them to question things some people find sacred, then fine: if there is value in those things they question, it will stand up to such questioning. If there is not, then those things aren't really worth valuing. Besides, South Park is funny!
/. is right there, only now you have to follow a link. Given that you're a regular here, and that their list of stories was always a little bit old, that shouldn't bug you too much. Anyhow, given the venting that goes on here (myself included =), often of an anti-corporate nature, maybe they don't want to highlight those aspects of Linux. That's their right, and hell (for those thinking "corporate sell-out"), do we really want suits to become hackers? Isn't the point selling them on the viability of non-MS 'solutions'? So pushing/. down off of their front page isn't that bad.
What, you don't got it bookmarked?
Agreed that the site is a yawn, it even looks bad in Netscape (on my Linux box; I've engaged in font-deuglification too) -- didn't they look at it for themselves?
Anyhow, this whole "portal" strategy doesn't sound like a big winner, especially if that's their front door. At a first glance, it looks marginally more useful to those looking for "HOWTOS" etc. than Linux.com or org's which are "news and views" oriented.
For them to compete, they need to provide something no other site really provides: we already have linux.org,.com and/., combined with those pages to which they provide semi-regular links. A new portal should contribute something new; if they don't have new brilliant ideas, they could at least be more comprehensive than they appear to be right now.
May your day be sunny, yet cool with a small chance of showers later in the afternoon.
And about the "Ten Commandments" comment in the first part of your story - give me a break. Our country is closer now to "religious discrimination" then in ever has been - but only in the context of restricting prayer in school and the like.
Sorry, but I can't buy it. Christianity -- or, I should say, Judeo-Christianity, since the New Testament is the only one that has to do with Christ and the TC are in the Old Testament
(kids, always, always pay attention to the difference between the New and Old Testaments, they really paint quite different pictures of the moral life)
-- has a very loud voice in this country and I really can't buy the claim that it is unfairly marginalized (interestingly enough, and I don't necessarily include you, ultrapenguin, many of the same people who seem to demand special rights for christian viewpoints -- such as having schools give christianity a 'leg up' in publicly funded schools -- often scream the loudest about according human rights to homosexuals as "special rights").
I tell you, I get outright offended by some of the Ten Commandments. As a non-christian, I feel marginalized when they are thrown at me; the idea seems to be that I can't really be a moral being just because I don't go to church. This is not only false, it is perniciously so.
I heartily object to the one that tells us to have "no other gods" before the Judeo-Christian one. Not to mention other tidbits such as the one that says "thou shalt not kill" really says "thou shalt not murder" which is about as helpful as "thou shalt not do things which are wrong." Honor thy mother and father? No problem, as long as they deserve it. The absolutistic tone in which the TC are revered and understood by some is also positively detrimental, stifling honest moral thought.
Everyone accepts moral limits, even libertarians -- they just accept different ones than the "legal moralists" and cultural conservatives. The libertarian thinks it is immoral to interfere with others pursuits of their goals, so long as those pursuits do not interfere unfairly with others' pursuits of their goals. Vague though this principle may be, it is still clearly a *moral principle*. While I don't agree with the libertarian conclusions, I at least applaud them for attempting to come up with a mutually justifiable framework in which every individual can pursue his or her own conception of the good life.
I am not opposed to moral education or moral discussion in public schools; I am opposed to moral education that does not inquire after the *justification* of moral principles, and the "ten commandments" idea is just such a proposal. You can't justify some of those commandments, at least not as they are usually interpreted (i.e. as absolute rules); and the second you allow exceptions to them, you're in the game of providing reasons for allowing them.
Well, just for the record, SuSE's online database system does require that you install Apache (search proceeds via a CGI script, IIRC) and, again if I remember correctly, you need inetd running for a service which superficially seems unrelated. So it does happen.
Oh, and we also sell way more Linux CDs Vs (Windows98 || Office) combined. *grin*
Well, yeah. Let us not forget, impending world domination or no, nearly every consumer computer shipped still comes with RedmondWare, and an increasing number of those come with Office apps too. So people don't need to buy those MS CDs, they already have 'em.
How many of those people who buy Linux comment "but I thought this was free!"?
One of the worries expressed about "open source" and viruses was that when virus coders use open-source development models, they are able to develop virii faster, to wit:
When virus writers moved to an open source model in 1996, there was an explosion in macro viruses, ICSA's Thompson said. "I could see how [the proliferation of attacks] might happen [as hackers] borrow bits and pieces of code" from BO2K. "We may see more viruses that exploit" BO2K code, he said.
