There's this really weird mindset that seems to take hold in techie circles that there's only one given solution to an issue...that aside, why is only one of these going to be the future?
Let's call it "wishful thinking". The fact that Windows, IE, etc. still exist is because we techies let the normal folk have more than one solution to given issues, worse ones at that.
1) It's been like this for a few weeks if not a month. Old hi-fi playlists are still working, with the exception of some songs being removed from streaming.
2) They're doing it because they have a membership service now, and hi-fi genre playlists are on the list of reasons to join. It's still not hard to get hi-fi songs from mp3.com, I doubt this changed their bandwidth usage very much. Besides, my reaction was to find the top ten artists on a genre, visit their page, load their hi-fi list, and compile them together in to one huge list. They sure as hell aren't saving money through me.
1) Competition is a strength and, in most cases, remarkably effective. Markets that are monopolized move very slowly becuase there's no reason to move on. Capitalism relies on this, too.
2) Look at KDE, and how bloated it is (I know it's an opinion, but there is truth based on it). Think of how hard it would be to satisfy low-end-system users, minimalists, people who run mission-critical systems that need a GUI, but can't be bothered with fancy... anything. Think of how hard it would be to combine the flexibility of a from-scratch distro and the user-friendliness of Mandrake with the manageability of Debian.
3) Open source programming isn't all about multitudes of choices in all situations. Only end-user applications typically feature choices up the wazoo (and distros... but that's an "end-user" kind of thing too). If you look underneath, the graphics system (almost entirely X), standard libraries, etc. are standard. Once something becomes mature and truly useful to be used generally everywhere, it is.
4) You can always use Windows, the land of very few choices. Interfaces, 1. Popular and mature file navigation, 1. Kernel, 1. As a software engineering protocol, open-source is remarkably effective at creating a lot of high-quality choices. How can this be?
Who cares about 1,000 dollars? Stupid Apple and their IBM silicon chips... this Dell baby here uses NOBLE GAS! Electrical impulses though inert free-flowing gas, man. Not only does it sound better, it's a friggin' miracle!
I imagine the versions running LASIK machines and power plants don't use the full GUI, 3D graphics (though maybe 3D routines for the laser), or any of those frills that take 400Mhz and 128MB ram. Sadly, I think our old comptuers::rests arm on old 286 desktop turned sideways:: are just too old. It happens. The small/fast/uber-reliable OS that QNX could give our old, old boxes are probably something akin to DOS, just spelled Q-N-X, with real-time scheduling and the ability to give me 20/10 vision with a jerry-rigged DVD-RAM laser and a good SCSI card...
And, as my grandparent post pointed out, I'll have Aphex Twin playing during the whole thing off of my USB hard drive.
And then there will be incentive to switch. For the time being, there are cheaper solutions, such as NAT.
Good lord, man. Does "preventative measures" mean anything to you? Just because we *can* wait for things to get bad before we change doesn't mean we should. Yes, yes, I realize that capitalist societies work like that, but as people we're supposed to be working to be better than our past, not use it as an excuse to make the same mistakes again.
NAT is a mess. It is a solution, but it is a far cry from a good one. In small groups, at home with your LAN party, I'm sure it works wonderfully. In the big picture, however, things will be much better without it. The US government is doing exactly what the commercial sector should be doing. Look at the growth of the internet in just the last 5 years, and think of how much bigger it will be in the next 5. Think good and hard about how many more people will be on, how many new servers will be up, and how many more complaining, computer-illiterate people will be online to complain about moving to IPv6. Think of all of that, and how much more it will cost to move all those new servers to IPv6. Now, you tell ME that waiting is economically feasible compared to switching sooner, and spending the next 5 years expanding the internet with IPv6 already in place, saving the hassle of having to migrate millions of computers that were going to be IPv4.
From the perspective of good old American companies, they can choose to spend money implementing something out of generosity for those in other countries, or they can sit on their asses and do nothing for free.
1)...You know, we'll run out, too. It's going to cost money, and it's going to screw a lot of moneybags over, but the bottom line is that Asian and European connectivity with us is the reason that the internet is good and worthwhile.
