>What gives you the authority to talk about the opinion of most people on any particular topic?
Thats the definition of what a reviewer is suppose to know.
What is the audience to the product? Suppose you had an amazing video card that sold for $10,000. Don't you think that is note worthy to mention it in a review?
>I hate to see is just blantant negativity towards certain products because it isn't the best value
The vast majority of people hate spending money on a piece of garbage. Is it blantant negativity to point it out? If it were free, then it wouldn't matter.
You bought a pair of jeans for say $100. Now suppose another pair costs $500. Don't you think that it is noteworthy? Do you buy $500 jeans?
>Negativity poisons markets, and on large scales cause recessions and depressions.
Unjustified extremes causes recessions and depression. Suppose I think that eBay stock is worth $5000 a share. Is the world "negative" in their view and poisoning the market?
>people forget that the basic principals that apply to developing software for mainframes of 20,30,40 years ago still should apply to developing software for PCs today.
You still have team meetings about the correct way to number your punchcards?
How can you go wrong writing sci-fi about "UNIVAC", the ULTIMATE WORLD-CONQUORING COMPUTER!. He is powered by the brains of lesser creatures, foolish mortal!
Today its an "iMac" or "eMachines". They sound like something I should cuddle up with a nice cup of tea.
> I believe its more of an explanation of why people don't like it. Not why they are wrong in their opinions.
The whole article is why the users are wrong in thinking that spatial and the way Nautilus is bad.
From the article: "What is the real cause of all these attacks on the spatial Nautilius? In my opinion, it is just bad file organisation coupled with a bunch of old bad habits. "
He is pointing the finger not at opinions, but the behaviour of people.
>if the serious under-the-hood types couldn't ditch Konquerer for another browser,
Taking that line of thought, if you can't remove IE from Windows then you just aren't a serious Windows tech type guy. The definition of "serious" is left to be too loose.
Can't remove feature X from Linux/KDE/Gnome? You aren't enough of a "serious tech guy".
In reality, unless a handful of people who work with lowlevel Linux/KDE/Gnome or are willing to dedicate resources to become "serious enough" they can't remove "feature X". How realistic is this? How is this definition not "unreasonable"?
>Bloat implies unnecessary cruftiness that I have no choice but to have on my system.
There are lots of "features" in the Linux kernal that I have no choice but to have on my system. Same thing with KDE/Gnome. Yes, I can recompile and spend days figuring what broke and how to fix it but in reality, I am stuck with it.
Its stuff which is only my system that I don't use and will never use. That is bloat. Just because it is in the realm of possiblity remove it is like saying "You don't have to pay taxes in and live a fully legal life in the United States".
In reality the "system requirements" are worthless. For the record, XP Professional is 128MB.
The article talks about a direct compairsion of XP and Mandrake and how they perform on the exact same machine (using the same "system requirements"). And the whole point is that the difference is a "big thing".
>My grandfather raised a family of six on one blue-collar income, and managed to own a nice home in NYC, a summer house upstate, and always had two cars. Good luck doing that today.
During the 1920's (I'm guessing when your grandfather started), NYC, the world and society was different.
Perhaps something more similar today would be raised a family of 3 on one white collar income in "some cheap state" with a summer home and two cars. Still hard to do but doable.
>Well if it wasn't for the US (and Soviet) governments there wouldn't be the spacecraft whose missions so often make it to the front page of this site.
This is more of a function of man's ego and the sheer amount of money the governments have. Not because of some inate, "for the greater good", "scientific progress will help all man-kind" characteristic of a national government. If it was, why hasn't there been any advances in space travel in the past 30 years?
>Not satelite TV.
Private industry pushes that. The goverment only licences it.
>Nor thousands of medicines.
Yes, lets forget about the huge pharmautical companies. What is the name of the goverment body that researches, develops, clinically tests and distrubutes drugs again?
>And without universities, who duck the corporate need for the quick profit grab
Thats because they they have a steady stream of customers in undergrad students. Who do you think is better off, a tenred professor or a small/medium business owner?
>Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem.
Vs. the "dumber was is often the best way to solve bleeding-edge technical problems" the rest of the world has been doing?
Its fine that Google is doing this now, but they are still small and closely held. The key is if they become a mature and larger company and still retain these factors.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fuck them. "
Funny, I'm sure thats what someone said when they realized how much they lost by people downloading their stuff and then decided to add this DRM crap.
>It seems that Lisp holds the record for
>"Longest Lived Language That Is Still Relevant Yet Underappreciated"
The fact that its still living, to me, means that its overappreciated.
It has a syntax that only a horror fiction writer could come up with.
IANALBTPCIOOMFM. (I Am Not A Lawyer, But The Paper Chase Is One Of My Favorite Movies)
If you read pages 10 to 11 of the judges ruling, two points to note:
There is a line between "general policy" is not an "contract". (Also, the defendents did not receive acceptance of the offer)
Even if you said that there was a contract agreeded upon, the plaintifs failed to specify damages from breach of contract.
>We should be thankful for the persistence and long term vision of the Mozilla team.
Is it a sucess because or inspite of the criticism that Mozilla is a success?
With your view, you get teams with attitude like "I am right, you are wrong" and things like Nautical spacial navigation.
>BTW, whoever modded the parent 'troll' obviously didn't read it very carefully.
Or she has a sense of irony.
>What gives you the authority to talk about the opinion of most people on any particular topic?
Thats the definition of what a reviewer is suppose to know.
