...but there's just no practical way to enforce these laws.
In the meantime, some solutions that actually work (or at least hold back the tide) are SpamNet, a collaborative spam filtering network, and of course the ever-unpopular PGP.
Let's put on our thinking caps for a moment. What do you think would happen to your project if you ignored your user base and responded to their complaints with "If you don't like it, write something better. Otherwise, go fuck yourself?" Of the (generously estimated) 20% of your users who have the know-how to hack the code, how many do you think will have the time to even bother?
And don't give me any of that "it's free so quality doesn't matter" crap. If you want your project to enjoy widespread use, you listen to what your users have to say.
What's keeping me using Windows has nothing to do with MS's monopoly
Actually, it has quite a bit to do with MS's monopoly. It is because of this monopoly that people and companies are much more willing to spend resources on Windows applications than on Linux ones, since they know the former is where they'll find the crowd. This neglect effectively hinders the progress of alternative software - most noticeably in the user-friendliness area.
(Funny thing is, a lot of folks consider me PMS. =)
You're right, C is a fast and portable language. However, C hands the tedious job of memory management over to the programmer. Not all of us are as proficient at avoiding or debugging memory leaks as you. Most of us would rather spend our time productively coding the program..NET provides automatic memory management, and is still impressively fast.
Also, C code requires the maintenance of multiple versions of your application - at least for applications that have a GUI..NET's very nice hierarchy of classes also stands out in this regard (System.Windows.Forms).
Moreover, OOP is big; C is not an object-oriented language, and C++ is, for many, a convoluted nightmare. When you're building truly portable (no rebuilding necessary) enterprising applications,.NET will be a major boon.
Don't be blinded by your hostility toward Microsoft. After all, these projects help undermine the dominance of Windows by providing an alternative platform on which to run your programs..NET could be a great thing to happen to Linux.
Ah, but there's a simple way around this: maintain whitelists and make the payment optional. Only messages that are either whitelisted or pay the fee will get through. This way, legitimate lists won't have to pay a penny to any of its recipients, who are expected to whitelist the list address. Whitelists can also relieve recipient accounts of the chore of the fee transfer-back.
Another thing is, what if you want to send a message to someone who doesn't know you? They might just take your half-dollar. However, I think this fee can be reduced to $0.01. That way, you'll only lose a penny (big whoop), and it will still severely limit spammers.
Anyway, I think this is a terrific idea. However, I realize there's still the problem of spammers using up resources in the hopes of getting through to that 1 out of 100,000 people who doesn't have this system activated for their account. So until this is activated by default (if you're smart enough to disable the fee then you are presumably smart enough to discard spam), bandwidth gobbling is still an issue.
It sounds solid to me, but I'd like to hear other opinions on this.
I don't think GAIM for Windows is a good idea
on
Gaim For Windows
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Hey, I've been reading Slashdot for a long time, and this is my first post.
First off, I am not one who sticks to standard software just because they are popular, made by Microsoft/AOL Time Warner, etc. Neither do I use alternative software for that reason alone. I use whatever is most useful to me, and in this sense, I was never able to understand why people like programs like GAIM, Mozilla, Emacs, etc. on Windows.
I never really liked any of the multi-platform clients. I remember using GAIM briefly two years ago; I liked its logging and buddy pounce features. It sure kicked the crap out of AIM for Linux. Now I use AIM 4.8 with AIM+ (AIM+ users: don't upgrade to 5.0). AIM+ can make windows transparent, remove ads, etc., but I really find the logging and cloning features to be most useful.
I downloaded GAIM for Windows yesterday, and I removed it today. It looks hideous (though I could care less), it's clumsy to use, it formats incorrectly (both IMs and profiles), the tabbed windows are useless (thanks to XP's window grouping), you can't Talk, you can't Play Games, you can't use the Add-Ins for AIM, you can't Get Files, you can't look up directory info (and yes, I use all these AIM features regularly), it does a god-awful job of "intelligently" merging contacts (and worse, these changes permanently alter your buddy list stored on AIM servers; I had to re-edit the buddy lists manually)...the list goes on.
And this is all just concerning its handling of AIM. Need I go on about its drawbacks on the other platforms? I think this one-night affair is best forgotten.
I have similar complaints against Trillian, Jabber, EveryBuddy, etc. (all of which I have used very, very patiently, on multiple occasions over the years). Now I know that GAIM is open-source, and if I wanted to, I can change it however I please, potentially making it the most kick-ass client ever. But I *don't* want to, and if the authors of GAIM couldn't make it any better than it is right now, then I sure as hell can't.
So, either I'm missing something huge here (and I sure hope I am, because I like AIM/OSCAR just about as much as the next guy), or the rebellious vocal minority has once again confounded "keeping an open mind" with "blind devotion to the alternatives." Until GAIM catches up, I'm sticking to AIM+.
