Thank you to KeizerHein for the helpful (if a bit preachy) and VERY TRUE response.
I once was told, on an IRC channel no less, that I couldn't possibly be female-- since I liked OLD DOS GAMES (Shock! Horror!) So I said, "Uhh, my driver's license is on the Net. (With the important parts blocked out, of course) And showed it to them. They said "Oh, you could fake that."
I asked them why in HELL would any male fake a female ID to masquerade as a woman who likes old DOS games? (In retrospect, I should have dragged out Occam's Razor...)
Anyhow. And once, I was in a computer store with a (male) friend of mine-- a non-geek (yes, I have a few non-geek friends, believe it or not). I was talking to the clerk about what I was looking for, and my friend piped up to say "Hey, can I carry that box for you?" ("You" here meaning "me"). I thanked him and said yes.
Then, to my shock and dismay, the sales clerk took that opportunity to start discussing the techie items I was looking for with my friend!
After around 500 milliseconds of pondering my response, I butted in. "Excuse me," I said, "I'M the techie here. NOT him."
It took a lot of chutzpah and probably left him saying to himself, "Stupid bitch thinks she knows computers..." or some similarly sexist remark-- but what else was there to do? Let him talk to my friend (who is a great guy but a total computer illiterate Windoze-type) just because he's male??
I'm talking about Phoenix, not Mozilla. Phoenix seems to be available as an x86 Windows binary distribution, and an x86 Linux binary distribution. That's it. Period. No source whatsoever.
How about those of us heretics like me who run Debian on PowerPC?
I just want the source. I can compile it myself. Isn't Mozilla supposed to be open-source? Why is no one even complaining that this is a binary-only release? Are we turning into binary-only critters ourselves?
And if so, how long will it be until the "alternative" OS/Browser/BellyButtonLint community will look just like the Windows community?
To quote: "SetiQueue for PC and Seti Unit Manager for Mac."
Please... guys... as an author (read: someone with a vested interest in the English language) and a long-time major geek, I am really irked by this sort of thing. I have come to expect that newbie-types can and almost always will confuse the terms "Mac OS" and "Mac", and the terms "Windows" and "PC", but this is SlashDot.
I don't mean to be ridiculously anal here, but I do wish to stick up for correct usage of technical terms and names. "Mac" and "PC" are hardware architectures. Unless your copy of SetiWhatzit is written to actually be its own BOOTLOADER (that is, unless it IS the operating system), you do not write it for the hardware. You write it for the operating system.
Mac OS is written for the Mac.
Kaleidoscope, Fetch, Office '98, Apple/Clarisworks, etc. are written for Mac OS.
Windows is written for the PC.
(insert name of any given Windows program) is written for Windows.
The OS sits atop the hardware and the programs sit atop the OS. Therefore it is incorrect to say something like "This-or-that program for Mac, and that-or-this program for PC".
To illustrate just how this is blatantly incorrect (and I am not really just being nitpicky after all)-- consider this one:
The program cited in this story as being for "PC", would not run on MY PC, despite the fact that it is a perfectly decent, high-quality PC. Why? Simple-- it runs Linux. This program isn't really for the "PC" at all! It is for Windows. Big difference.
The program cited in this story as being for "Mac" would not run on many Macs I have owned in the past. Why? Since my Macs also ran Linux. And occasionally NetBSD. Perfectly good Macs, but they didn't run Mac OS. This program, likewise, is not for the "Mac". It is for Mac OS. Also a big difference.
I don't like having to dredge up this sort of nitpicky nonsense, but honestly, people, we're SlashDot. We should know that not every "PC" runs Windows, and not every "Mac" runs Mac OS. If any population should know this, it's us.
As a proud user of Debian GNU/Linux on both the PC and Mac (68K and PowerPC) platforms, I am very upset that people are further minimizing any and all alternative operating systems (and encouraging people to think that Microsoft and Apple are all that exists) by saying "for PC" when they mean "for Windows", and "for the Mac" when they mean "for Mac OS". Please, let's refrain from this sort of misleading? We may not be able to stop the slow monopolization of all things digital, but we sure as heck can at least try to slow its progress a tiny bit by promoting technical knowledge and understanding of computer terminology.
This page breaks in Netscape 4.x (for Windows; I have to purge Windows from this new laptop and install Debian. Else I'd report for both Linux and Windows..) Maybe add an "IE or Mozilla only" note to the main story.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you to KeizerHein for the helpful (if a bit preachy) and VERY TRUE response.
