As a side note, Alphas come in several varieties. I would hesitate to put them all into the same category if we're going to separate the PII from the PIII. I would almost feel ashamed about buying a 21064, but a 21264 would be just swell.
Oh, and you left out the DragonBall and the ColdFire, which even though technically are microcontrollers, can still run Linux. And, some of us may still be planning on buying low-end chips (like Sparcs, 80486's, P5's, 680x0's) until the day they pry out abused checkbooks from our cold dead fingers. Old Sun hardware rocks. 486's, well, not so much. And there's just a classic feel to the warm monochrome glow of a Sun 3/50 that fills me with joy.
I, for one, would really like to see the whole ESR/RMS/Bruce Perens-go-round on this. What it looks like to me (of course, IANAL) is that a politician, a public figure, is openly abusing a registered trademark belonging to the Open Source Initiative for his own personal and political gain. His web page definately misrepresents the Open Source mark and clearly does not follow the Open Source definition. Specifically, it categorically violates clauses 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, as listed at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html.
I'd really like to see the OSI really run him up poop creek for this one. First the internet, now Open Source. What else is Al Gore going to try to take credit for? Inventing the concept of a public sewer system? The Wheel?
Leapfrog, the disgruntled.
PS: I can tell ya who I'm NOT voting for. Let's all write in Malda for Prez!
You're weird. But I guess that's okay as long as the computer doesn't get fleas.
Debian is oriented towards the power user; your average newbie probably would be better off with Redhat, being used to the pop-up window/menu bar/dialog box modality of system configuration inherited from Windows. But if you know what you're doing, Debian is the way to go. The biggest complaint I have with it is that there are 2500+ software packages available, and you can spend literally hours wading through the list trying to figure out what you want or don't want. But, once you've chosen what you want, it becomes quite a simple matter to automatically update packages to the newest version when its released. And if a package isnt available, it's no trouble to make a package yourself. And there's always the download & compile it yourself option.
One idea that's been troubling me late at night is using the debian package manager and installer with other kernels. Like NetBSD. Because Debian packages come in binary or source code formats, and each source package has a simple "run this script to make the package" script with it, it would be almost a trivial task to set up a little Sun 3 with NetBSD and have it grind away at packages for a couple weeks. But that's just my twisted little mind.
For the entire 2 weeks I struggled against redhat, my box was named "localhost.localdomain".
Not because I wanted it to be called by the default name, but because I tried to change the host name by editing/etc/hostname! Silly me! I was supposed to use the host name configurator.. which was a graphical program, a little popup box.
The same thing (or other things like it) happened to me with configuring X, with setting up my network (which had strange enough details to prevent the configurator from being helpful) and even in trying to change my default login shell.
Why? Because I was expecting it to act like a "normal" unix. Silly, silly me.
I also found that RedHat was nearly impossible to use from the command line, right out of the box. It was missing important things in my path, like for example, "/usr/bin".
And yes, I am nothing more than a RedHat bashing perl script.
"Practice what you preach", he says. Fine. I preach that I don't like RedHat. So I use Debian, instead. Done and done. Everyone has their own ideas as to what is the best distro. I don't like Redhat much because it tries too hard to be like Windows, and in doing so doesn't try hard enough to be like Unix.
Would you please stop with the lame April Fools Jokes already? I mean, who here honestly believes that Netscape could load in 1.6 megs. Hmmm? Opera, maybe...
I had a great teacher in high school. His name was Mr. Green, and he taught physics.
We always got to play with fire and tesla coils and stuff in his class. Everytime he turned out the lights (for a movie or something), someone in the class would shout "Look, Mr. Green, Cold fusion!"
His response was always "Quick, publish it, publish it!".
I thought it was funny. Oh yeah, every time Mr. Green said "EMF", someone in the back would say "EMF? That's Unbelievable!"
I find it simply amazing that a person like you who bashes "clueless" newbies couldn't find a clue in the world to help you do something as simple as change a default RedHat system setup to something of your liking. It makes one wonder how you can even manage to run Linux, let alone use the slightly less user-friendly Debian distribution you so adore.
First off, I didn't bash any clueless newbies. I bashed RedHat. And I bashed it hard.
Secondly, I tried to do things The Right Way with Redhat but couldn't because the stupid "user friendly" popup boxes and things got in my way and even actively prevented me from configuring my system by hand edits. And that pissed me off. A lot. So I went to Debian, becuase I would rather edit text files than wade through a dozen screens of fscking configurators. And I think that makes me a better Linux user, even if it makes me a poor Redhat user.
In conclusion, go read the post again, you feeble minded moron. Before you start bashing my intelligence, go find a nice bucket full of ice cold water and SOAK YOUR HEAD.
There's a small additional effort on the part of developers
Gee, it almost sounds like you write user interfaces on a daily basis. If it's so easy to write dynamic user interfaces, why aren't there more of them? The closest thing I've seen to your ideal is Visual C++. Highly configurable environment, but its not even close to what you claim to be the right way. And I personally can't stand it because the flashy configurable interface gets in my way a whole lot more than vi ever did. I'd be interested to hear some examples of what you think are "dynamic interfaces", yes those specific examples you hate so much.
I warned you about mistaking specific examples for general points.
Feature creep is definately a part of software bloat. Yes, most of Word's mass is extraneous features like dancing paper clips and such. I give you that point. However, I still maintain that if the interface were dynamic, that mass would be even greater due to the added feature of being able to configure the interface. In every language I've ever used to program a user interface (with the notable exception of Perl/Tk, which is a marvelously dynamic approach to UI) there has been a significant performance decrease incurred when you want to be able to alter the complexity of the user interface dynamically.
I can say from my own knowledge that (Linux is) a bigger mess than AIX, UnixWare, Solaris or NT...
First off, the discussion was about Open Source, not about Linux. There's a big distinction there, most notably bringing up that pesky little point about specific examples again. But I'll let you get away with it this time.
Since I don't have the inside scoop you seem to have about the source code of every major operating system on the planet, I can only judge Linux against others based on their performance, support, and robustness based on and end-user's viewpoint. AIX and Solaris are written for non-intel hardware. Solaris x86 has been out for a while, but rom what I've seen, it doesn't perform as well as Linux on the same hardware, doesn't support as many interesting hardware bits, and is doesn't have nearly the software base that Linux does. AIX can't even be compared to Linux because they dont share a common hardware base. Unixware, like Solaris, doesn't have nearly the hardware or software support base that Linux does. And finally, there's NT. To begin, the Linux kernel, fully loaded with lots of device drivers, typically fits in under 4 megs of ram. The NT kernel, on the other hand, is approximately 16 megs in size. Various sources will tell you differently, but in practice, NT will take the first 16 or so megs of ram and you'll never see it again. A bare minimum Linux kernel can be built to take up less than 512K and still provide drivers for quite a bit of hardware. NT may be layed out beautifully from the inside, but the user will never see source code, only the fact that it crashes under heavy loads, requires frequent maintenance, and costs an additional $1500 if you want to be able to send mail.