2) What do you propose we do? Let the rest of the planet move on to a more advanced, more versatile, and just better protocol while we sit here disconnected from them? Apparently the major benefit of the internet has evaded your right-wing "Proud to be an American" POV; we are a part of the global community. It's not "Us... and those guys overseas having IPv4 problems", it's "Us."
I'm sure it will piss plenty of people off, but it HAS to be done at some point. We're all so hesitant to start something that we know we need to do. Like a global collection of little kids going "I don't wanna do my homework now! Just one more cartoon!" It's not going to be any easier in a few years, or a decade, or a week.
I don't even want to think about all of my friends and family that would call me to help configure their computer for their new fangaled internet service.
I don't either. I'm too busy thinking of all the EXTRA BUSINSS that tech support companies will get.
People would switch to MSN...People would stop using mp3.com
Consumers aren't idiots. They wouldn't switch if they could still use google, or mp3.com. They would demand that they get google back.
All of them, at once?
No, just enough that from a monetary standpoint, it would be easier to use IPv6 when building a network.
Besides, IPv6 just isn't that important at the moment.
10 bucks says you're American.
There are areas in Asia and Europe sitting there twiddling their fingers waiting to be able to use IPv6. It's no biggie to us home-grown, beef-eatin' Americans, because the majority of IP addresses are ours. That comment has the same effect as a rich man next to a poor woman holding her starving child going "Yeah, welfare isn't that important right now."
I know it's not the greatest way, but it's how it's going to happen. Look at the cell phone market. Imagine all of the problems, all of the people like you saying "We'll just use payphones, we'll just call in advance, we'll just send telegrams." SOMEONE has to just start using it. My point was that every major commercial, consumer-based organization until now has not made a move. Like nervous boys at a pool party, they're all sitting there in their towels waiting for the other people to get in. A corporation would be spending a lot of money to "get in the pool" first, but that's just how it has to go.
...is that there is no easy way to do this. There will be a major effort of large companies and corportations eventually, but only after someone takes initiative and sticks their neck out above the crowd. We can't all huddle behind each other saying "I'll go when you go..."
I would like to see something critical go IPv6 exclusively. If... say, most of the world's search engines ran only IPv6, think of how much that would inspire people to adopt it, from the consumer all the way up to the corporations that rely on the consumer's business. We just need someone important enough to put their foot down and say "You must have IPv6... now."
Not just search engines. Yahoo! could start serving their mail, chat, and games through IPv6 exclusively. MP3.com could only stream via IPv6, hardware corp's could stop producing IPv4 hubs and routers, which would still allow people to use IPv4 (the old ones won't be removed from the market, just no longer manufactured), but at the same time it would make the cost of staying with IPv4 increasingly expensive (as our supply of IPv4 hardware grows thin, the cost of using it will become too expensive).
Well, I didn't look too hard into it (sorry, I'm at work and it's not exactly priority), but the Changelog doesn't mention emu10k1 or anything about soundblasters. Do you know if you can make the problem happen on other video players, xine, aviplay, xanim, etc.?
Also, you might want to give the ALSA drivers a chance. The new kernels are pushing it as the new sound architecture for Linux, and sometimes they make a big difference. Besides, having everything set up for ALSA and running properly will make it easier to move on to 2.6 kernels.
Like I said in my first post, compiling a kernel for a computer of your computer's stature is a matter of copying the old config, checking to see if there's anything else you need to change, and then waiting for a couple minutes. Work a little Grub/Lilo magic, and shzaam!, new kernel. You could be telling me if the new kernel helps within a half hour if you started soon.
If nothing else, IDE I/O is always a good thing to work on. My lowly laptop is definitely getting a 2.4.21, if not a 2.5. It takes me a tad longer; I use the cryptoapi modules and that always seems to take extra time.
Is it worth getting this version for... Will I see any performance improvement?
That's more of a personal question than anything else. Seeing as how these aren't mission-critical systems, there's nothing *wrong* with trying a new kernel. I think the question you're needing to ask is "Is a recompile of my kernel worth the effort of a new kernel?" Assuming you're slick enough with Linux to do it, it's no big deal to recompile (on a high-end Athlon no less), edit a couple files (or bust out some nifty RedHat tool), and reboot.