Well, two things to say about this: of course the proliferation of macro viruses had nothing to do with the increasing prevalence of computers running all the MS Office apps -- geez! But second, and more important:
If viruses are developed faster because their makers moved to an "open source" model, then this would seem to provide an argument that anti-viral software should also have an open source model. In fact, the argument assumes that development under the open source model is faster.
I note, finally, that the article focused on the problems faced by people running NT anyhow.
Native: "And what kind of football team has the devil as a mascot?"
Not to mention an NHL team from New Jersey, a basketball team from a university in Durham, NC, and a popular line of vacuum cleaners. Gotta love them rednecks.
But then, this happened pre-Dallas Stars' cup victory.
At least the numbering's beginning to make sense
on
On Perl 5.6
·
· Score: 4
As far as casual programmers like myself go, I really appreciate a numbering system that's more "industry standard." I mean, sticking a couple of decimal places out in front of a major revision number is pretty confusing for those of us who can't keep up. Until I read this piece, I'd though 5.005 was only marginally different from 5.004. (Raster, Mandrake: if you're reading this -- why is E still at.16? Are you planning 83 more releases between now and the one where it's finally ready?)
Now, if they'd add support for *irregular* expressions, that's something I could really go for; programmin' Yoda-style!
If it accurately reflected the language, then the site would be pretty ugly. It would, however, probably find a way to bake your bread online and make you a sandwich too; there would be modules for condiments and...
a. You like following links that are announced as having images with a non-graphical browser?
b. You were using Lynx to read/. (not the worst thing one could be doing), read everybody complaining about how it looks and had to see it for yourself?
c. Some image-heavy pages suck even if you can't see them?
d. Thrfy*falb6Rewd.B)ASPlNo?
(sorry, I started looking at the page and my eyeballs crossed. d. should read: it was an attempt at humour?)
e. You're upset because you wanted trio3D support in XFree 3.3.4 and they couldn't fit it in?
I'm a bit concerned about this passage in the QPL license they're using:
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements
I'm not sure I see the problem, as the emphasized part of the quote from the license should make clear, the provisos only click in if you distribute what you've written. I suppose there could be a problem with the interpretation of "distributed", but the most natural reading to my ear (which counts for jack in a court of law, I know) is that it involves releasing the software in a format useable by others, and wouldn't be met by merely running the software on your own site.
Anybody more familiar with the QPL want to weigh in?
Interesting how propaganda has toned down, at least temporarily, their references to JFK in light of what's happened to his son, but the Dealey Plaza Museum (live webcam from the book depository) is still going strong, and if anything, that's much creepier than what goes on at propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's Rob's site" might also mean that he has editorial control, which, IIRC and the reports were accurate, he retained even after Andover.net bought the site. We often say "A Richard Donner movie" or whatever even though only folks like Spielberg, Lucas, and the dearly departed Kubrick had anything like *complete* control over the final content (reports that Kubrick didn't have complete control over EWS are a) exaggerated and b) to the extent that they are true, mitigated by the fact that he died before its release).
I doubt Andover.net would be concerned about the content of /. unless the readership started leaving in droves, and the occasional bit of self-indulgence ain't gonna start that.
Methinks you think of The Wild Ones
Rebel Without a Cause is James Dean's most famous film. With Mr. Howell/Magoo as his dad! (man, I was born too late to watch that movie and take the father character seriously!)
Otherwise, good summary (I just had to do the slashdot thing and point out a minor mistake); if you want "infotainment" on the mods/rockers thing, Quadrophenia isn't a bad place to start.
Wow, you think I'm Bill Gates? Nope, I'm proud to say I now do all my work in Linux.
Have you ever even administered a system? Do you know the joy of installing a new program or changing network setings without having a reboot? NOT WITH WINDOWS!
In my humble way, I have known such joys. And you're right, not with windows.
>I need a better catchphrase paraphrase
Yes you do.
Oh beaked and inebriated one, in the spirit of Open Source, I beseech thee, this wert a call for a little tweaking, not an invitation to a brusque reply!
>I don't think RH's little "solution" here will >make any kind of significant dent in a market MS >has yet turned its eye to.
And couple of years ago people were saying, "I don't think the linux os will make any kind of significant dent in the market"
Look, my point is pretty much the same as what others -- no less pro-Linux than me, and often more so -- have been saying here: this is a *low-end* package. That's fine; I don't think MS has set its sights on that market, so it may well do some brisk business. But it's not gonna bring down MS all by itself. This is a long and involved process, and at best this is a teeny tiny part of that process. Certainly not worth apocalyptic rhetoric.