I have seen the innards of the Linux kernel; It's not beautiful, but it works. It works better, faster, and more reliably than NT. This isn't speculation or personal opinion, but scientific fact. Many independent reviews have been performed to verify it. You don't have to look very far back in the slashdot archives to find formal reports published on that subject. (note: I also have a Theory on Operating Systems, but I'll keep it to myself for now.)
But, again, we're getting into a "specific example" subject going into that debate.
...or a "programmer" who won't learn how to program.
Ouch! that stings! But honestly, when I write programs, they fall into two categories. Stuff I write for work, and Stuff I write for myself. If its work, chances are my employer has well defined specifications on what it should look like, how it should perform, and how it should be written. In that case, I don't have any say as to the design of the user interface, I don't get to choose what its licensing is, and I don't get to say how much is modular and how much is kludge. Since it is technically the intellectual property of my employer, not me, it is their say, not mine. Stuff I write for myself, on the other hand, gets written with the look and feel of what I am most comfortable with (writing and using). If someone else finds it useful, that's great. If not, at least I find it useful. And if one of my users wants more features, more configurability, whatever, I will try to integrate those ideas, provided they are aligned with my vision for the software.
What would be the point of a more detailed response?... I'm happy to respond to the few lucid parts of what you post, but I'll let the inanity of the rest speak for itself.
The point of discussion is the mutual exchange of ideas. My crack about the "open arms of righteousness" was nothing more than just a crack, perhaps taken a bit too far, considering the context. I'm curious to learn what you think is the "ideal" interface. From what I've seen, it's certainly not what the rest of the industry thinks is ideal. And as a member of the industry, I have an obligation to give the customer what they want. Yes, I believe the point and click static interface is growing stale. Yes, I would like to see a change in the old pattern of menu, tool-bar, pop-up. I don't think making a change in the way programs use this pattern (i.e. dynamic toolbars, configurable complexity) will change it enough. I'm ready for a (gack! buzzword alert) paradigm shift, at least in the user interface department.
mmmmm.... inanity... Remember, friend, flames are the tabasco sauce of the internet. Too much is really painful, not enough is far too bland, and just the right amount puts the spice back in an otherwise bland discussion. So I insult your grammar! And your grampar too! A pox upon your childrens' pets unto the seventh generation, foolish Mac user! (yes, I think I've been staring at the screen too long. Maybe I need some sun.)
And as long as I'm rambling, The sun is so hot that everything on it is a gas. Aluminum, Iron, Copper, and many others. If the sun were hollow, a million Earths would fit inside. And yet, the sun is only a middle sized star! (apologies to TMBG).
Once again, configurable complexity adds another layer of complexity. Only this time it's not just the users getting bitten, but also the developers. Putting in dynamically alterable toolbars, menus, popup boxes, etc. puts a huge strain on the computer system (hard disk, ram, processor) and the developer for anything but the most pedantic of applications. It may be practical for something like Solitare; but for now, WordPerfect 8 takes up 50 megs of disk, MS word takes up 140 megs of disk, and neither of them even come close to touching your "golden dream". In addition, now the user has to learn a whole new set of configuration elements to learn how to set up the application for his/her needs. More complexity. Less user-friendly. (its almost sounding like you agree with me now, isn't it?)
I don't know what it's like on your planet, space man, but here in Mayberry, users don't get that choice. Developers write code. Users buy or do not buy based on whether or not it fits their needs.
Yes, I do say that different audiences require different programs. Say, for example, that there came a decree from the heavens that from now on, all word processing, document formatting, publishing, and anything involving words written on the screen needed to be done in Notepad. Joe and Jane User might be happy with it. Mr. Unix Guru would be a little disgruntled, and Mr. Anonymous Publisher would be livid.
But, this is where Open Source shines. Say Mr. Unix Guru (we'll call him, oh, I don't know, Knuth) wants a document formatting system. So he writes himself one and calls it..er.. TeX. Then, along comes Mr. Publisher and says "Gee, I love that output, but the input is baffling, cryptic, and arcane! Zounds, what can be done? Maybe I'll hire my friend Joe Programmer to write a pretty interface that hides the arcane input. We can sacrifice some of these features.. Hell, who needs Klingon fonts, anyway? Only those pesky Unix guys, that's who." So Joe Programmer takes TeX and the source from whence it came, and writes a nice front end for it, like LyX. Suddenly, everyone is happy, with a maximum of code reuse.
Having "One program that does everything" is absurd. Look at Ada. Ada was designed to be an all-purpose programming language, sponsored by the government. Ada came out. It turned out to be a hideous language to program in because they tried to put so many features into it. Even pedantic tasks were a nightmare, to say nothing of the extremely complex tasks the government wanted it for. So in putting everything into one program, the program could theoretically do everything, but in practice made everything so difficult to do as to become impractical. And don't even get me started on the price and performance issues of such a beast.
And Laziness is always an excuse. The three great virtues of a programmer (as defined by Larry Wall) are Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. Laziness promotes reuse of code, Impatience promotes knowing when to reinvent the wheel, and Hubris makes you want to write code you can be proud of.
I await your flaming sword with the open arms of righteousness. If you're too angry to argue, it might be time to rethink your viewpoint.
My theory is based on the idea that every feature X has a complexity Y related to it. The total complexity of a program is directly related to the summation of all Y across all X. We can consider this the baseline of complexity for the program involving all features X. It is possible (in fact, easy) to increase this complexity by the use of complicated nested menus, pop-up windows and dialog boxes when all that is really necessary is a simple checkbox. But the overall complexity of an application is directly related to the quantity of features (and therefore the power and functionality) in the application.
As for an "Advanced Features" option, involving such a menu selection only serves to obscure the fact that the features are there by making said features harder to access. The "Advanced Features" option then becomes in itself another unit of complexity, making the program even more obfuscated and confusing. In Word, if I want to change my paragraph spacing, I have to go wade through 5 levels of menus, dialog boxes, pop-up boxes and "folder tabs" just to find the selection. That's simpler than giving TeX a simple \spacing directive? Granted, I had to read many pages of LaTeX manual to find that, but it took me less time to learn LaTeX and write a 20 page paper in it than it would have taken me to write a 20 page paper in Word. Or even in WordPerfect. (yes, I realize there's a difference between word processing and document formatting. That's why I like LaTeX so much better. Let the computer worry about the details.)