If you have a backup computer as well (which I see you do), I would personally let the newer computer follow the 2.5.x branch of the kernel. You'll be able to try out all kinds of new features, see serious performance increase, and help find bugs (which you will... but that's why you have a backup). Besides, the 2.5.x kernels of late are *useable*, just not stable.
So, basically, yes, upgrade away. Your question would be a lot harder if you were my boss, managing systems that, if down, cause some 50 people or so to get very disgruntled. IOW, it would be a different situation because in your case no one really cares if your computer goes down. We need a damn good reason to bring one of our boxen down... but you can play with yours all you want.
Dude, if you are already having to consider that, you play Gameboy WAY too much.
Turn off the monitor, put down the handheld, let go of the cell phone. Step outside, and marvel in the fact that before the internet, people lived in the REAL WORLD.
The best way to solve a given cube is called "God's algorithm" to us Rubik's geeks (I can average about 50 s. solving a cube, which is ok, but not phenomenal). It's 18 moves. The method behind it is far too complicated for a person to do without a computer to assist, but using a rather simple method, a person can very easily solve a cube in around 65 moves, but slowly. The record-breaking solution times are closer to a hundred moves, but rather than remembering a move-efficient but thought-intensive way to solve it, one remembers many more algos that whose situation can be recognized much more quickly.
And for the previous posts asking how long it takes a computer to do it... it's very, very low. Under a second. Many people can do it, manually (a computer just has to give the moves, it can ignore the time required to actually turn the cube) in under 20 seconds (For the people out there in disbelief, Dan Knights has a video of him actually doing it in 17, it's for real. I won't post the link, because I'm not going to be responsible for slashdotting his site).
There's a huge difference between a computer solving it "brute force", and a person or computer solving it through established algorithms. By brute force, just twirling the cube until the solution popped up, it would take on average however long it takes your computer to process half of the possible combinations. That's quite a long time. However, a computer solving a cube how we would, focusing on time rather than least amount of moves, could easily solve more than one a second.
lack of accountability of the OSS project developers.
1) Many OSS developers are employed by companies (AOL/Time, RedHat, IBM, etc.) that they must be accountable to, and 2) Unlike proprietary products, when an OSS app does something wrong, people point and go "This is the schmuck that did it." There is a lot of accountability when everyone can see what you code.
And a larger codebase doesn't help much when the vast majority of that codebase does the same exact thing online. You tell me how many old ladies checking their MSN mail and ordering E-greeting cards it would take to find this vulnerability.
I'm not saying everyone using IE is dumb, or that everyone using Linux is smart. What I am saying is that thousands of users just like me wouldn't have made this problem any more visible. I would never have stumbled upon this. Moreover, I can guarantee you that many more Linux/Mozilla users are tech-savvy and fill out their bug reports compared to Windows users. Besides, it "stands to reason" that Mozilla could fix bugs faster. IE users trust a small few people to their security; if they don't fix it no one will. In the OSS world, it only takes a couple frustrated coders tired of a vulnerability to have it fixed.
That would be a good point if all uses of words were contained in Google. I mean, really, just sit back and think of how many strange phrases ('tard, pwn, derf, etc.) that NEVER leave verbal speech, IRC channels, and if you're one of those Windows jack-offs (no offense), Battle.net. Would you ever make a webpage with that language? Hell, even "brb", in all its widespread use, has only 216,000 hits, many of which are for labor organizations and the Biometric Research Branch and such. I think I'VE used "brb" more times than that.
Point is, most hacker jargon won't be found in an HTML page, anxiously awaiting Google webcrawlers to find it. The goal of the jargon file is to define words that most likely couldn't be found anywhere else. The whole point of it is that when you hear some arcane word in IRC, and you search google, and you go "I can't find this definition for this damn word!", the jargon file has you covered. At the same time, jargon that is in large webpage use may be a rarity in actual speech. Google just doesn't answer the question.
The problem I have isn't with my ability to discern opinion from fact. Given that I brought up the complaint, I apparently know the difference. My concern is with the casual readers who aren't as "astute" as Your Majesty. They read the front page and leave missing the point completely. THAT is where mixing information and opinion is a "bad burger".
