Is there a Facebook account from anyone from North Korea? I wonder what the first North Korean Facebook account is gonna be? The Supreme Leader? Now, wouldn't that be funny as fuck? UPDATE! Kim Jong-Un has a tweeter account! http://twitter.com/groriousreader
The ex-classmates thing is the best thing about FB. All those women that got fat or somehow became fucking ugly (Jenny, you looked so fine when you were sweet sixteen), they got fat husbands. Now they all want to fuck you. But now you don't want to fuck them, because you're fucking better looking people - and you look better than their husbands. Or the ex-cool kids that are now the real life losers, when you now have a real career that pays way better. Ha! Just fuck-it-ty GLORIOUS!
And it makes sense, why would someone not want to join a site where all your friends are? It's 2012 equivalent to a shut-in or recluse. [wikipedia.org] People are naturally suspicious of someone that chooses not to join normal society.
Are you saying people have lost the choice to live the life they want? If they don't care to partake in mass media hype, then they get to be labeled "bad"? That is so insanely fascist. What if FB goes bust? What if people get tired of posting photos, or tweeting. With the change in technology, posting photos will probably be as primitive as writing paper notes and taping them to the fridge. Maybe with the possibility of life-size holograms, only a mental case will wish to chat with hundred individuals on the coffee house holodeck. Maybe, in the near future, computer software will chat with your "hundreds of friends", and then filter back the data to you (the daily social network scoop). In this scenario, five people might be optimal. Hey, it occurred to me - maybe Linus Torvalds is a mass murderer! You think?
It isn't really wise to assume anything will stay the same. Maybe the Coming Revolution, when they have all your health, social, financial and work data in unified government databanks will be the Give Me Back My Data Revolution. Who knows?
I actually agree with you (that it will get worse), because I notice the the millenials" will actually go to a music concert and not watch itat all, except via their tiny cellphone screen, so they can look cool on Facebook, or tweeting they're in the concert. That is is simply a retarded way to act. Eventually, they will come to realize that life gets better once you stop faking it.
What about if you prefer a nice glass of wine, a nice leather seat, a lamp, and a book by Kierkegaard (about how organized Christianity is the pits - yes, that would make one a terror suspect, wouldn't it?), instead of wasting time reading the shitload of opinions about *nothing* your ex-girlfriends, your ex-didn't-wanna-be-your-girfriend-then-but-wants-to-fuck-you-now-desperately and ex-college mates insist on posting on social networks?
I barely have time to read books by the great minds... I care very little about reading the opinion of tens, dozens - or hundreds of people (FB "friends") - few of which have anything really substantial and interest to say or live a de facto interesting life (99.99999% of us really don't).
That kind of statistics is so, so WRONG on so many levels, it's like saying the intelligence community if full of morons who don't understand the unbelievable number of confounding variables and the statistical selection bias involved. So much so, that I have a hard time believing that story posted is even true. IF it is, then it is appalling. It
That's some totalitarian shit, for real! I guess comrade Stalin and the Khmer Rouge would've loved this era of ours! Really, some people in the intelligence community are just losing their minds...
Where I think your logic goes wrong is that it probably doesn't conform to the way commercial deals are done. The deal with an OEM is a two-way street, probably, and they install your software, and they probably exempt themselves from certain responsibilities regarding your software.
I have a beef with opinions such as yours. You seem to imply the value of having source code is one of having the regalities of a freeloader. That is to say, we must have the source code, so some dude who specializes in repackaging make us a nice binary, because all we care about is "apt-get install my-freeloading-shit".
To which I say: no! The value of source code is that if you would like to see the code, to learn how it was done, so that perhaps you can not only just use it, but contribute back, then you might want the source code. This "contract" may or may not make your life easy. The whole idea, when back in the BSD Unix days (the people who invented this open source thing), was one of learning and cooperation.
Now, if you think I'm some sort of idealist hippie neckbeard, then read my other post (the one in which I propose proprietary binaries + updates with source code with a BSD license - which would allow that, instead of the infamous GPL. This empowers the individual developer. Read: money.)