As far as my "soft-core" background, I've never done any more publishing than a computer geek has to. I've written 20 page papers. I've constructed web pages for corporations. I've never written a book, never gotten published in a magazine, and I've never used Adobe Acrobat. I'm a programmer. I write programs. I design user interfaces. I deal with databases, mainframes, embedded processors, graphical user interfaces, 3D graphics, and I have extreme distaste for the Web in general. I've also written code in Perl, Fortran, COBOL, C, C++, Prolog, Korn Shell, Bourne Shell, C Shell, Lisp, Smalltalk, Java, Javascript, HTML, Visual Basic, Access, Python, Ada, Forth, applesoft basic, assembly (6502, 80x86, MIPS, SPARC, 6811, 680x0), and Pascal. I've written compilers using Lex and Yacc. I've replaced chips on motherboards, I've assembled computers from scratch, I've fabricated printed circuit boards. I know which end of the soldering iron to hold. (hold the plastic end, the metal end hurts.) I'm not sure exactly what, apart from having been forced to use operating systems and software tools that I personally feel are sub-optimal in order to fulfill my job requriements, classifies me as "soft-core". I could make the same arguments about, for example, using WordPerfect for X versus using LaTeX. (or playing Descent versus playing Doom) I was "born and raised" typing cryptic commands to a Unix command line. At first it was a pain, but as I learned, I found that there was real power in being able to type "find / -name *.jpg -print | grep foobar | perl -npe 's/\.jpg//g' " at the command line instead of (what I'd be required to do in a GUI) wandering through hundreds of little windows, selecting icons, and still manually banging in text into Notepad.
I've written in Visual C++, Visual Basic, Borland, Java, Access, and with each of these tools, one point stands out, over and over again. The fact that the developers have gone out of their way to make it easier to use gets in my way. I would like to think that I know what I'm doing. I've never used "alt-middle-button" when writing applications. I've used well-documented command-line options many times. I've never had call for an "advanced users" menu option, because you have to know your audience. Just as a real publisher would never want to use Word for all their DTP needs, a beginning user would balk at diving head first into LaTeX. But, once I learned how LaTeX works, and why it was designed that way, it could see it as an infinitely more powerful tool than Word.
As for your "typical Linux program", give me some specific examples of times when the manual page didn't tell you where the.fubarrc is located, or doesn't give information about what alt-middle-button does. (and EMACS doesn't count, becuase EMACS sucks anyway.) The only programs I've seen that were incompletely documented were either a) commercial, or b) still in development. It's a waste of time to write up every feature before the feature-set has been finalized. Every Debian package I've ever installed has a manual page, a readme, a texinfo page, and a web page to go with it. By "online help", I assume you mean "pushing F1 and up pops a window with a dancing paperclip in it." That sort of documentation is not only irritating, distracting, and gaudy but also a waste of processor, RAM, and disk. What is the point of having a dancing paperclip when a simple text file will convey the same information? (visions of "man MSWORD | grep 'line spacing' " pop into my head)
The most important part of being a programmer (and being a writer, an actor, a senator, &c) is knowing what your audience wants. If I were writing a word processor for my mom and dad, it would most certainly NOT look like LaTeX. If I were writing a database so my Dad could keep track of his wine cellar, Access might start to look like a reasonable choice. But if I were publishing a magazine, MS Word wouldn't cut it. If I were creating an on-line database holding millions of customers' information and processing orders on-the-fly, maybe Informix or Oracle would be a better product to start with. Complexity versus ease of use is the most important trade-off in designing software. The reason why there are hundreds of software packages that do basically the same thing lies in the distinction of audience. You can look at Paintbrush, PSP, CorelPhotoPaint, xfig, Microsoft Photo Editor, Harvard Graphics, the GIMP, Visio and Photoshop and say they serve roughly the same purpose. But look at the difference in target audience, and consequently the differences in price, output quality, and complexity. No one would ever tell you that the GIMP is easier to use than Paintbrush. Cripes, my 6 year old cousin could figure out how to use Paintbrush. But, look at the difference in what you can do with them. The GIMP even has its own scripting language so you can automate just about any task you want. That makes it harder to learn, but at the same time, infinitely more powerful.
The first time I upgraded all the libraries and updated all the daemons for security fixes for slack, it was a learning experience.
Yes. That's my point. The learning experience was glorious. Yes, it was a pain in the ass. And shortly after I had learned how to do most of the important stuff, I switched to Debian because it wasn't nearly the pain in the ass that Slackware was.
(to start this off, I use Debian, and I have for 3 years now.)
Leapfrog's Theory of Software Complexity:
In order to make a program easier to use (more user-friendly), you must make it less powerful for the advanced user. In order to make a program more powerful, it must become more complex, and therefore harder to use.
Case in point: Adobe Photoshop vs. MSPAINT.
Anyone who's ever used Adobe Photoshop (or, for that matter, the GIMP) knows that these are real power tools. They are incredibly useful and quite powerful, with a great many configurable options. But, I have known users who couldn't stand Photoshop because there were "too many buttons". These users turn to Paintbrush because it's easier to use. They don't care about powertools. Why use a screw gun when this rusty old philips head screwdriver works just fine? Sure, it's easier to use, but the results are vastly different.
The big three: Debian, Redhat, Slackware
Now, I don't intend to start any flamewars here, but The Way I See It (tm) is as follows. I've used this metaphor many times, and it always seems to fit.
Redhat: Redhat is a linux distribution designed for Windows users. It's been that way for some time, and the approach they're taking doesn't seem to be changing. They provide a whiz-bang easy installation, literally dozens of annoying pop-up programs with which to configure your system, and even the default window manager looks like windows 95. Redhat has done this because they want more people to be able to use it. I ran Redhat for about 2 weeks before I got just as sick of it as I did of windows because even though I know what files to edit, and where to edit them (on a normal system) Redhat would undo my changes every time I rebooted because I didn't use the "configurator" to do it. It took me 9 days to figure out how to change my hostname. The first 5 days were repeated attempts at editing/etc/hostname and the rc.d scripts over and over and being disgusted that every time I rebooted Redhat would just undo my configurations.