If slashdot wants to not be a news routing service, that's fine. If they have a open forum for people to give completely absurd opinions (or relish in their mastery of the art of detecting statements of opinion), that's good too, I'll probably leave a few absurd opinions. But since they are doing that, and since they're doing it in a way that leaves many people with an incorrect understanding of the story being discussed, I feel it worth complaining. Pardon me if I use this OPEN FORUM to bring about a concern.
Being able to tell fact from fiction is lovely, I'm sure you'll go far with your amazing powers, etc., but that does NOT mean that trying to keep them separate isn't a good thing. It's not like I'm asking slashdot to refrain from all opinion. But would it kill them to leave it out of the article intro? Hell, put it in as a comment and give it an instant 5-Interesting. It's not an outrageous request.
You think that if something has the superficial appearance of being unbiased that it must somehow represent the truth.
1) No. Don't confuse idealism with naivety.
2) I know truth will never come to me unbiased, especially through a news source like this. However, it is nice to see an attempt at it. Please tell me you appreciate a reporter/editor/publisher that at least *tries* to be unbiased to some degree.
Just because "unbiased news" is something that will never be achieved, it in no way entails that we should give up trying and asking for better news.
It makes no sense to be sanctimonious about how "meat is murder" only to keep buying cheeseburgers for lunch every day.
Riddle me this: does it make sense to fill out the little comment/complaint card if you get a bad burger???
I realize it's whatever the editors want it to be, and "it's a free country, dude", and all that. I just wanted to point out small shreds of integrity slipping away in the meantime.
The logo should be changed to "Our Opinion of News for Nerds. Stuff that would matter if it were accurate."
Slashdot Mirror
There's this really weird mindset that seems to take hold in techie circles that there's only one given solution to an issue...that aside, why is only one of these going to be the future?
Let's call it "wishful thinking". The fact that Windows, IE, etc. still exist is because we techies let the normal folk have more than one solution to given issues, worse ones at that.
We're not naive, we're "hopeful".
1) It's been like this for a few weeks if not a month. Old hi-fi playlists are still working, with the exception of some songs being removed from streaming.
2) They're doing it because they have a membership service now, and hi-fi genre playlists are on the list of reasons to join. It's still not hard to get hi-fi songs from mp3.com, I doubt this changed their bandwidth usage very much. Besides, my reaction was to find the top ten artists on a genre, visit their page, load their hi-fi list, and compile them together in to one huge list. They sure as hell aren't saving money through me.
1) Competition is a strength and, in most cases, remarkably effective. Markets that are monopolized move very slowly becuase there's no reason to move on. Capitalism relies on this, too.
2) Look at KDE, and how bloated it is (I know it's an opinion, but there is truth based on it). Think of how hard it would be to satisfy low-end-system users, minimalists, people who run mission-critical systems that need a GUI, but can't be bothered with fancy... anything. Think of how hard it would be to combine the flexibility of a from-scratch distro and the user-friendliness of Mandrake with the manageability of Debian.
3) Open source programming isn't all about multitudes of choices in all situations. Only end-user applications typically feature choices up the wazoo (and distros... but that's an "end-user" kind of thing too). If you look underneath, the graphics system (almost entirely X), standard libraries, etc. are standard. Once something becomes mature and truly useful to be used generally everywhere, it is.
4) You can always use Windows, the land of very few choices. Interfaces, 1. Popular and mature file navigation, 1. Kernel, 1. As a software engineering protocol, open-source is remarkably effective at creating a lot of high-quality choices. How can this be?
Apple 2x2 G5: $3000 Dell (2x3.06 Xenon): $4000
Who cares about 1,000 dollars? Stupid Apple and their IBM silicon chips... this Dell baby here uses NOBLE GAS! Electrical impulses though inert free-flowing gas, man. Not only does it sound better, it's a friggin' miracle!
Dell, the miraculous computer.
It is a free-for-all post-fest of +5 Funny. Why bother putting these on the front page anymore?
Oh, I don't know... it just might be fun?
I imagine the versions running LASIK machines and power plants don't use the full GUI, 3D graphics (though maybe 3D routines for the laser), or any of those frills that take 400Mhz and 128MB ram. Sadly, I think our old comptuers ::rests arm on old 286 desktop turned sideways:: are just too old. It happens. The small/fast/uber-reliable OS that QNX could give our old, old boxes are probably something akin to DOS, just spelled Q-N-X, with real-time scheduling and the ability to give me 20/10 vision with a jerry-rigged DVD-RAM laser and a good SCSI card...
