What is going on here?
What do they need to meet for? that's what IRC is for
Gee, that's a bit harsh. IRC is great for chatting with people who are geographically disparate but it's no substitute for honest-to-goodness face-to-face discussion.
Humans are a gregarious bunch - we're generally much happier in a group than alone. Some people may wish to live "on" the internet but personally I enjoy having a beer with my friends FAR too much to do that!
I've had brainstoming sessions over internet chat but I'm at my best when actually speaking with someone face-to-face. It's a far more stimulating environment for me that the faceless, emotionless, soulless IRC/ICQ/whatever.
If everything is so open source, the developers should put all their discussion online, in newsgroups, and in mailing lists, rather than having undocumented and unaccountable conferences in places over half of the free software developers can't afford to visit.
Now I think you're starting to sound paranoid. What is so threatening about these hard-working, dedicated people who have hacked with each other - possibly even become friends - meeting up and having a chat? Aren't the available sources, discussions, lists etc. enough for you? OK, so some equally hard-working and dedicated people may be excluded from the physical meeting due to inability to pay for travel or other committments but c'mon! People who want to should be allowed to meet without complaint.
In fact, those who cannot attend the meeting will surely be in a far better position to learn of the proceedings than with other types of conference. I'm certain that after the meetings are done, many attendees will write up their thoughts and publish them in addition to whatever "official" write-up will be done. I seriously doubt that it will be "undocumented and unaccountable".
I would think that companies and developers would rather let the sunshine in on all their deliberations, than be accused of congregating in a smoke-filled room.
Evidently not.
Read what you wrote again - it sounds rather silly. What is the point of accusing people of congregating in a smoke-filled room? Is this some kind of new threat to the world that we should be made aware of?
No - you're making a rather mean-spirited implication that the people fortunate enough to attend the meeting are somehow going to co-opt the entire Open Source movement for themselves to the exclusion of the non-attendees. I doubt that.
Here's a suggestion - wait until after the conference and see how much information comes out about the proceedings. See how you feel about that and if you reckon that there's still some conspiracy going on THEN complain.
Sure you may not find out about all the conversations that occurred however important. Thing is, you don't have that priviledge now.
Perhaps, but some people seem unwilling or unable to set their phones up this way.
Ignorance I can forgive - mobiles are becoming complicated beasts these days with a plethora of options to choose from.
Sometimes the phone simply does not have a vibrate feature. My phone only vibrates with a special battery that I'm not prepared to shell out for (since I *know* how to silence my phone).
It's the unwilling people that irk me. Trouble is, it's kinda hard to confront someone in a public place if their phone's bugging you. Life's too short:-)
I'm doing a lot of travel by train at the moment and cellphones are becoming the bane of my life.
Why is it that even though people are sitting *right next* to their phone that they insist on having the ring volume at maximum? It's surely not necessary.
Personally I need my mobile since I have to be in contact when I'm travelling. However, and maybe I'm just weird, but my Nokia ring volume is set to 3, the ring sound set to "Discreet" (short beeping ring) and the ring method is set to "Ascending" (volume steadily increases until I answer).
This is *not* rocket science. I can also silence the phone completely with *two* button presses. Why do some others have a problem with this?
That said, the ringing settings seem to have no effect on the notification tone for incoming voicemail or SMS. And guess what - those are the two most annoying sounds my phone makes. Sigh. (Well, except for some of the ridiculous ringing tunes that phones have these days - but that's another rant:-)
Fortunately, some UK trains now have "silent" carriages where mobile phones must be either switched off or on vibrate/silent. This is a great idea, but unfortunately I also want to smoke and the smoking carriage is not silent. I guess I've made my choice:-)
I'd love to see a system whereby this remote silencing could be implemented on trains. Perhaps even electively - a silence button near my seat whereby if enough people in an area activate it, mobiles in the vicinity are automatically silent. Plus a carriage (or two) where people who *must* use their phones can go that has no such system.
I want silence, but I appreciate that others have more vital needs to use their mobiles. An elective system would be fair to all.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm old and cranky - I'm allowed:-)
Sigh. No matter how well thought out and well written this article is, it is still the same self-negating, point-missing argument that should have been put to rest many years ago. If implementation is irrelevant to users then, by definition, choice of operating system is also irrelevant. Computers and operating systems are tools, people. Accountants don't use operating systems - they use spreadsheets and accounting systems. Secretaries don't use operating systems - they use word processors, PBX systems etc. No "average user" can be expected to use the tools they are given without three important things; training, training and training. Users have jobs to do and these jobs generally have nothing to do with computers or operating systems. Users can be trained to perform their jobs efficiently whatever platform, operating system or application is available. For example, someone hands me a screwdriver saying "This is the most advanced screwdriver in existence - it has been painstakingly tested and developed to the be easiest, most consistent screwdriver on the market. Now, go fix my car!" Gee, where do I start? However, train me how to fix a car and I will probably be able to do it with a sturdy knife rather than the super-screwdriver. (BTW, I am not a mechanic and it shows:-) So, my point. All you talented people out there hacking Linux software - keep on doing what you do best. Sure, try to design good user interfaces and help users as much as possible but keep in mind that your software exists to solve problems. Users who need your solution can be trained to use it. (I really need to cut down my coffee intake:-)
Achieving bloat through RTL multiplicity!
on
All Hail Bloatware
·
· Score: 1
One of the comments in the article referred to linking with ever bigger libraries. Hence after installing a few apps, the eagle-eyed will spot that there are now a number of separate copies (and versions) of various runtime libraries around such as 'MSVCRTxx' and (heh heh) 'VBRUNxxx'.