Slackware: Slackware is the exact opposite. It offers absolutely no configuration tools of its own. What you get is what you get, period. Slackware was my first Linux install. It was great fun. Every time I wanted something, I downloaded the source, compiled it, and installed it by hand. If there was a configuration problem, I was in there hacking kernel code, changing/etc files, moving symbolic links so my X server would go higher than 320x200. So I learned how to do it The Right Way(tm). And it was a valubale experience. This is why I think of Slackware as Linux for Dos users. Everything you want to do, you do by editing/etc files, installing it yourself, homebrewing directory structures (/opt? Sure!/foobar? No problem!/usr/local/foobar? Hey, you're the boss, buddy!) and most importantly, reading the gosh-danged manuals. My first month as a linux user involved 15% actually using the system and 85% playing RTFM(*). But looking back, I wouldn't want it any other way.
Debian: (Always save the best for last, I say...) In my opinion, Debian offers the best of what's around. You start out with a relatively simple base install (I remember using the magic 7 floppies) that's not quite as easy as RedHat, but in turn offers immense flexibility and configuration options. Then you reboot and are whisked away to the land of dselect, where literally thousands of packages lie before you, waiting for you to pick and choose what you want and don't want. Each one has a short description of what it does, and a great many have the informational notice "If you don't know what this is, you don't need it", so all but the most clueless of newbies can, and do, stumble through a Debian installation and still come out with a useful (if not optimal) system to fit their needs. Once the install is done, you're left with a machine that looks and behaves just like a "normal" unix box. If you want to change configurations, you can elect to use handy pop-up configurator boxes, but it certainly won't keep you from editing your configuration files. And the default window manager is chosen while you're installing the software. It's not magically pre-determined for you. And if you don't like the wm you chose, you can easily edit.xinitrc's to change it. Almost all the config files are well documented and in the places you'd expect them to be. For these reasons, as well as a "general look and feel" category, I've always considered Debian to be Linux for Linux (or Unix) users. People who want to get their hands dirty. Who want to edit config files, tweak settings, and recompile kernels, but not have to worry about downloading and compiling gcc and libc and m4 again. The debian package manager handles all that pesky downloading and installing for you, with over 2 thousand different packages to choose from. Oh yeah, the package manager is all written in Perl, too. I like Perl.
Conclusion: Clueless Newbies
The masses have spoken. Average Joe User wants a system that's easy to use, easy to learn, and supports all the hardware and software available now. As such, he has no need to use Debian. Or Slackware, or Redhat, for that matter. Let him suffer Windows, at least until the DOJ tears M$ a new corn-chute. For the person who wants to run a server, but doesnt know anything other than NT, point him towards RedHat. (at least its not quite as bad as windows). For someone who really wants to learn Linux, and learn it the hard way, off to Slackware with ye! And finally, for the real power user, the person who has been around the block a few times, knows what they want and how they want it, Debian is the only way to play.
No! A single mistake turns the RancidTaco into a bumbling moron! No errors are allowed!
I say we organize a lynch mob post-haste and go seeking vengeance!
</sarcasm>
Leapfrog, the slow-witted.
PS: Yes, it's a joke. Sarcasm. Satire, if you will. I mean no ill will towards Rob Malda or anyone else on the Slashdot crew. What they decide to put up on their own web pages is none of my business.
Would someone mind explaining to me exactly what the point here was? To me, the article sounded like someone saying "Here's all the bad stuff I know about Linux, I hope you don't hate me for it." Maybe it's my short attention span, or perhaps its my internal instinct to say "Feh! I've configured things 100 times worse than that! With a hangover!" but I just didn't see any reason at all for this to be on slashdot.
A poorly written, stop-and-go, nearly incoherent rant about what someone found wrong with Linux is something I can easily pick up from comp.os.windows.advocacy or any of a dozen other Usenet groups. In the mean time, real news like the NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia gets ignored.
At least the comment section is nice and pretty now.
Leapfrog, the mediocre.
PS: Moderate me! Go ahead! I dare ya! (insert rabid frothing-at-mouth here) I don't need this! arragagea bbleaergh!
In Indiana, statutory rape laws state that having sex with a woman under 16 is illegal, unless you have her consent and her parents' consent, in which case the age drops to 14.
Personally, though, I think at age 14 it's pretty ridiculous to think someones parents would give consent.
Did anyone else notice (section 4.4) the nag clause? It requires the display of the proprietary notice, which is about 30 lines of text. Annoyingly long, in fact.
So, if you wrote a web browser based on KDE, DjVu, and maybe some BSD-ish networking code, then you release it under the GPL, every time your program starts up, you have to display 80 lines of notices disclaiming everything 4 times. Whee fun yay.
I liked the article. It was meaningful and intelligent, if not just a bit over-buzzworded.
But still, as we are wont to do with all guest authors, Set Phasers to Zorch, aim for their warp drive and/or genitalia! Kill Kill Kill!
I think if we as a group could channel this paranoid reactionism to anyone outside, truly destructive forces would be created. I'm still not sure where this egotism comes from. Perhaps its related to the late night coding binges, the nights on IRC until 2 leaving us unprepared for how the big blue room works. Maybe it has something to do with trying to view our fellow big blue room inhabitants as an algorithm, a bug to be fixed, or a microprocessor ticking away at hundreds of MHz. Or it could come from being able to solve problems no one else can (I can't count on one hand the number of times in the past month that I've single-handedly "saved the day" around here), thereby further inflating the egos. Or maybe the false sense of happiness and satisfaction given by the warm cupful by the wonderful Gift from the Heavens (coffee, of course) makes us feel superior to others.
These, I suppose, are the defining features of our culture, our community. Intelligence, technical knowledge, caffeine, inflated egos. (It's difficult to talk about how big one's ego is without feeling big-headed. "My head is bigger than yours," etc. I fall into the same pattern as everyone else. I'm not proud of my ego, but I acknowledge its existance) So maybe instead of setting phasers to Bar-B-Que, next time we should consider optimizing our paradigms for maximized value-added processes while maintaining an adaptive role in... (ad infinitum-- this phrase brought to you by the Random Buzzword Generator). Thinking in terms of the common user might help us a bit.
Gosh, I'm rambling. That's the worst. rambling and rambling and I've had 3 cups of coffee already this morning, but its still not helping me stay awake.
Set phasers on "Zorch"! aim for their warp core and/or genitalia! Kill! Crush! Destroy!
</sarcasm> I think the problem stems from the fact that we know what we like, and we're not willing to let anyone tell us what's wrong with it (because nothing is wrong with it).