Wow, arthurs_sidekick, you are very insightful...NOT.
Continue to ignore the facts, it will be yours and M$ downfall!
... and so the drunken penguin continues the rampage. But let's not make assumptions, 'cos you know what they do to U ... and, well, not me, just U in this case.
So that is what the esteemed Mr. Torvalds had in mind when he thought up the penguin as a logo. A few beers in 'im and he's all, like "I'm indestructible!" and full of pith and vinegar.
Don't count your uptime until it's happened ... damn I need a better catchphrase paraphrase. But I don't think RH's little "solution" here will make any kind of significant dent in a market MS has yet turned its eye to.
However, just wait til next year!
And lose out on a good source of that crack-for-the-rest-of-us, righteous indignation?
Now there's a story: "Opinionated fail to avail themselves of opportunity to vent about something they need not be confronted with."
Not Onion material, surely.
Side question: does Katz read the comments? (If you do, Jon, please don't pipe up: I'd rather read the speculation) =)
Hold the phone a second. Discrimination is wrong when it's unjustified; if you can point to a relevant difference between two people that gives you reason to treat them differently (and there are no overriding reasons to treat them equally), then it's not "discrimination" in the bad sense (I discriminate between oncoming cars and air masses when I cross the street). Nor (as you point out) all discrimination illegal, and not just because the law often doesn't reflect the best reasons. Now, whatever you may think of the "who will think of the children?" kinds of people who advocate all sorts of restrictions on what can be shown in public (and, heck, in private), they at least have something approximating a reason for treating the young differently; the law, being what it is, goes to the side of caution (c'mon, do you really need to be 21 to drink responsibly? Damn, one reason to like Europe better -- but I digress =)
But how is the case he describes discrimination against people over 18? If anything, it treats them exactly the same way it treats the young on this issue, as "guilty until proven innocent." The point from the theater was that their ages hadn't been ratified, and the policy of not selling tickets to *potential* minors was upheld.
Now, the fact that the theater lets MoviePhone sell tickets without ratification, that does discriminate against people who don't have credit cards.
No, no, you've got this Slashdot posting thing all wrong: the first question is always
Shouldn't jovibytes be huge, but still smaller than solabytes?
Here's my thinking on this: it's not that unconventional to use "moral" to cover things of genuine value (I'll grant that there's a common usage in which it refers mainly to sexual matters). Think of some examples: why shouldn't you steal when you're not going to get caught and the person from whom you're stealing ain't gonna miss it? One answer goes "because your integrity is more important than the doodad," and here, I take it, we are dealing with a moral issue. People with different viewpoints (religious and otherwise) will, of course, disagree about whether (to pick an example out of the air) it's OK to have non-marital sex. What kind of disagreement is it? Yeah, maybe you're right that it's a little bit odd, but that admission that it's "technically" right is at least an indication that we don't have any other comfortable name for the kind of issue I'm pointing at.
Bad governments are immoral; good ones are not.
My basic thought here is that a system of government is going to have to be justified by appeal to what system is the best for the people who have to live in it. Stick whatever name you like on the kind of value appealed to in "best", I'm not married to "moral", although I do think it's the only term that can cover this. I react to "political" because I don't think there's a special kind of "political" value distinct from just plain "value" (or, to the extent that there is, the former is a function of the latter). (hope that counts as an answer to your final question)
Read what I said again: "It is immoral ..." Libertarianism is clearly a political philosophy, which I surmise is what you're saying. And you're absolutely right about that. However, libertarianism has to be *grounded* in moral principles (note that in appealing to the idea that governmental interference always makes things worse assumes some principles or other about what things are better and worse, and that's a moral principle. One might also appeal to the value of autonomy in a justification for libertarian views, which is the principle I used as an example).
I like your disentangling of the commitments of Christianity from legal moralism, though.
Can't say I buy your theology, but that wasn't my point to begin with.
Still in the game ...
Re: My use of the term "Judeo Christian" was intended to point out that there is a commonality of traditions and scriptural sources among the various Christain sects which does have traceable, definite connections to the older Jewish tradition (the Torah does appear in Christian scriptures, though not by that name), and not to suggest that there is a single viewpoint there. My meaning (and the meanings of most people who use the term, I daresay) is that there is a family of viewpoints that can, in some contexts, be usefully grouped together (apparent acceptance of the ten commandments being one such common thread). Heck, when you look at it that way, I was being downright *inclusive*, mentioning that the Jewish tradition is there too, and my parenthetical comment pointed out that the Jewish tradition is more *consistent* on this point, since there isn't as serious a problem as with dealing with the New testament and its teachings in Judaism.
