From TFA: "from sensing the bacteria as a way to look for gold mines"
Surely we know where the gold mines are already - I mean, they tend to be biiiig things, or at least big holes in the ground. I wouldn't have though that looking for bacteria would make then any easier to spot.
Shouldn't the bacteria be used for finding gold _deposits_ instead?/ba-da ba-doom!/
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week, tell you friends! I reccomend the veal, it's devine.
Reading (most) books and (nearly all) magazines is a waste of time. If you want to improve your coding sk1lz, read and _understand_ someone else's source code instead. Of course, the best way of doing this is to jump in a start adding features or fixing bugs on an existing project. For something easy, start with Linux or the BSD source trees. For more of a challenge, start hacking Mozilla or OOo.
The more source you see, the more source you hack, the better the source you write.
Either online, or in RL. Talk to people, ask them which hosting company they use, if they are happy with it and why. Read the blogs of people of people you know, trust or who are into similar things as you. Jump on usenet, go to teh forums at places like webhostingtalk or at the actual hosting service itself and read what people are saying.
Ignore articles published by news sites, magazines and the like. They are out to make money and hence are biased. You cannot get a feel for how good a hosting service is, or how reliable it is, or how good their support is by playing with the hosting service's web interface for 5 minutes or by comparing feature lists, which is exactly what the journalist that wrote the article did.
I was looking for a hosting service a few weeks ago and I immediately thought of two: bytemark.co.uk and Linode. Why? Because a know a few people who use bytemark.co.uk and are happy with it and I have aread a lot about about Linode being good on places like Planet Gnome. So I compared the cost features of the two and chose the one that looked the best.
The information is out there, you just need to use it.
Just create a first-person shooter called "Redemption" or something suitably generic and when you start it up, it prompts you for your religion of choice and presents a different skin depending on which you choose.
Choose "Christian" and you get to go around killing muslims. Choose "Muslim" and you get to go around killing christians. Choose "Scientology" and you get to go around porking teenagers (hi Tom!). Etc.
Who says selling shit in the Temple is bad, anyway?
It is painful at times, suffers from perma-death and is expensive to play, but it _is_ the biggest massively-multiplayer game out there.
You will jhave to leave the office and potentially encounter other players, but it can be worth it. Check out levels called "parks", they are a good place to start and the graphics are neat.
I tend to agree with them. New TLDs are just a licence to print money. They do not offer new options for domain name holders - everyone with a business or company or product or trademark will just have to go out and get the same permuatations they already own for the existing TLDs and CCs. The name space gets filled up again and people lose out once more. The.mobi domain is harmful for reasons stated in the link above..xxx is useless because pr0n sites will keep on using other TLDs and CCs..biz is a ghetto. Can someone explain how a website in.info is more informative than a website in.con? Err... I mean.com?
Maybe it is just that someone at ICANN is a _big_ fan of Pokemon.
The DNS hierarchy needs a complete overhaul, not more random, money making and/or harmful branches.
Not necessarily. If to "logout" you need to click on a link, then that may potentially be cached and so you do not get logged out when you click on it. If the webapp is using a poor session implementation, it may lead to the same problem.
Websites using session-based authentication really should use a form and do a POST to do logout.
Of course, if web sites used http-auth (as they should), this wouldn't be a problem at all.
I guess it it fortunate for us that you'll never see it - no browser would implement such a thing. It is contrary to the spirit of HTML in general and links specifically.
See the WhatWG discussion of this sort of thing for more reasons why it sucks.
> Later, when the codebase is more mature, outside patches make more sense > (patches generally touch less code, there are less conflicts , easier to > review).
Patches for FLOSS projects usually come in two forms: uber patches from major contributors and 2-line bug fixes from knowledgeable users.
By rejecting the former, you're discouraging people from becoming intimately familiar with the codebase early on - when it is usually easier to understand, so you're less likely to get such patches later on. If it's too much work to integrate a patch, politely reject it rather than rejecting all, carte blanch.
By rejecting the latter, you're adding to the work you have to do finding and fixing the bug, or you're releasing buggy software.
I really can't see much benefit for not accepting patches and unless he gets swamped by huge numbers of patches (which would be good from other perspectives anyway), I can't see any real downside to accepting them.
> Hugunin is participating in this discussion. Really, he seems to be quite > reasonable (gotdotnet and the web forums seem to be just tools for him -- if > people really want to use something else, then that's what's going to happen).
Yes, I realise he is talking to people, which is good. If these issues get sorted out, then IronPython has a much better chance of becoming a successful project.
> The fact that questions are raised is not troubling, it just means there is > real interest on this project.
If I was generating interest but discouraging those who are interested, I would find that troubling.
Have a read of this message. If some of these issues have been cleared up, then great!