Security holes come and go. They just go faster when it's an open source syste. (yay, distributed effort!)
Personally, (no offense Jon) I feel Mr. Katz doesn't quite "get it" when it comes to the geek community. Too far rooted in classical journalism, he is not willing enough to jump in headfirst. If we are to elect an ambassador, it must be someone who will speak for us because they know us, not because we're "cool."
Oh, and it would help if he learned how to use vi as an html editor. Something must be done about those apostrophes.
It's also possible that someone cracked the site, changed index.html just to be a bastard, then when Kipling figured it out, they whipped together the "we've been cracked" logo for the front.
I'd like to see a full documentation of what was done, if for no other reason than to prove/disprove its status as a hoax.
During World War II, Allied fighter pilots used to paint a picture of a plane with a line through it on the side of their aircraft for every enemy fighter they brought down.
I think slashdot needs a "killed" page, a similar idea but with a full list of all the servers to date that have been slain by the slashdot effect. Something to brag about, at the very least.
I think it would be cool.
Oh, and the rollable keyboard page was cool, too. Gotta get me one of those.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and you left out the DragonBall and the ColdFire, which even though technically are microcontrollers, can still run Linux. And, some of us may still be planning on buying low-end chips (like Sparcs, 80486's, P5's, 680x0's) until the day they pry out abused checkbooks from our cold dead fingers. Old Sun hardware rocks. 486's, well, not so much. And there's just a classic feel to the warm monochrome glow of a Sun 3/50 that fills me with joy.
Leapfrog
I'd really like to see the OSI really run him up poop creek for this one. First the internet, now Open Source. What else is Al Gore going to try to take credit for? Inventing the concept of a public sewer system? The Wheel?
Leapfrog, the disgruntled.
PS: I can tell ya who I'm NOT voting for. Let's all write in Malda for Prez!
Debian is oriented towards the power user; your average newbie probably would be better off with Redhat, being used to the pop-up window/menu bar/dialog box modality of system configuration inherited from Windows. But if you know what you're doing, Debian is the way to go. The biggest complaint I have with it is that there are 2500+ software packages available, and you can spend literally hours wading through the list trying to figure out what you want or don't want. But, once you've chosen what you want, it becomes quite a simple matter to automatically update packages to the newest version when its released. And if a package isnt available, it's no trouble to make a package yourself. And there's always the download & compile it yourself option.
One idea that's been troubling me late at night is using the debian package manager and installer with other kernels. Like NetBSD. Because Debian packages come in binary or source code formats, and each source package has a simple "run this script to make the package" script with it, it would be almost a trivial task to set up a little Sun 3 with NetBSD and have it grind away at packages for a couple weeks. But that's just my twisted little mind.
Leapfrog, the disillusioned
For the entire 2 weeks I struggled against redhat, my box was named "localhost.localdomain".
Not because I wanted it to be called by the default name, but because I tried to change the host name by editing /etc/hostname! Silly me! I was supposed to use the host name configurator.. which was a graphical program, a little popup box.
The same thing (or other things like it) happened to me with configuring X, with setting up my network (which had strange enough details to prevent the configurator from being helpful) and even in trying to change my default login shell.
Why? Because I was expecting it to act like a "normal" unix. Silly, silly me.
I also found that RedHat was nearly impossible to use from the command line, right out of the box. It was missing important things in my path, like for example, "/usr/bin".
And yes, I am nothing more than a RedHat bashing perl script.
"Practice what you preach", he says. Fine. I preach that I don't like RedHat. So I use Debian, instead. Done and done. Everyone has their own ideas as to what is the best distro. I don't like Redhat much because it tries too hard to be like Windows, and in doing so doesn't try hard enough to be like Unix.
Would you please stop with the lame April Fools Jokes already? I mean, who here honestly believes that Netscape could load in 1.6 megs. Hmmm? Opera, maybe...
Leapfrog, the overly sarcastic
We always got to play with fire and tesla coils and stuff in his class. Everytime he turned out the lights (for a movie or something), someone in the class would shout "Look, Mr. Green, Cold fusion!"
His response was always "Quick, publish it, publish it!".
I thought it was funny. Oh yeah, every time Mr. Green said "EMF", someone in the back would say "EMF? That's Unbelievable!"
I liked high school physics.
Leapfrog, the feeble-minded
Aren't these supposed to be vices, not virtues?
Apparently, someone hasn't read his Camel book in a long time.
Leapfrog, the unnecessarily gaudy.
First off, I didn't bash any clueless newbies. I bashed RedHat. And I bashed it hard.
Secondly, I tried to do things The Right Way with Redhat but couldn't because the stupid "user friendly" popup boxes and things got in my way and even actively prevented me from configuring my system by hand edits. And that pissed me off. A lot. So I went to Debian, becuase I would rather edit text files than wade through a dozen screens of fscking configurators. And I think that makes me a better Linux user, even if it makes me a poor Redhat user.
In conclusion, go read the post again, you feeble minded moron. Before you start bashing my intelligence, go find a nice bucket full of ice cold water and SOAK YOUR HEAD.
Leapfrog, the irked.
There's a small additional effort on the part of developers
Gee, it almost sounds like you write user interfaces on a daily basis. If it's so easy to write dynamic user interfaces, why aren't there more of them? The closest thing I've seen to your ideal is Visual C++. Highly configurable environment, but its not even close to what you claim to be the right way. And I personally can't stand it because the flashy configurable interface gets in my way a whole lot more than vi ever did. I'd be interested to hear some examples of what you think are "dynamic interfaces", yes those specific examples you hate so much.
I warned you about mistaking specific examples for general points.
Feature creep is definately a part of software bloat. Yes, most of Word's mass is extraneous features like dancing paper clips and such. I give you that point. However, I still maintain that if the interface were dynamic, that mass would be even greater due to the added feature of being able to configure the interface. In every language I've ever used to program a user interface (with the notable exception of Perl/Tk, which is a marvelously dynamic approach to UI) there has been a significant performance decrease incurred when you want to be able to alter the complexity of the user interface dynamically.
I can say from my own knowledge that (Linux is) a bigger mess than AIX, UnixWare, Solaris or NT...
First off, the discussion was about Open Source, not about Linux. There's a big distinction there, most notably bringing up that pesky little point about specific examples again. But I'll let you get away with it this time.