What is the audience to the product? Suppose you had an amazing video card that sold for $10,000. Don't you think that is note worthy to mention it in a review?
>I hate to see is just blantant negativity towards certain products because it isn't the best value
The vast majority of people hate spending money on a piece of garbage. Is it blantant negativity to point it out? If it were free, then it wouldn't matter.
You bought a pair of jeans for say $100. Now suppose another pair costs $500. Don't you think that it is noteworthy? Do you buy $500 jeans?
>Negativity poisons markets, and on large scales cause recessions and depressions.
Unjustified extremes causes recessions and depression. Suppose I think that eBay stock is worth $5000 a share. Is the world "negative" in their view and poisoning the market?
>people forget that the basic principals that apply to developing software for mainframes of 20,30,40 years ago still should apply to developing software for PCs today.
You still have team meetings about the correct way to number your punchcards?
How can you go wrong writing sci-fi about "UNIVAC", the ULTIMATE WORLD-CONQUORING COMPUTER!. He is powered by the brains of lesser creatures, foolish mortal!
Today its an "iMac" or "eMachines". They sound like something I should cuddle up with a nice cup of tea.
> I believe its more of an explanation of why people don't like it. Not why they are wrong in their opinions.
The whole article is why the users are wrong in thinking that spatial and the way Nautilus is bad.
From the article:
"What is the real cause of all these attacks on the spatial Nautilius? In my opinion, it is just bad file organisation coupled with a bunch of old bad habits. "
He is pointing the finger not at opinions, but the behaviour of people.
I can't wait until Google news picks up this slashdot article.
>A lot of it is illusory.
Isn't that the point of a windows-based system?
>XFree86 seems slow because it renders the whole process poorly
So how isn't it slow? How does a display system just "appears" slow to the user, but it actually isn't?
>if you actually measure these things, XFree86 is faster.
And what measurement is that?
If it appears slow, why isn't it slow?
>But you can't have it both ways. You either get features, or you get slim.
Windows has features and runs fast, as shown in the article.
Windows people are having it both ways.
>if the serious under-the-hood types couldn't ditch Konquerer for another browser,
Taking that line of thought, if you can't remove IE from Windows then you just aren't a serious Windows tech type guy. The definition of "serious" is left to be too loose.
Can't remove feature X from Linux/KDE/Gnome? You aren't enough of a "serious tech guy".
In reality, unless a handful of people who work with lowlevel Linux/KDE/Gnome or are willing to dedicate resources to become "serious enough" they can't remove "feature X". How realistic is this? How is this definition not "unreasonable"?
>Bloat implies unnecessary cruftiness that I have no choice but to have on my system.
There are lots of "features" in the Linux kernal that I have no choice but to have on my system. Same thing with KDE/Gnome. Yes, I can recompile and spend days figuring what broke and how to fix it but in reality, I am stuck with it.
Its stuff which is only my system that I don't use and will never use. That is bloat. Just because it is in the realm of possiblity remove it is like saying "You don't have to pay taxes in and live a fully legal life in the United States".
In reality the "system requirements" are worthless. For the record, XP Professional is 128MB.
The article talks about a direct compairsion of XP and Mandrake and how they perform on the exact same machine (using the same "system requirements"). And the whole point is that the difference is a "big thing".
>My grandfather raised a family of six on one blue-collar income, and managed to own a nice home in NYC, a summer house upstate, and always had two cars. Good luck doing that today.
During the 1920's (I'm guessing when your grandfather started), NYC, the world and society was different.
Perhaps something more similar today would be raised a family of 3 on one white collar income in "some cheap state" with a summer home and two cars. Still hard to do but doable.
They had to do filing.
Now they have to do filing and answer to shareholders about performance of their traded stock and other issues.
There is a big difference between the two.
>It's surprising the number of companies willing to pay $14/hour for dumb ex-computer people.
Thats because companies know that only dumb ex-compter people will be happy with $14/hour.
>whiners never had to teach, research, write, suffer an advisor, AND find time to sleep all for 12000USD a year and a tuition waver.
So basically PhD are better since you lived a poor life at the hands of a PHB?
How is this different from the rest of us?
>Well if it wasn't for the US (and Soviet) governments there wouldn't be the spacecraft whose missions so often make it to the front page of this site.
This is more of a function of man's ego and the sheer amount of money the governments have. Not because of some inate, "for the greater good", "scientific progress will help all man-kind" characteristic of a national government. If it was, why hasn't there been any advances in space travel in the past 30 years?
>Not satelite TV.
Private industry pushes that. The goverment only licences it.
>Nor thousands of medicines.
Yes, lets forget about the huge pharmautical companies. What is the name of the goverment body that researches, develops, clinically tests and distrubutes drugs again?
>And without universities, who duck the corporate need for the quick profit grab
Thats because they they have a steady stream of customers in undergrad students. Who do you think is better off, a tenred professor or a small/medium business owner?
>"Throwing more money and people at the problem" that the rest of the world has been doing.
Why is Google going public then? That is not a small change and will result in them getting more money (more money to "throw around").
Care to explain that move vs. other companies going public?
You might want to get an extra PhD in "Punctuation and Capitalization in Modern Society".
>Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem.
Vs. the "dumber was is often the best way to solve bleeding-edge technical problems" the rest of the world has been doing?
Its fine that Google is doing this now, but they are still small and closely held. The key is if they become a mature and larger company and still retain these factors.
Obviously, you weren't presenting to the big pr0n industry.
>Are people really this daft?
Yes. Welcome to reality, enjoy your stay.