The current context is just such a context. I made no suggestion that there is an "Evil Moral Majority" consisting of all Christian sects and all Jewish sects (I've heard of the Reformation, Northern Ireland, and the Holocaust, and so have most /. readers) together in a concerted effort to dominate the world. That's something *you* read into it, and given the lack of textual justification for that reading, I don't feel at all responsible for it.
Right, umpires sometimes make bad calls and that doesn't disqualify them from being good umpires, or from making calls in the future. Religious sects have made "bad calls" too, and that doesn't mean that there aren't valuable moral insights there. But the umpire has been duly vested with authority, and we can all see from what it derives, and insofar as we have an interest in playing or watching the game of baseball, that is because there is value in seeing that the rules are properly observed and the ump is generally good at seeing that they are. However, if the ump made calls on what he thinks that a vocal portion (I won't say "minority") of the crowd will think of him, then damn straight he should be pulled out of the game. If he's going to make calls on the basis of how he thinks the game should turn out, or because he's made a bet on the outcome, damn straight he shouldn't be there either.
Provided there's a good reason that can be made clear to all for keeping the ump in the game, nobody *should* have a problem. But (shifting back to the case at hand) when the argument comes down to -- as it so often in public life in the US -- "Look, I believe in what's said here in The Book," and there are irresolvable differences over not only whether The Book ought to have absolute authority (and I'd be willing to argue that these are decisive in and of themselves), but also over what The Book says, then it seems to me that appeal to The Book doesn't have a place in a pluralistic society.
All I'm asking for are justifications for moral principles that apply to everybody, and it was only in that where I alluded to libertarianism.
I haven't seen South Park the movie; I find the show highly entertaining, and I would consider it a success as a parent if my children, should I have any, found things like that entertaining too. The idea that children are *harmed* merely by exposing them to alternate viewpoints and treating serious subjects in an irreverent fashion doesn't wash. If it leads them to question things some people find sacred, then fine: if there is value in those things they question, it will stand up to such questioning. If there is not, then those things aren't really worth valuing. Besides, South Park is funny!
/. is right there, only now you have to follow a link. Given that you're a regular here, and that their list of stories was always a little bit old, that shouldn't bug you too much. Anyhow, given the venting that goes on here (myself included =), often of an anti-corporate nature, maybe they don't want to highlight those aspects of Linux. That's their right, and hell (for those thinking "corporate sell-out"), do we really want suits to become hackers? Isn't the point selling them on the viability of non-MS 'solutions'? So pushing /. down off of their front page isn't that bad.
What, you don't got it bookmarked?
Agreed that the site is a yawn, it even looks bad in Netscape (on my Linux box; I've engaged in font-deuglification too) -- didn't they look at it for themselves?
Anyhow, this whole "portal" strategy doesn't sound like a big winner, especially if that's their front door. At a first glance, it looks marginally more useful to those looking for "HOWTOS" etc. than Linux.com or org's which are "news and views" oriented.
For them to compete, they need to provide something no other site really provides: we already have linux.org, .com and /., combined with those pages to which they provide semi-regular links. A new portal should contribute something new; if they don't have new brilliant ideas, they could at least be more comprehensive than they appear to be right now.
May your day be sunny, yet cool with a small chance of showers later in the afternoon.
Sorry, but I can't buy it. Christianity -- or, I should say, Judeo-Christianity, since the New Testament is the only one that has to do with Christ and the TC are in the Old Testament
-- has a very loud voice in this country and I really can't buy the claim that it is unfairly marginalized (interestingly enough, and I don't necessarily include you, ultrapenguin, many of the same people who seem to demand special rights for christian viewpoints -- such as having schools give christianity a 'leg up' in publicly funded schools -- often scream the loudest about according human rights to homosexuals as "special rights").I tell you, I get outright offended by some of the Ten Commandments. As a non-christian, I feel marginalized when they are thrown at me; the idea seems to be that I can't really be a moral being just because I don't go to church. This is not only false, it is perniciously so.
I heartily object to the one that tells us to have "no other gods" before the Judeo-Christian one. Not to mention other tidbits such as the one that says "thou shalt not kill" really says "thou shalt not murder" which is about as helpful as "thou shalt not do things which are wrong." Honor thy mother and father? No problem, as long as they deserve it. The absolutistic tone in which the TC are revered and understood by some is also positively detrimental, stifling honest moral thought.