Since I don't have the inside scoop you seem to have about the source code of every major operating system on the planet, I can only judge Linux against others based on their performance, support, and robustness based on and end-user's viewpoint. AIX and Solaris are written for non-intel hardware. Solaris x86 has been out for a while, but rom what I've seen, it doesn't perform as well as Linux on the same hardware, doesn't support as many interesting hardware bits, and is doesn't have nearly the software base that Linux does. AIX can't even be compared to Linux because they dont share a common hardware base. Unixware, like Solaris, doesn't have nearly the hardware or software support base that Linux does. And finally, there's NT. To begin, the Linux kernel, fully loaded with lots of device drivers, typically fits in under 4 megs of ram. The NT kernel, on the other hand, is approximately 16 megs in size. Various sources will tell you differently, but in practice, NT will take the first 16 or so megs of ram and you'll never see it again. A bare minimum Linux kernel can be built to take up less than 512K and still provide drivers for quite a bit of hardware. NT may be layed out beautifully from the inside, but the user will never see source code, only the fact that it crashes under heavy loads, requires frequent maintenance, and costs an additional $1500 if you want to be able to send mail.
I have seen the innards of the Linux kernel; It's not beautiful, but it works. It works better, faster, and more reliably than NT. This isn't speculation or personal opinion, but scientific fact. Many independent reviews have been performed to verify it. You don't have to look very far back in the slashdot archives to find formal reports published on that subject. (note: I also have a Theory on Operating Systems, but I'll keep it to myself for now.)
But, again, we're getting into a "specific example" subject going into that debate.
Ouch! that stings! But honestly, when I write programs, they fall into two categories. Stuff I write for work, and Stuff I write for myself. If its work, chances are my employer has well defined specifications on what it should look like, how it should perform, and how it should be written. In that case, I don't have any say as to the design of the user interface, I don't get to choose what its licensing is, and I don't get to say how much is modular and how much is kludge. Since it is technically the intellectual property of my employer, not me, it is their say, not mine. Stuff I write for myself, on the other hand, gets written with the look and feel of what I am most comfortable with (writing and using). If someone else finds it useful, that's great. If not, at least I find it useful. And if one of my users wants more features, more configurability, whatever, I will try to integrate those ideas, provided they are aligned with my vision for the software.
What would be the point of a more detailed response? ... I'm happy to respond to the few lucid parts of what you post, but I'll let the inanity of the rest speak for itself.
The point of discussion is the mutual exchange of ideas. My crack about the "open arms of righteousness" was nothing more than just a crack, perhaps taken a bit too far, considering the context. I'm curious to learn what you think is the "ideal" interface. From what I've seen, it's certainly not what the rest of the industry thinks is ideal. And as a member of the industry, I have an obligation to give the customer what they want. Yes, I believe the point and click static interface is growing stale. Yes, I would like to see a change in the old pattern of menu, tool-bar, pop-up. I don't think making a change in the way programs use this pattern (i.e. dynamic toolbars, configurable complexity) will change it enough. I'm ready for a (gack! buzzword alert) paradigm shift, at least in the user interface department.
mmmmm.... inanity... Remember, friend, flames are the tabasco sauce of the internet. Too much is really painful, not enough is far too bland, and just the right amount puts the spice back in an otherwise bland discussion. So I insult your grammar! And your grampar too! A pox upon your childrens' pets unto the seventh generation, foolish Mac user! (yes, I think I've been staring at the screen too long. Maybe I need some sun.)
And as long as I'm rambling, The sun is so hot that everything on it is a gas. Aluminum, Iron, Copper, and many others. If the sun were hollow, a million Earths would fit inside. And yet, the sun is only a middle sized star! (apologies to TMBG).
Leapfrog, the mildly intolerant.
I don't know what it's like on your planet, space man, but here in Mayberry, users don't get that choice. Developers write code. Users buy or do not buy based on whether or not it fits their needs.
Yes, I do say that different audiences require different programs. Say, for example, that there came a decree from the heavens that from now on, all word processing, document formatting, publishing, and anything involving words written on the screen needed to be done in Notepad. Joe and Jane User might be happy with it. Mr. Unix Guru would be a little disgruntled, and Mr. Anonymous Publisher would be livid.
But, this is where Open Source shines. Say Mr. Unix Guru (we'll call him, oh, I don't know, Knuth) wants a document formatting system. So he writes himself one and calls it ..er.. TeX. Then, along comes Mr. Publisher and says "Gee, I love that output, but the input is baffling, cryptic, and arcane! Zounds, what can be done? Maybe I'll hire my friend Joe Programmer to write a pretty interface that hides the arcane input. We can sacrifice some of these features.. Hell, who needs Klingon fonts, anyway? Only those pesky Unix guys, that's who." So Joe Programmer takes TeX and the source from whence it came, and writes a nice front end for it, like LyX. Suddenly, everyone is happy, with a maximum of code reuse.
Having "One program that does everything" is absurd. Look at Ada. Ada was designed to be an all-purpose programming language, sponsored by the government. Ada came out. It turned out to be a hideous language to program in because they tried to put so many features into it. Even pedantic tasks were a nightmare, to say nothing of the extremely complex tasks the government wanted it for. So in putting everything into one program, the program could theoretically do everything, but in practice made everything so difficult to do as to become impractical. And don't even get me started on the price and performance issues of such a beast.
And Laziness is always an excuse. The three great virtues of a programmer (as defined by Larry Wall) are Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. Laziness promotes reuse of code, Impatience promotes knowing when to reinvent the wheel, and Hubris makes you want to write code you can be proud of.
I await your flaming sword with the open arms of righteousness. If you're too angry to argue, it might be time to rethink your viewpoint.
Leapfrog, the mediocre.
My theory is based on the idea that every feature X has a complexity Y related to it. The total complexity of a program is directly related to the summation of all Y across all X. We can consider this the baseline of complexity for the program involving all features X. It is possible (in fact, easy) to increase this complexity by the use of complicated nested menus, pop-up windows and dialog boxes when all that is really necessary is a simple checkbox. But the overall complexity of an application is directly related to the quantity of features (and therefore the power and functionality) in the application.
As for an "Advanced Features" option, involving such a menu selection only serves to obscure the fact that the features are there by making said features harder to access. The "Advanced Features" option then becomes in itself another unit of complexity, making the program even more obfuscated and confusing. In Word, if I want to change my paragraph spacing, I have to go wade through 5 levels of menus, dialog boxes, pop-up boxes and "folder tabs" just to find the selection. That's simpler than giving TeX a simple \spacing directive? Granted, I had to read many pages of LaTeX manual to find that, but it took me less time to learn LaTeX and write a 20 page paper in it than it would have taken me to write a 20 page paper in Word. Or even in WordPerfect. (yes, I realize there's a difference between word processing and document formatting. That's why I like LaTeX so much better. Let the computer worry about the details.)