And, as my grandparent post pointed out, I'll have Aphex Twin playing during the whole thing off of my USB hard drive.
And then there will be incentive to switch. For the time being, there are cheaper solutions, such as NAT.
Good lord, man. Does "preventative measures" mean anything to you? Just because we *can* wait for things to get bad before we change doesn't mean we should. Yes, yes, I realize that capitalist societies work like that, but as people we're supposed to be working to be better than our past, not use it as an excuse to make the same mistakes again.
NAT is a mess. It is a solution, but it is a far cry from a good one. In small groups, at home with your LAN party, I'm sure it works wonderfully. In the big picture, however, things will be much better without it. The US government is doing exactly what the commercial sector should be doing. Look at the growth of the internet in just the last 5 years, and think of how much bigger it will be in the next 5. Think good and hard about how many more people will be on, how many new servers will be up, and how many more complaining, computer-illiterate people will be online to complain about moving to IPv6. Think of all of that, and how much more it will cost to move all those new servers to IPv6. Now, you tell ME that waiting is economically feasible compared to switching sooner, and spending the next 5 years expanding the internet with IPv6 already in place, saving the hassle of having to migrate millions of computers that were going to be IPv4.
From the perspective of good old American companies, they can choose to spend money implementing something out of generosity for those in other countries, or they can sit on their asses and do nothing for free.
...You know, we'll run out, too. It's going to cost money, and it's going to screw a lot of moneybags over, but the bottom line is that Asian and European connectivity with us is the reason that the internet is good and worthwhile.
1)
2) What do you propose we do? Let the rest of the planet move on to a more advanced, more versatile, and just better protocol while we sit here disconnected from them? Apparently the major benefit of the internet has evaded your right-wing "Proud to be an American" POV; we are a part of the global community. It's not "Us... and those guys overseas having IPv4 problems", it's "Us."
I'm sure it will piss plenty of people off, but it HAS to be done at some point. We're all so hesitant to start something that we know we need to do. Like a global collection of little kids going "I don't wanna do my homework now! Just one more cartoon!" It's not going to be any easier in a few years, or a decade, or a week.
I don't even want to think about all of my friends and family that would call me to help configure their computer for their new fangaled internet service.
I don't either. I'm too busy thinking of all the EXTRA BUSINSS that tech support companies will get.
People would switch to MSN...People would stop using mp3.com
Consumers aren't idiots. They wouldn't switch if they could still use google, or mp3.com. They would demand that they get google back.
All of them, at once?
No, just enough that from a monetary standpoint, it would be easier to use IPv6 when building a network.
Besides, IPv6 just isn't that important at the moment.
10 bucks says you're American.
There are areas in Asia and Europe sitting there twiddling their fingers waiting to be able to use IPv6. It's no biggie to us home-grown, beef-eatin' Americans, because the majority of IP addresses are ours. That comment has the same effect as a rich man next to a poor woman holding her starving child going "Yeah, welfare isn't that important right now."
I know it's not the greatest way, but it's how it's going to happen. Look at the cell phone market. Imagine all of the problems, all of the people like you saying "We'll just use payphones, we'll just call in advance, we'll just send telegrams." SOMEONE has to just start using it. My point was that every major commercial, consumer-based organization until now has not made a move. Like nervous boys at a pool party, they're all sitting there in their towels waiting for the other people to get in. A corporation would be spending a lot of money to "get in the pool" first, but that's just how it has to go.
Umm, the nations defense is not critical?
To a consumer, no. I will not function any differently because the government uses IPv6.
...is that there is no easy way to do this. There will be a major effort of large companies and corportations eventually, but only after someone takes initiative and sticks their neck out above the crowd. We can't all huddle behind each other saying "I'll go when you go..."
I would like to see something critical go IPv6 exclusively. If... say, most of the world's search engines ran only IPv6, think of how much that would inspire people to adopt it, from the consumer all the way up to the corporations that rely on the consumer's business. We just need someone important enough to put their foot down and say "You must have IPv6... now."