If Hugunin has issues accepting patches because of who he works for, then that's a shame. I'm glad he thinks that that may change post 1.0, but why will these issues suddently be easier to work around just because the code has reached a stable version? If they can be worked around, why not do so now?
How long will it take for 1.0 to be released? Are people prepared to wait that long rather than forking, starting from scratch or getting behind an alternative effort right away? Will anyone still be around by then to be to be turned into an instant community? These things can't just get turned on or off.
If you'll still (lessend or not) need to get a Passort account and use gotdotnet to be part of the community, that will still be very off putting for many potential hackers. Having a Passport account is an identity theft waiting to happen. Why is required to be a part of the community? A web forum is a massively inefficient way of communicating when compared to a mailing list, why should people have to suffer it?
I still would want some answers to these (and Edd Dumbill's, Miguel de Icaza's and Paolo Molaro's) questions before getting behing IronPython. The fact that such questions are raised at all is troubling, however.
As Edd Dumbil pointed out, there's a number of questions that need to be answered before it is worth getting behind IronPython, such as:
- Is it actually Free Software?
- Why do I need a passport account Passport to participate?
- Why are you bothering to release source code if you're not willing to
accept patches?
- Why don't you want to get it working with Mono?
Heh. Everyone who uses some IM system $FOO always says "but eveyone uses $FOO" when someone suggests they switch to anouther one. But I guess that's because they use it because all their friends do and so it does seem like everyone uses $FOO.
Anyway, to get people to move over to Jabber, proceed as follows:
1. Switch you Jabber yourself 2. Get your friends to switch to a multi-protocol client so they can still IM you 3. Switch them to Jabber 4.... 5. Profit!
To avoid feeling too lonely right after (1), you could possibly swap steps (1) and (2).
Slashdot Mirror
You keep Warren Ellis happy.
You really _don't_ want to see Warren Ellis unhappy. Bad things will happen.
Very bad things.
From TFA: "from sensing the bacteria as a way to look for gold mines"
/ba-da ba-doom!/
Surely we know where the gold mines are already - I mean, they tend to be biiiig things, or at least big holes in the ground. I wouldn't have though that looking for bacteria would make then any easier to spot.
Shouldn't the bacteria be used for finding gold _deposits_ instead?
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week, tell you friends! I reccomend the veal, it's devine.
ENOTIME
Have you posted a bug about it in Launchpad?
Anyone know where *I* can get a copy? ;)
"I downloaded the Paris Hilton sex video but I can't crack the encryption. How can I view my pr0n without having to pay?"
You are going about it all wrong.
Reading (most) books and (nearly all) magazines is a waste of time. If you want to improve your coding sk1lz, read and _understand_ someone else's source code instead. Of course, the best way of doing this is to jump in a start adding features or fixing bugs on an existing project. For something easy, start with Linux or the BSD source trees. For more of a challenge, start hacking Mozilla or OOo.
The more source you see, the more source you hack, the better the source you write.
Sadly, no. Mine is more like: Symbian, Free SDK, Memory Stick Duo slot and faux USB, a 1.5x2" screen.
A bit rough around the edges? Have you tried turning AA on?
Your cellphone runs Linux? It comes with a free SDK so you can make your own games? It has a SD slot and USB? It has a 3.5" screen?
Either online, or in RL. Talk to people, ask them which hosting company they use, if they are happy with it and why. Read the blogs of people of people you know, trust or who are into similar things as you. Jump on usenet, go to teh forums at places like webhostingtalk or at the actual hosting service itself and read what people are saying.
Ignore articles published by news sites, magazines and the like. They are out to make money and hence are biased. You cannot get a feel for how good a hosting service is, or how reliable it is, or how good their support is by playing with the hosting service's web interface for 5 minutes or by comparing feature lists, which is exactly what the journalist that wrote the article did.
I was looking for a hosting service a few weeks ago and I immediately thought of two: bytemark.co.uk and Linode. Why? Because a know a few people who use bytemark.co.uk and are happy with it and I have aread a lot about about Linode being good on places like Planet Gnome. So I compared the cost features of the two and chose the one that looked the best.
The information is out there, you just need to use it.
Just create a first-person shooter called "Redemption" or something suitably generic and when you start it up, it prompts you for your religion of choice and presents a different skin depending on which you choose.
Choose "Christian" and you get to go around killing muslims. Choose "Muslim" and you get to go around killing christians. Choose "Scientology" and you get to go around porking teenagers (hi Tom!). Etc.
Who says selling shit in the Temple is bad, anyway?
It is painful at times, suffers from perma-death and is expensive to play, but it _is_ the biggest massively-multiplayer game out there.
You will jhave to leave the office and potentially encounter other players, but it can be worth it. Check out levels called "parks", they are a good place to start and the graphics are neat.
Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C seems to think they suck.