In fact, if the developer wants to makes some money off his own software (which might exclude install scripts and makefiles), then who is to say he can't put food on his table, because some free software freeloading unemployed student, living in his parent's home doesn't like it and think it goes against "freedom"?
Proprietary methods of install + updates are much, much better then stupid build scripts. Build scripts are for nerds. Nerdiculous solutions, we now can say with near 100% certainty, will not get you the chics YOU deserve! We would like to see Real People start using Fine Open Source Software.
You can't do this with the GPL license, if you're not OK with other people putting up binaries, as they have the right to distribute, and even sell binaries.
Which proves, once again, how stupid it is to use the GPL. He could use the BSD license, then provide pay-for-binaries with some sort of proprietary installers and binary updating mechanism. Instead, with the GPL, everyone can steal his binaries. Of course, it wouldn't prevent anyone else from coming up with their installation and updating mechanism, but they would have to put in the work. It would still be advantageous to cooperate with the main project, because you would get more hands and brains working on the same source code. That is the beauty of the BSD license: it's a license for the real world. Not a license backed by corporations and advocated by a screaming army of unemployed students, like the GPL.
In this way, you get the source code, but if you want the convenience, you must pay for his exclusive method of installation and updates. He could push updates and bugfixes constantly. This would go hand in hand with current buzzwords, such as "the lean start up", "A/B testing" and the model of "release early" of free software (you see this constant updating in products such as Evernote, etc.).
I believe this would be a great model for developers who are writing for the desktop, instead of doing software for servers. In this way, we could have a healthy software ecosystem for the desktop, which is still lacking in the Linux landscape, that is just ridden with the problem of having to rely on the small army of "developers" who repackage the source code (they're really repackagers...), who are always behind the curve in comparison with their Mac OS/WIndows counterparts.
Brilliant and obvious idea. At first, I thought this would only apply to Windows or Mac platforms. However, once you realize that Linux distros are always late in their software repackaging, this might work on Linux too.
This just goes to show the shocking lack of innovation and forward thinking in open source software. Some people have, in fact, put in long hours to work out the conflicting libraries problem. Some people have, in fact, come up with creative and cutting-edge solutions, such as designing a referentially transparent formal DSL precisely for that, with non-destructive updates, such as this project:
Instead, what we see is open source once again emulating the bad parts of Windows (but, to be fair, a good amount of innovation has been coming out of Microsoft: it adopts formal methods for driver verification, PowerShell (years ahead of anything on Linux), and pushes language innovations such as F# and the newer features C# has).
Advanced projects such the Nix package management system seem simply go way over the heads of the Unix gurus, the gray neckbeards and the not-so-old, that insist very much on older programming paradigms.
Let's leave the humongous gigahertz and RAMs for really important task, such as scientific computing, multimedia, and CAD stuff. Office suites should definitely not need to take that road.
Really? Do "we"? Does every school, city hall, government agency in the U.S and this little old blue planet of ours have 3 GHZ quadcores, and 16 GB RAMs?
You seem to forget something: if you ain't got the dough for quadcores, you're probably trying to save money on Microsoft licenses, too...Now can you connect the dots?
Oh, Debian patches, how reassuring! Now I'm certain I shouldn't get anywhere near LO. They can't even keep their servers from being hacked (not once, more than once...), and even Ubuntu sometimes breaks during upgrades! This is just wasted energy...They should put their muscle behind KDE's Office suite, if they were looking for a free software project to play with. It actually has some nice and original features here and there.
I don't know whether I would be downloading OpenOffice for a new install. But I'm still running OO. Not out of "loyalty" but simply because it works. And if you rely on it, "things that work" have a very strong argument for not fiddling with it. At least on a computer you really need.
Good point. My experience with the likes of one of those Linux hacker-happy products is break, break, break, and spent lots of time fixing thing and loosing time and money (gratuitous ABI breakage ? - F. Y. very much, "hackers". Remind me again why every time I walk into an engineering lab, they got their measurements done on a Windows box). That's why I don't use Debian (after years of putting up with their shit), but rather pay yearly for a distro with support (Mandriva), and resort to FreeBSD, Apple and Microsoft for my other needs (I actually don't "need" Linux, I just use it because I think my distro's KDE has niceties, such as metadata-aware file indexing, via Nepomuk integration, and just to generally keep up to date. Pretty much all developer tools on a Linux platform are either available at another platform or is actually a worse tool).