As far as my "soft-core" background, I've never done any more publishing than a computer geek has to. I've written 20 page papers. I've constructed web pages for corporations. I've never written a book, never gotten published in a magazine, and I've never used Adobe Acrobat. I'm a programmer. I write programs. I design user interfaces. I deal with databases, mainframes, embedded processors, graphical user interfaces, 3D graphics, and I have extreme distaste for the Web in general. I've also written code in Perl, Fortran, COBOL, C, C++, Prolog, Korn Shell, Bourne Shell, C Shell, Lisp, Smalltalk, Java, Javascript, HTML, Visual Basic, Access, Python, Ada, Forth, applesoft basic, assembly (6502, 80x86, MIPS, SPARC, 6811, 680x0), and Pascal. I've written compilers using Lex and Yacc. I've replaced chips on motherboards, I've assembled computers from scratch, I've fabricated printed circuit boards. I know which end of the soldering iron to hold. (hold the plastic end, the metal end hurts.) I'm not sure exactly what, apart from having been forced to use operating systems and software tools that I personally feel are sub-optimal in order to fulfill my job requriements, classifies me as "soft-core". I could make the same arguments about, for example, using WordPerfect for X versus using LaTeX. (or playing Descent versus playing Doom) I was "born and raised" typing cryptic commands to a Unix command line. At first it was a pain, but as I learned, I found that there was real power in being able to type "find / -name *.jpg -print | grep foobar | perl -npe 's/\.jpg//g' " at the command line instead of (what I'd be required to do in a GUI) wandering through hundreds of little windows, selecting icons, and still manually banging in text into Notepad.
I've written in Visual C++, Visual Basic, Borland, Java, Access, and with each of these tools, one point stands out, over and over again. The fact that the developers have gone out of their way to make it easier to use gets in my way. I would like to think that I know what I'm doing. I've never used "alt-middle-button" when writing applications. I've used well-documented command-line options many times. I've never had call for an "advanced users" menu option, because you have to know your audience. Just as a real publisher would never want to use Word for all their DTP needs, a beginning user would balk at diving head first into LaTeX. But, once I learned how LaTeX works, and why it was designed that way, it could see it as an infinitely more powerful tool than Word.
As for your "typical Linux program", give me some specific examples of times when the manual page didn't tell you where the .fubarrc is located, or doesn't give information about what alt-middle-button does. (and EMACS doesn't count, becuase EMACS sucks anyway.) The only programs I've seen that were incompletely documented were either a) commercial, or b) still in development. It's a waste of time to write up every feature before the feature-set has been finalized. Every Debian package I've ever installed has a manual page, a readme, a texinfo page, and a web page to go with it. By "online help", I assume you mean "pushing F1 and up pops a window with a dancing paperclip in it." That sort of documentation is not only irritating, distracting, and gaudy but also a waste of processor, RAM, and disk. What is the point of having a dancing paperclip when a simple text file will convey the same information? (visions of "man MSWORD | grep 'line spacing' " pop into my head)
The most important part of being a programmer (and being a writer, an actor, a senator, &c) is knowing what your audience wants. If I were writing a word processor for my mom and dad, it would most certainly NOT look like LaTeX. If I were writing a database so my Dad could keep track of his wine cellar, Access might start to look like a reasonable choice. But if I were publishing a magazine, MS Word wouldn't cut it. If I were creating an on-line database holding millions of customers' information and processing orders on-the-fly, maybe Informix or Oracle would be a better product to start with. Complexity versus ease of use is the most important trade-off in designing software. The reason why there are hundreds of software packages that do basically the same thing lies in the distinction of audience. You can look at Paintbrush, PSP, CorelPhotoPaint, xfig, Microsoft Photo Editor, Harvard Graphics, the GIMP, Visio and Photoshop and say they serve roughly the same purpose. But look at the difference in target audience, and consequently the differences in price, output quality, and complexity. No one would ever tell you that the GIMP is easier to use than Paintbrush. Cripes, my 6 year old cousin could figure out how to use Paintbrush. But, look at the difference in what you can do with them. The GIMP even has its own scripting language so you can automate just about any task you want. That makes it harder to learn, but at the same time, infinitely more powerful.
Do I need to say it again to make it clearer?
Leapfrog, the indignant.
The first time I upgraded all the libraries and updated all the daemons for security fixes for slack, it was a learning experience.
Yes. That's my point. The learning experience was glorious. Yes, it was a pain in the ass. And shortly after I had learned how to do most of the important stuff, I switched to Debian because it wasn't nearly the pain in the ass that Slackware was.
Leapfrog's Theory of Software Complexity:
In order to make a program easier to use (more user-friendly), you must make it less powerful for the advanced user. In order to make a program more powerful, it must become more complex, and therefore harder to use.
Case in point: Adobe Photoshop vs. MSPAINT.
Anyone who's ever used Adobe Photoshop (or, for that matter, the GIMP) knows that these are real power tools. They are incredibly useful and quite powerful, with a great many configurable options. But, I have known users who couldn't stand Photoshop because there were "too many buttons". These users turn to Paintbrush because it's easier to use. They don't care about powertools. Why use a screw gun when this rusty old philips head screwdriver works just fine? Sure, it's easier to use, but the results are vastly different.
The big three: Debian, Redhat, Slackware
Now, I don't intend to start any flamewars here, but The Way I See It (tm) is as follows. I've used this metaphor many times, and it always seems to fit.
Redhat: Redhat is a linux distribution designed for Windows users. It's been that way for some time, and the approach they're taking doesn't seem to be changing. They provide a whiz-bang easy installation, literally dozens of annoying pop-up programs with which to configure your system, and even the default window manager looks like windows 95. Redhat has done this because they want more people to be able to use it. I ran Redhat for about 2 weeks before I got just as sick of it as I did of windows because even though I know what files to edit, and where to edit them (on a normal system) Redhat would undo my changes every time I rebooted because I didn't use the "configurator" to do it. It took me 9 days to figure out how to change my hostname. The first 5 days were repeated attempts at editing /etc/hostname and the rc.d scripts over and over and being disgusted that every time I rebooted Redhat would just undo my configurations.