.mobi domain is harmful for reasons stated in the link above. .xxx is useless because pr0n sites will keep on using other TLDs and CCs. .biz is a ghetto. Can someone explain how a website in .info is more informative than a website in .con? Err... I mean .com?
I tend to agree with them. New TLDs are just a licence to print money. They do not offer new options for domain name holders - everyone with a business or company or product or trademark will just have to go out and get the same permuatations they already own for the existing TLDs and CCs. The name space gets filled up again and people lose out once more. The
Maybe it is just that someone at ICANN is a _big_ fan of Pokemon.
The DNS hierarchy needs a complete overhaul, not more random, money making and/or harmful branches.
Ooo! Got a link to a HOWTO? Is this using JDE?
Err, yes, you're probably right. Don't know what I was thinking... must not post to /. before drinking coffee.
"Actually, that's yet another different problem"
Not necessarily. If to "logout" you need to click on a link, then that may potentially be cached and so you do not get logged out when you click on it. If the webapp is using a poor session implementation, it may lead to the same problem.
Websites using session-based authentication really should use a form and do a POST to do logout.
Of course, if web sites used http-auth (as they should), this wouldn't be a problem at all.
"I would love something like:
<a href="/link.script" method="post" variables="a=1;b=2">"
I guess it it fortunate for us that you'll never see it - no browser would implement such a thing. It is contrary to the spirit of HTML in general and links specifically.
See the WhatWG discussion of this sort of thing for more reasons why it sucks.
Nope.
Evince uses libpoppler, a f.d.o fork of xpdf that KDE might also end up using. xpdf uses, well, xpdf. As does gpdf. However gnome-gv does use gs.
Wheee!
> Later, when the codebase is more mature, outside patches make more sense
> (patches generally touch less code, there are less conflicts , easier to
> review).
Patches for FLOSS projects usually come in two forms: uber patches from major contributors and 2-line bug fixes from knowledgeable users.
By rejecting the former, you're discouraging people from becoming intimately familiar with the codebase early on - when it is usually easier to understand, so you're less likely to get such patches later on. If it's too much work to integrate a patch, politely reject it rather than rejecting all, carte blanch.
By rejecting the latter, you're adding to the work you have to do finding and fixing the bug, or you're releasing buggy software.
I really can't see much benefit for not accepting patches and unless he gets swamped by huge numbers of patches (which would be good from other perspectives anyway), I can't see any real downside to accepting them.
> Hugunin is participating in this discussion. Really, he seems to be quite
> reasonable (gotdotnet and the web forums seem to be just tools for him -- if
> people really want to use something else, then that's what's going to happen).
Yes, I realise he is talking to people, which is good. If these issues get sorted out, then IronPython has a much better chance of becoming a successful project.
> The fact that questions are raised is not troubling, it just means there is
> real interest on this project.
If I was generating interest but discouraging those who are interested, I would find that troubling.
Have a read of this message. If some of these issues have been cleared up, then great!
If Hugunin has issues accepting patches because of who he works for, then that's a shame. I'm glad he thinks that that may change post 1.0, but why will these issues suddently be easier to work around just because the code has reached a stable version? If they can be worked around, why not do so now?
How long will it take for 1.0 to be released? Are people prepared to wait that long rather than forking, starting from scratch or getting behind an alternative effort right away? Will anyone still be around by then to be to be turned into an instant community? These things can't just get turned on or off.
If you'll still (lessend or not) need to get a Passort account and use gotdotnet to be part of the community, that will still be very off putting for many potential hackers. Having a Passport account is an identity theft waiting to happen. Why is required to be a part of the community? A web forum is a massively inefficient way of communicating when compared to a mailing list, why should people have to suffer it?
I still would want some answers to these (and Edd Dumbill's, Miguel de Icaza's and Paolo Molaro's) questions before getting behing IronPython. The fact that such questions are raised at all is troubling, however.
That's a start. It is Free Software, but too bad it isn't GPL compatible.
Err, here is Edd's post. Whoops.
As Edd Dumbil pointed out, there's a number of questions that need to be answered before it is worth getting behind IronPython, such as:
- Is it actually Free Software?
- Why do I need a passport account Passport to participate?
- Why are you bothering to release source code if you're not willing to
accept patches?
- Why don't you want to get it working with Mono?
And so on.
Heh. Everyone who uses some IM system $FOO always says "but eveyone uses $FOO" when someone suggests they switch to anouther one. But I guess that's because they use it because all their friends do and so it does seem like everyone uses $FOO.
...
Anyway, to get people to move over to Jabber, proceed as follows:
1. Switch you Jabber yourself
2. Get your friends to switch to a multi-protocol client so they can still IM you
3. Switch them to Jabber
4.
5. Profit!
To avoid feeling too lonely right after (1), you could possibly swap steps (1) and (2).