Slashdot Mirror
...but there's just no practical way to enforce these laws.
In the meantime, some solutions that actually work (or at least hold back the tide) are SpamNet, a collaborative spam filtering network, and of course the ever-unpopular PGP.
No, no, NO.
Let's put on our thinking caps for a moment. What do you think would happen to your project if you ignored your user base and responded to their complaints with "If you don't like it, write something better. Otherwise, go fuck yourself?" Of the (generously estimated) 20% of your users who have the know-how to hack the code, how many do you think will have the time to even bother?
And don't give me any of that "it's free so quality doesn't matter" crap. If you want your project to enjoy widespread use, you listen to what your users have to say.
What's keeping me using Windows has nothing to do with MS's monopoly
Actually, it has quite a bit to do with MS's monopoly. It is because of this monopoly that people and companies are much more willing to spend resources on Windows applications than on Linux ones, since they know the former is where they'll find the crowd. This neglect effectively hinders the progress of alternative software - most noticeably in the user-friendliness area.
(Funny thing is, a lot of folks consider me PMS. =)
You're right, C is a fast and portable language. However, C hands the tedious job of memory management over to the programmer. Not all of us are as proficient at avoiding or debugging memory leaks as you. Most of us would rather spend our time productively coding the program. .NET provides automatic memory management, and is still impressively fast.
.NET's very nice hierarchy of classes also stands out in this regard (System.Windows.Forms).
.NET will be a major boon.
.NET could be a great thing to happen to Linux.
Also, C code requires the maintenance of multiple versions of your application - at least for applications that have a GUI.
Moreover, OOP is big; C is not an object-oriented language, and C++ is, for many, a convoluted nightmare. When you're building truly portable (no rebuilding necessary) enterprising applications,
Don't be blinded by your hostility toward Microsoft. After all, these projects help undermine the dominance of Windows by providing an alternative platform on which to run your programs.
Ah, but there's a simple way around this: maintain whitelists and make the payment optional. Only messages that are either whitelisted or pay the fee will get through. This way, legitimate lists won't have to pay a penny to any of its recipients, who are expected to whitelist the list address. Whitelists can also relieve recipient accounts of the chore of the fee transfer-back.
Another thing is, what if you want to send a message to someone who doesn't know you? They might just take your half-dollar. However, I think this fee can be reduced to $0.01. That way, you'll only lose a penny (big whoop), and it will still severely limit spammers.
Anyway, I think this is a terrific idea. However, I realize there's still the problem of spammers using up resources in the hopes of getting through to that 1 out of 100,000 people who doesn't have this system activated for their account. So until this is activated by default (if you're smart enough to disable the fee then you are presumably smart enough to discard spam), bandwidth gobbling is still an issue.
It sounds solid to me, but I'd like to hear other opinions on this.
Hey, I've been reading Slashdot for a long time, and this is my first post.
First off, I am not one who sticks to standard software just because they are popular, made by Microsoft/AOL Time Warner, etc. Neither do I use alternative software for that reason alone. I use whatever is most useful to me, and in this sense, I was never able to understand why people like programs like GAIM, Mozilla, Emacs, etc. on Windows.
I never really liked any of the multi-platform clients. I remember using GAIM briefly two years ago; I liked its logging and buddy pounce features. It sure kicked the crap out of AIM for Linux. Now I use AIM 4.8 with AIM+ (AIM+ users: don't upgrade to 5.0). AIM+ can make windows transparent, remove ads, etc., but I really find the logging and cloning features to be most useful.
I downloaded GAIM for Windows yesterday, and I removed it today. It looks hideous (though I could care less), it's clumsy to use, it formats incorrectly (both IMs and profiles), the tabbed windows are useless (thanks to XP's window grouping), you can't Talk, you can't Play Games, you can't use the Add-Ins for AIM, you can't Get Files, you can't look up directory info (and yes, I use all these AIM features regularly), it does a god-awful job of "intelligently" merging contacts (and worse, these changes permanently alter your buddy list stored on AIM servers; I had to re-edit the buddy lists manually)...the list goes on.
And this is all just concerning its handling of AIM. Need I go on about its drawbacks on the other platforms? I think this one-night affair is best forgotten.
I have similar complaints against Trillian, Jabber, EveryBuddy, etc. (all of which I have used very, very patiently, on multiple occasions over the years). Now I know that GAIM is open-source, and if I wanted to, I can change it however I please, potentially making it the most kick-ass client ever. But I *don't* want to, and if the authors of GAIM couldn't make it any better than it is right now, then I sure as hell can't.
So, either I'm missing something huge here (and I sure hope I am, because I like AIM/OSCAR just about as much as the next guy), or the rebellious vocal minority has once again confounded "keeping an open mind" with "blind devotion to the alternatives." Until GAIM catches up, I'm sticking to AIM+.