Happens quite a lot with OS/2 apps. A lot of OS/2 developers use VisualAge C++ and the OpenClass libraries. Problem is (depending on your perspective) that IBM specifically prohibit redistribution of the OpenClass DLLs unless they are renamed. So, after installing a few apps on OS/2, I see lots of DLLs called 'xxxOOB3' and 'xxxOOU3' littering my hard drive. Some apps even install multiple copies of the DLLs themselves to support different components!
Now, these libs only account for about 3MB of disk space, but when there are a few copies around it soon adds up.
Finally with Warp4 IBM released a common version of these libs called 'OS2OOC3' but (in typical IBM fashion) don't tell anyone about them. If all the apps linked to this common version, I could go some way to unbloating my hard drive. Not to mention the reduction in memory usage by having only one copy of the code in memory.
I altered my PMICS chess client recently to link to the Warp4 supplied libraries (instead of statically linking) and dropped the exe size from over 2MB to about 500k! I like that.
Anyone care to start a "Campaign for Common-Sense RTL Installation"? Maybe apps could start being nice and co-operating. E.g. "Ahh, I need V5 of the MSVC runtime but I see that app XYZ has already installed it. I'll use that one rather than copying my own version."
Nor did bad advocacy "kill" OS/2. The efficacy of advocacy - good or bad - should not be over-estimated. Money is an entirely more powerful motivator.
Besides, I question whether either OS/2 or Amiga can be categorised as "dead" when there are still a non-trivial number of installations for each.
Long after the Linux we know has had its day in the sun, is denounced as "dead" and mostly everyone has move to pushing the Next Big Thing, there will still be critical systems using the "dead" OS on a daily basis.
I'm sure there is a beautiful word which means "no longer mainstream" but it escapes me.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to cut back on your intake of Diet Coke
Yes, you're absolutely right. I'll cut back if I ever start drinking the vile, carcinogenic effluent. :-)
Laugh! It's a joke!
Paul
What is going on here?
What do they need to meet for? that's what IRC is for
Gee, that's a bit harsh. IRC is great for chatting with people who are geographically disparate but it's no substitute for honest-to-goodness face-to-face discussion.
Humans are a gregarious bunch - we're generally much happier in a group than alone. Some people may wish to live "on" the internet but personally I enjoy having a beer with my friends FAR too much to do that!
I've had brainstoming sessions over internet chat but I'm at my best when actually speaking with someone face-to-face. It's a far more stimulating environment for me that the faceless, emotionless, soulless IRC/ICQ/whatever.
If everything is so open source, the developers should put all their discussion online, in newsgroups, and in mailing lists, rather than having undocumented and unaccountable conferences in places over half of the free software developers can't afford to visit.
Now I think you're starting to sound paranoid. What is so threatening about these hard-working, dedicated people who have hacked with each other - possibly even become friends - meeting up and having a chat? Aren't the available sources, discussions, lists etc. enough for you? OK, so some equally hard-working and dedicated people may be excluded from the physical meeting due to inability to pay for travel or other committments but c'mon! People who want to should be allowed to meet without complaint.
In fact, those who cannot attend the meeting will surely be in a far better position to learn of the proceedings than with other types of conference. I'm certain that after the meetings are done, many attendees will write up their thoughts and publish them in addition to whatever "official" write-up will be done. I seriously doubt that it will be "undocumented and unaccountable".
I would think that companies and developers would rather let the sunshine in on all their deliberations, than be accused of congregating in a smoke-filled room.
Evidently not.
Read what you wrote again - it sounds rather silly. What is the point of accusing people of congregating in a smoke-filled room? Is this some kind of new threat to the world that we should be made aware of?
No - you're making a rather mean-spirited implication that the people fortunate enough to attend the meeting are somehow going to co-opt the entire Open Source movement for themselves to the exclusion of the non-attendees. I doubt that.
Here's a suggestion - wait until after the conference and see how much information comes out about the proceedings. See how you feel about that and if you reckon that there's still some conspiracy going on THEN complain.
Sure you may not find out about all the conversations that occurred however important. Thing is, you don't have that priviledge now.
Peace
Paul
Perhaps, but some people seem unwilling or unable to set their phones up this way.
:-)
Ignorance I can forgive - mobiles are becoming complicated beasts these days with a plethora of options to choose from.
Sometimes the phone simply does not have a vibrate feature. My phone only vibrates with a special battery that I'm not prepared to shell out for (since I *know* how to silence my phone).