Everyone accepts moral limits, even libertarians -- they just accept different ones than the "legal moralists" and cultural conservatives. The libertarian thinks it is immoral to interfere with others pursuits of their goals, so long as those pursuits do not interfere unfairly with others' pursuits of their goals. Vague though this principle may be, it is still clearly a *moral principle*. While I don't agree with the libertarian conclusions, I at least applaud them for attempting to come up with a mutually justifiable framework in which every individual can pursue his or her own conception of the good life.
I am not opposed to moral education or moral discussion in public schools; I am opposed to moral education that does not inquire after the *justification* of moral principles, and the "ten commandments" idea is just such a proposal. You can't justify some of those commandments, at least not as they are usually interpreted (i.e. as absolute rules); and the second you allow exceptions to them, you're in the game of providing reasons for allowing them.
Well, just for the record, SuSE's online database system does require that you install Apache (search proceeds via a CGI script, IIRC) and, again if I remember correctly, you need inetd running for a service which superficially seems unrelated. So it does happen.
Well, yeah. Let us not forget, impending world domination or no, nearly every consumer computer shipped still comes with RedmondWare, and an increasing number of those come with Office apps too. So people don't need to buy those MS CDs, they already have 'em.
How many of those people who buy Linux comment "but I thought this was free!"?
"Me too!"
I saw the same thing at an Electronics Boutique -- in a mall fer goshsakes.
world domination must be just around the corner ;^)
His father must be heartbroken! To win the Presidency and suffer a tragedy like this ...
One of the worries expressed about "open source" and viruses was that when virus coders use open-source development models, they are able to develop virii faster, to wit:
Well, two things to say about this: of course the proliferation of macro viruses had nothing to do with the increasing prevalence of computers running all the MS Office apps -- geez! But second, and more important:
If viruses are developed faster because their makers moved to an "open source" model, then this would seem to provide an argument that anti-viral software should also have an open source model. In fact, the argument assumes that development under the open source model is faster.
I note, finally, that the article focused on the problems faced by people running NT anyhow.
Not to mention an NHL team from New Jersey, a basketball team from a university in Durham, NC, and a popular line of vacuum cleaners. Gotta love them rednecks.
But then, this happened pre-Dallas Stars' cup victory.
As far as casual programmers like myself go, I really appreciate a numbering system that's more "industry standard." I mean, sticking a couple of decimal places out in front of a major revision number is pretty confusing for those of us who can't keep up. Until I read this piece, I'd though 5.005 was only marginally different from 5.004. (Raster, Mandrake: if you're reading this -- why is E still at .16? Are you planning 83 more releases between now and the one where it's finally ready?)
Now, if they'd add support for *irregular* expressions, that's something I could really go for; programmin' Yoda-style!
If it accurately reflected the language, then the site would be pretty ugly. It would, however, probably find a way to bake your bread online and make you a sandwich too; there would be modules for condiments and ...
whoops, shouldn't post when I'm hungry.
On a lark, I checked out MSFT; their stock dipped over $5 (roughly, 5%) today, not that there's any connection to Be's IPO -- but one can always hope.
Anyhow, it does suggest a slogan to me:
ONLY NINETEEN MORE DAYS !!!!
I suppose we'll have to wait to see what happens to MSFT on RHAT's first day; that may be more telling.
a. You like following links that are announced as having images with a non-graphical browser?
b. You were using Lynx to read /. (not the worst thing one could be doing), read everybody complaining about how it looks and had to see it for yourself?
c. Some image-heavy pages suck even if you can't see them?
d. Thrfy*falb6Rewd.B)ASPlNo?
(sorry, I started looking at the page and my eyeballs crossed. d. should read: it was an attempt at humour?)
e. You're upset because you wanted trio3D support in XFree 3.3.4 and they couldn't fit it in?
I'm not sure I see the problem, as the emphasized part of the quote from the license should make clear, the provisos only click in if you distribute what you've written. I suppose there could be a problem with the interpretation of "distributed", but the most natural reading to my ear (which counts for jack in a court of law, I know) is that it involves releasing the software in a format useable by others, and wouldn't be met by merely running the software on your own site.
Anybody more familiar with the QPL want to weigh in?
Interesting how propaganda has toned down, at least temporarily, their references to JFK in light of what's happened to his son, but the Dealey Plaza Museum (live webcam from the book depository) is still going strong, and if anything, that's much creepier than what goes on at propaganda.