Not just search engines. Yahoo! could start serving their mail, chat, and games through IPv6 exclusively. MP3.com could only stream via IPv6, hardware corp's could stop producing IPv4 hubs and routers, which would still allow people to use IPv4 (the old ones won't be removed from the market, just no longer manufactured), but at the same time it would make the cost of staying with IPv4 increasingly expensive (as our supply of IPv4 hardware grows thin, the cost of using it will become too expensive).
Well, I didn't look too hard into it (sorry, I'm at work and it's not exactly priority), but the Changelog doesn't mention emu10k1 or anything about soundblasters. Do you know if you can make the problem happen on other video players, xine, aviplay, xanim, etc.?
Also, you might want to give the ALSA drivers a chance. The new kernels are pushing it as the new sound architecture for Linux, and sometimes they make a big difference. Besides, having everything set up for ALSA and running properly will make it easier to move on to 2.6 kernels.
Like I said in my first post, compiling a kernel for a computer of your computer's stature is a matter of copying the old config, checking to see if there's anything else you need to change, and then waiting for a couple minutes. Work a little Grub/Lilo magic, and shzaam!, new kernel. You could be telling me if the new kernel helps within a half hour if you started soon.
If nothing else, IDE I/O is always a good thing to work on. My lowly laptop is definitely getting a 2.4.21, if not a 2.5. It takes me a tad longer; I use the cryptoapi modules and that always seems to take extra time.
Is it worth getting this version for... Will I see any performance improvement?
That's more of a personal question than anything else. Seeing as how these aren't mission-critical systems, there's nothing *wrong* with trying a new kernel. I think the question you're needing to ask is "Is a recompile of my kernel worth the effort of a new kernel?" Assuming you're slick enough with Linux to do it, it's no big deal to recompile (on a high-end Athlon no less), edit a couple files (or bust out some nifty RedHat tool), and reboot.
If you have a backup computer as well (which I see you do), I would personally let the newer computer follow the 2.5.x branch of the kernel. You'll be able to try out all kinds of new features, see serious performance increase, and help find bugs (which you will... but that's why you have a backup). Besides, the 2.5.x kernels of late are *useable*, just not stable.
So, basically, yes, upgrade away. Your question would be a lot harder if you were my boss, managing systems that, if down, cause some 50 people or so to get very disgruntled. IOW, it would be a different situation because in your case no one really cares if your computer goes down. We need a damn good reason to bring one of our boxen down... but you can play with yours all you want.
To mod you down somehow each and every time I can.
We're not children, and most of us know that crashing SCO's site intentionally does nothing but demonstrate that we too can be cocks.
And after it exhausts its life of 200 charges?
Dude, if you are already having to consider that, you play Gameboy WAY too much.
Turn off the monitor, put down the handheld, let go of the cell phone. Step outside, and marvel in the fact that before the internet, people lived in the REAL WORLD.
The sad-but-true reality is that I could actually do it the real way faster than you could get the stickerks off.
The best way to solve a given cube is called "God's algorithm" to us Rubik's geeks (I can average about 50 s. solving a cube, which is ok, but not phenomenal). It's 18 moves. The method behind it is far too complicated for a person to do without a computer to assist, but using a rather simple method, a person can very easily solve a cube in around 65 moves, but slowly. The record-breaking solution times are closer to a hundred moves, but rather than remembering a move-efficient but thought-intensive way to solve it, one remembers many more algos that whose situation can be recognized much more quickly.
And for the previous posts asking how long it takes a computer to do it... it's very, very low. Under a second. Many people can do it, manually (a computer just has to give the moves, it can ignore the time required to actually turn the cube) in under 20 seconds (For the people out there in disbelief, Dan Knights has a video of him actually doing it in 17, it's for real. I won't post the link, because I'm not going to be responsible for slashdotting his site).
There's a huge difference between a computer solving it "brute force", and a person or computer solving it through established algorithms. By brute force, just twirling the cube until the solution popped up, it would take on average however long it takes your computer to process half of the possible combinations. That's quite a long time. However, a computer solving a cube how we would, focusing on time rather than least amount of moves, could easily solve more than one a second.
lack of accountability of the OSS project developers.
1) Many OSS developers are employed by companies (AOL/Time, RedHat, IBM, etc.) that they must be accountable to, and 2) Unlike proprietary products, when an OSS app does something wrong, people point and go "This is the schmuck that did it." There is a lot of accountability when everyone can see what you code.