It's the unwilling people that irk me. Trouble is, it's kinda hard to confront someone in a public place if their phone's bugging you. Life's too short
Hehehe...
:-)
Mind you, children are so technologically advanced these days that I'm sure they'd figure out a way to defeat this
I'm doing a lot of travel by train at the moment and cellphones are becoming the bane of my life.
:-)
:-)
:-)
Why is it that even though people are sitting *right next* to their phone that they insist on having the ring volume at maximum? It's surely not necessary.
Personally I need my mobile since I have to be in contact when I'm travelling. However, and maybe I'm just weird, but my Nokia ring volume is set to 3, the ring sound set to "Discreet" (short beeping ring) and the ring method is set to "Ascending" (volume steadily increases until I answer).
This is *not* rocket science. I can also silence the phone completely with *two* button presses. Why do some others have a problem with this?
That said, the ringing settings seem to have no effect on the notification tone for incoming voicemail or SMS. And guess what - those are the two most annoying sounds my phone makes. Sigh. (Well, except for some of the ridiculous ringing tunes that phones have these days - but that's another rant
Fortunately, some UK trains now have "silent" carriages where mobile phones must be either switched off or on vibrate/silent. This is a great idea, but unfortunately I also want to smoke and the smoking carriage is not silent. I guess I've made my choice
I'd love to see a system whereby this remote silencing could be implemented on trains. Perhaps even electively - a silence button near my seat whereby if enough people in an area activate it, mobiles in the vicinity are automatically silent. Plus a carriage (or two) where people who *must* use their phones can go that has no such system.
I want silence, but I appreciate that others have more vital needs to use their mobiles. An elective system would be fair to all.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm old and cranky - I'm allowed
And I really need to learn how to use the Slashdot comment posting options. I think I just proved my own point :-)
Sorry.
Sigh. No matter how well thought out and well written this article is, it is still the same self-negating, point-missing argument that should have been put to rest many years ago. If implementation is irrelevant to users then, by definition, choice of operating system is also irrelevant. Computers and operating systems are tools, people. Accountants don't use operating systems - they use spreadsheets and accounting systems. Secretaries don't use operating systems - they use word processors, PBX systems etc. No "average user" can be expected to use the tools they are given without three important things; training, training and training. Users have jobs to do and these jobs generally have nothing to do with computers or operating systems. Users can be trained to perform their jobs efficiently whatever platform, operating system or application is available. For example, someone hands me a screwdriver saying "This is the most advanced screwdriver in existence - it has been painstakingly tested and developed to the be easiest, most consistent screwdriver on the market. Now, go fix my car!" Gee, where do I start? However, train me how to fix a car and I will probably be able to do it with a sturdy knife rather than the super-screwdriver. (BTW, I am not a mechanic and it shows :-) So, my point. All you talented people out there hacking Linux software - keep on doing what you do best. Sure, try to design good user interfaces and help users as much as possible but keep in mind that your software exists to solve problems. Users who need your solution can be trained to use it. (I really need to cut down my coffee intake :-)
One of the comments in the article referred to linking with ever bigger libraries. Hence after installing a few apps, the eagle-eyed will spot that there are now a number of separate copies (and versions) of various runtime libraries around such as 'MSVCRTxx' and (heh heh) 'VBRUNxxx'.
Happens quite a lot with OS/2 apps. A lot of OS/2 developers use VisualAge C++ and the OpenClass libraries. Problem is (depending on your perspective) that IBM specifically prohibit redistribution of the OpenClass DLLs unless they are renamed. So, after installing a few apps on OS/2, I see lots of DLLs called 'xxxOOB3' and 'xxxOOU3' littering my hard drive. Some apps even install multiple copies of the DLLs themselves to support different components!
Now, these libs only account for about 3MB of disk space, but when there are a few copies around it soon adds up.
Finally with Warp4 IBM released a common version of these libs called 'OS2OOC3' but (in typical IBM fashion) don't tell anyone about them. If all the apps linked to this common version, I could go some way to unbloating my hard drive. Not to mention the reduction in memory usage by having only one copy of the code in memory.
I altered my PMICS chess client recently to link to the Warp4 supplied libraries (instead of statically linking) and dropped the exe size from over 2MB to about 500k! I like that.
Anyone care to start a "Campaign for Common-Sense RTL Installation"? Maybe apps could start being nice and co-operating. E.g. "Ahh, I need V5 of the MSVC runtime but I see that app XYZ has already installed it. I'll use that one rather than copying my own version."
Wishful thinking?
Nor did bad advocacy "kill" OS/2. The efficacy of advocacy - good or bad - should not be over-estimated. Money is an entirely more powerful motivator.
Besides, I question whether either OS/2 or Amiga can be categorised as "dead" when there are still a non-trivial number of installations for each.
Long after the Linux we know has had its day in the sun, is denounced as "dead" and mostly everyone has move to pushing the Next Big Thing, there will still be critical systems using the "dead" OS on a daily basis.
I'm sure there is a beautiful word which means "no longer mainstream" but it escapes me.