Slackware: Slackware is the exact opposite. It offers absolutely no configuration tools of its own. What you get is what you get, period. Slackware was my first Linux install. It was great fun. Every time I wanted something, I downloaded the source, compiled it, and installed it by hand. If there was a configuration problem, I was in there hacking kernel code, changing /etc files, moving symbolic links so my X server would go higher than 320x200. So I learned how to do it The Right Way(tm). And it was a valubale experience. This is why I think of Slackware as Linux for Dos users. Everything you want to do, you do by editing /etc files, installing it yourself, homebrewing directory structures (/opt? Sure! /foobar? No problem! /usr/local/foobar? Hey, you're the boss, buddy!) and most importantly, reading the gosh-danged manuals. My first month as a linux user involved 15% actually using the system and 85% playing RTFM(*). But looking back, I wouldn't want it any other way.
Debian: (Always save the best for last, I say...) In my opinion, Debian offers the best of what's around. You start out with a relatively simple base install (I remember using the magic 7 floppies) that's not quite as easy as RedHat, but in turn offers immense flexibility and configuration options. Then you reboot and are whisked away to the land of dselect, where literally thousands of packages lie before you, waiting for you to pick and choose what you want and don't want. Each one has a short description of what it does, and a great many have the informational notice "If you don't know what this is, you don't need it", so all but the most clueless of newbies can, and do, stumble through a Debian installation and still come out with a useful (if not optimal) system to fit their needs. Once the install is done, you're left with a machine that looks and behaves just like a "normal" unix box. If you want to change configurations, you can elect to use handy pop-up configurator boxes, but it certainly won't keep you from editing your configuration files. And the default window manager is chosen while you're installing the software. It's not magically pre-determined for you. And if you don't like the wm you chose, you can easily edit .xinitrc's to change it. Almost all the config files are well documented and in the places you'd expect them to be. For these reasons, as well as a "general look and feel" category, I've always considered Debian to be Linux for Linux (or Unix) users. People who want to get their hands dirty. Who want to edit config files, tweak settings, and recompile kernels, but not have to worry about downloading and compiling gcc and libc and m4 again. The debian package manager handles all that pesky downloading and installing for you, with over 2 thousand different packages to choose from. Oh yeah, the package manager is all written in Perl, too. I like Perl.
Conclusion: Clueless Newbies
The masses have spoken. Average Joe User wants a system that's easy to use, easy to learn, and supports all the hardware and software available now. As such, he has no need to use Debian. Or Slackware, or Redhat, for that matter. Let him suffer Windows, at least until the DOJ tears M$ a new corn-chute. For the person who wants to run a server, but doesnt know anything other than NT, point him towards RedHat. (at least its not quite as bad as windows). For someone who really wants to learn Linux, and learn it the hard way, off to Slackware with ye! And finally, for the real power user, the person who has been around the block a few times, knows what they want and how they want it, Debian is the only way to play.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Leapfrog, the mediocre.
(*)- I always saw this as Read The Fine Manual.
I say we organize a lynch mob post-haste and go seeking vengeance!
</sarcasm>
Leapfrog, the slow-witted.
PS: Yes, it's a joke. Sarcasm. Satire, if you will. I mean no ill will towards Rob Malda or anyone else on the Slashdot crew. What they decide to put up on their own web pages is none of my business.
A poorly written, stop-and-go, nearly incoherent rant about what someone found wrong with Linux is something I can easily pick up from comp.os.windows.advocacy or any of a dozen other Usenet groups. In the mean time, real news like the NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia gets ignored.
At least the comment section is nice and pretty now.
Leapfrog, the mediocre.
PS: Moderate me! Go ahead! I dare ya! (insert rabid frothing-at-mouth here) I don't need this! arragagea bbleaergh!
Personally, though, I think at age 14 it's pretty ridiculous to think someones parents would give consent.
leapfrog, the mediocre.
So, if you wrote a web browser based on KDE, DjVu, and maybe some BSD-ish networking code, then you release it under the GPL, every time your program starts up, you have to display 80 lines of notices disclaiming everything 4 times. Whee fun yay.
Now, if we could only improve the content of the comments section.
But still, as we are wont to do with all guest authors, Set Phasers to Zorch, aim for their warp drive and/or genitalia! Kill Kill Kill!
I think if we as a group could channel this paranoid reactionism to anyone outside, truly destructive forces would be created. I'm still not sure where this egotism comes from. Perhaps its related to the late night coding binges, the nights on IRC until 2 leaving us unprepared for how the big blue room works. Maybe it has something to do with trying to view our fellow big blue room inhabitants as an algorithm, a bug to be fixed, or a microprocessor ticking away at hundreds of MHz. Or it could come from being able to solve problems no one else can (I can't count on one hand the number of times in the past month that I've single-handedly "saved the day" around here), thereby further inflating the egos. Or maybe the false sense of happiness and satisfaction given by the warm cupful by the wonderful Gift from the Heavens (coffee, of course) makes us feel superior to others.
These, I suppose, are the defining features of our culture, our community. Intelligence, technical knowledge, caffeine, inflated egos. (It's difficult to talk about how big one's ego is without feeling big-headed. "My head is bigger than yours," etc. I fall into the same pattern as everyone else. I'm not proud of my ego, but I acknowledge its existance) So maybe instead of setting phasers to Bar-B-Que, next time we should consider optimizing our paradigms for maximized value-added processes while maintaining an adaptive role in... (ad infinitum-- this phrase brought to you by the Random Buzzword Generator). Thinking in terms of the common user might help us a bit.
Gosh, I'm rambling. That's the worst. rambling and rambling and I've had 3 cups of coffee already this morning, but its still not helping me stay awake.
I'm glad its friday.
</sarcasm>
I think the problem stems from the fact that we know what we like, and we're not willing to let anyone tell us what's wrong with it (because nothing is wrong with it).
Security holes come and go. They just go faster when it's an open source syste. (yay, distributed effort!)
Personally, (no offense Jon) I feel Mr. Katz doesn't quite "get it" when it comes to the geek community. Too far rooted in classical journalism, he is not willing enough to jump in headfirst. If we are to elect an ambassador, it must be someone who will speak for us because they know us, not because we're "cool."
Oh, and it would help if he learned how to use vi as an html editor. Something must be done about those apostrophes.
It's also possible that someone cracked the site, changed index.html just to be a bastard, then when Kipling figured it out, they whipped together the "we've been cracked" logo for the front.
I'd like to see a full documentation of what was done, if for no other reason than to prove/disprove its status as a hoax.
I think slashdot needs a "killed" page, a similar idea but with a full list of all the servers to date that have been slain by the slashdot effect. Something to brag about, at the very least.
I think it would be cool.
Oh, and the rollable keyboard page was cool, too. Gotta get me one of those.