I once was told, on an IRC channel no less, that I couldn't possibly be female-- since I liked OLD DOS GAMES (Shock! Horror!) So I said, "Uhh, my driver's license is on the Net. (With the important parts blocked out, of course) And showed it to them. They said "Oh, you could fake that."
I asked them why in HELL would any male fake a female ID to masquerade as a woman who likes old DOS games? (In retrospect, I should have dragged out Occam's Razor...)
Anyhow. And once, I was in a computer store with a (male) friend of mine-- a non-geek (yes, I have a few non-geek friends, believe it or not). I was talking to the clerk about what I was looking for, and my friend piped up to say "Hey, can I carry that box for you?" ("You" here meaning "me"). I thanked him and said yes.
Then, to my shock and dismay, the sales clerk took that opportunity to start discussing the techie items I was looking for with my friend!
After around 500 milliseconds of pondering my response, I butted in. "Excuse me," I said, "I'M the techie here. NOT him."
It took a lot of chutzpah and probably left him saying to himself, "Stupid bitch thinks she knows computers..." or some similarly sexist remark-- but what else was there to do? Let him talk to my friend (who is a great guy but a total computer illiterate Windoze-type) just because he's male??
I'm talking about Phoenix, not Mozilla. Phoenix seems to be available as an x86 Windows binary distribution, and an x86 Linux binary distribution. That's it. Period. No source whatsoever.
How about those of us heretics like me who run Debian on PowerPC?
I just want the source. I can compile it myself. Isn't Mozilla supposed to be open-source? Why is no one even complaining that this is a binary-only release? Are we turning into binary-only critters ourselves?
And if so, how long will it be until the "alternative" OS/Browser/BellyButtonLint community will look just like the Windows community?
Just find another geek. My significant other and I are both geeks. :)
--Jessica
To quote: "SetiQueue for PC and Seti Unit Manager for Mac."
Please... guys... as an author (read: someone with a vested interest in the English language) and a long-time major geek, I am really irked by this sort of thing. I have come to expect that newbie-types can and almost always will confuse the terms "Mac OS" and "Mac", and the terms "Windows" and "PC", but this is SlashDot.
I don't mean to be ridiculously anal here, but I do wish to stick up for correct usage of technical terms and names. "Mac" and "PC" are hardware architectures. Unless your copy of SetiWhatzit is written to actually be its own BOOTLOADER (that is, unless it IS the operating system), you do not write it for the hardware. You write it for the operating system.
Mac OS is written for the Mac.
Kaleidoscope, Fetch, Office '98, Apple/Clarisworks, etc. are written for Mac OS.
Windows is written for the PC.
(insert name of any given Windows program) is written for Windows.
The OS sits atop the hardware and the programs sit atop the OS. Therefore it is incorrect to say something like "This-or-that program for Mac, and that-or-this program for PC".
To illustrate just how this is blatantly incorrect (and I am not really just being nitpicky after all)-- consider this one:
The program cited in this story as being for "PC", would not run on MY PC, despite the fact that it is a perfectly decent, high-quality PC. Why? Simple-- it runs Linux. This program isn't really for the "PC" at all! It is for Windows. Big difference.
The program cited in this story as being for "Mac" would not run on many Macs I have owned in the past. Why? Since my Macs also ran Linux. And occasionally NetBSD. Perfectly good Macs, but they didn't run Mac OS. This program, likewise, is not for the "Mac". It is for Mac OS. Also a big difference.
I don't like having to dredge up this sort of nitpicky nonsense, but honestly, people, we're SlashDot. We should know that not every "PC" runs Windows, and not every "Mac" runs Mac OS. If any population should know this, it's us.
As a proud user of Debian GNU/Linux on both the PC and Mac (68K and PowerPC) platforms, I am very upset that people are further minimizing any and all alternative operating systems (and encouraging people to think that Microsoft and Apple are all that exists) by saying "for PC" when they mean "for Windows", and "for the Mac" when they mean "for Mac OS". Please, let's refrain from this sort of misleading? We may not be able to stop the slow monopolization of all things digital, but we sure as heck can at least try to slow its progress a tiny bit by promoting technical knowledge and understanding of computer terminology.
--Jessica
This page breaks in Netscape 4.x (for Windows; I have to purge Windows from this new laptop and install Debian. Else I'd report for both Linux and Windows..) Maybe add an "IE or Mozilla only" note to the main story. :)