And a larger codebase doesn't help much when the vast majority of that codebase does the same exact thing online. You tell me how many old ladies checking their MSN mail and ordering E-greeting cards it would take to find this vulnerability.
I'm not saying everyone using IE is dumb, or that everyone using Linux is smart. What I am saying is that thousands of users just like me wouldn't have made this problem any more visible. I would never have stumbled upon this. Moreover, I can guarantee you that many more Linux/Mozilla users are tech-savvy and fill out their bug reports compared to Windows users. Besides, it "stands to reason" that Mozilla could fix bugs faster. IE users trust a small few people to their security; if they don't fix it no one will. In the OSS world, it only takes a couple frustrated coders tired of a vulnerability to have it fixed.
We're a community, Windows users are consumers.
Definetly less common then 'apache' or 'xbox' or 'dot-bomb', none of which apperan in the jargon file.
/. comment.
They were examples, I wasn't about to sift through the jargon file looking for perfect examples to write a
And anyway, I cringe at the thought of an xbox user or someone who runs a webserver thinking they're hackers.
At most 13% of all uses references Eric Raymond.
That would be a good point if all uses of words were contained in Google. I mean, really, just sit back and think of how many strange phrases ('tard, pwn, derf, etc.) that NEVER leave verbal speech, IRC channels, and if you're one of those Windows jack-offs (no offense), Battle.net. Would you ever make a webpage with that language? Hell, even "brb", in all its widespread use, has only 216,000 hits, many of which are for labor organizations and the Biometric Research Branch and such. I think I'VE used "brb" more times than that.
Point is, most hacker jargon won't be found in an HTML page, anxiously awaiting Google webcrawlers to find it. The goal of the jargon file is to define words that most likely couldn't be found anywhere else. The whole point of it is that when you hear some arcane word in IRC, and you search google, and you go "I can't find this definition for this damn word!", the jargon file has you covered. At the same time, jargon that is in large webpage use may be a rarity in actual speech. Google just doesn't answer the question.
(Yes, this is off-topic)
Some abbreviations are just simple: IBM, DEC, SCO...
Some abbreviations make words: Laser, GNOME, RAM...
Some make you think "What weirdo is out there that thought up THAT?": HURD, QUXGA-W.
The problem I have isn't with my ability to discern opinion from fact. Given that I brought up the complaint, I apparently know the difference. My concern is with the casual readers who aren't as "astute" as Your Majesty. They read the front page and leave missing the point completely. THAT is where mixing information and opinion is a "bad burger".
If slashdot wants to not be a news routing service, that's fine. If they have a open forum for people to give completely absurd opinions (or relish in their mastery of the art of detecting statements of opinion), that's good too, I'll probably leave a few absurd opinions. But since they are doing that, and since they're doing it in a way that leaves many people with an incorrect understanding of the story being discussed, I feel it worth complaining. Pardon me if I use this OPEN FORUM to bring about a concern.
Being able to tell fact from fiction is lovely, I'm sure you'll go far with your amazing powers, etc., but that does NOT mean that trying to keep them separate isn't a good thing. It's not like I'm asking slashdot to refrain from all opinion. But would it kill them to leave it out of the article intro? Hell, put it in as a comment and give it an instant 5-Interesting. It's not an outrageous request.
You think that if something has the superficial appearance of being unbiased that it must somehow represent the truth.
1) No. Don't confuse idealism with naivety.
2) I know truth will never come to me unbiased, especially through a news source like this. However, it is nice to see an attempt at it. Please tell me you appreciate a reporter/editor/publisher that at least *tries* to be unbiased to some degree.
Just because "unbiased news" is something that will never be achieved, it in no way entails that we should give up trying and asking for better news.
It makes no sense to be sanctimonious about how "meat is murder" only to keep buying cheeseburgers for lunch every day.
Riddle me this: does it make sense to fill out the little comment/complaint card if you get a bad burger???
I realize it's whatever the editors want it to be, and "it's a free country, dude", and all that. I just wanted to point out small shreds of integrity slipping away in the meantime.
The logo should be changed to "Our Opinion of News for Nerds. Stuff that would matter if it were accurate."