You're talking fairly simple use. However, in larger-sized businesses, your needs will grow: integration with a large SQL database, electronic documentation workflow, integrating C++ and Excel for numerical analysis of risk models, etc. Google and OO are not up to par, and lag behind the curve.
Google Docs was supposed to the MS Office killer, but Google hasn't actually done anything for real with its product. I'm not sure how you can integrate Google's own products across the board. Can you integrate Gmail and Google Docs and calendar? If you can, it's probably through a shitload of Java APIs.There doesn't seem to be many books about this, I don't seem to remember. It certainly doesn't look sensible or easy for the average busy man. That crowd simply *has* to stick with Microsoft! Even for web stuff...just look at the marvelous product Yahoo developed with their Pipes. That's web mashup done right for the masses (unfortunately, a little-known and badly promoted product from Yahoo). One would think there would be a Google equivalent, but no...There's something seriously gone awry at GOOG. It's like we are seeing the symptoms of a disease, but we don't know what it is yet.
Anyways, differently from MS products, which has - not to say "dumbed-down" - "accessible" versions of everything around everything they do (think about Visual Basic and Excel, or Access and something else), Google seems not willing or not ready to really deliver integrated products. That's probably why so many developers prefer to invest in Facebook's environment, while Google seems to be playing catch up in this area.
Google doesn't even get Android right...As anyone who's dealt with Android knows, it will let a relatively "old" (say, year-old) Android just die. Newer apps won't install... it's a backwards compatibility nightmare, while Apple tries to maintain support for your hardware for a long time. Both Apple and Microsoft create an environment in which you know you will be rewarded in the long run for sticking with them. Google, by comparison, is chaotic, patchy, and - with the exception of search - everything they do looks like a hack - that's what it looks to me from afar, IMHO.
You clearly don't know what your talking about. You can use Access as a front-end to your "real" database. Nothing beats Access for the person who needs a medium-sized database of clients. If your needs grow, it will scale accessing a SQL server. You can find plenty of books about Microsoft's products, and as to OpenOffice, all you have is a bunch of loose, incoherent, outdated documentation.
Oh, just millions of people who work at an office and need small to medium-size (relational - though they don't actually know anything about RBs) databases.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahahaha Infinite Reader!
Hahahaha Infinite Reader!
Hahahaha Infinite Reader!
Is there a Facebook account from anyone from North Korea? I wonder what the first North Korean Facebook account is gonna be? The Supreme Leader?
Now, wouldn't that be funny as fuck?
UPDATE! Kim Jong-Un has a tweeter account! http://twitter.com/groriousreader
In North Korea, dare to differ, and "Facebook" takes a whole other meaning!
The ex-classmates thing is the best thing about FB. All those women that got fat or somehow became fucking ugly (Jenny, you looked so fine when you were sweet sixteen), they got fat husbands. Now they all want to fuck you. But now you don't want to fuck them, because you're fucking better looking people - and you look better than their husbands. Or the ex-cool kids that are now the real life losers, when you now have a real career that pays way better. Ha! Just fuck-it-ty GLORIOUS!
And it makes sense, why would someone not want to join a site where all your friends are? It's 2012 equivalent to a shut-in or recluse. [wikipedia.org] People are naturally suspicious of someone that chooses not to join normal society.
Are you saying people have lost the choice to live the life they want? If they don't care to partake in mass media hype, then they get to be labeled "bad"? That is so insanely fascist. What if FB goes bust? What if people get tired of posting photos, or tweeting. With the change in technology, posting photos will probably be as primitive as writing paper notes and taping them to the fridge. Maybe with the possibility of life-size holograms, only a mental case will wish to chat with hundred individuals on the coffee house holodeck. Maybe, in the near future, computer software will chat with your "hundreds of friends", and then filter back the data to you (the daily social network scoop). In this scenario, five people might be optimal. Hey, it occurred to me - maybe Linus Torvalds is a mass murderer! You think?
It isn't really wise to assume anything will stay the same. Maybe the Coming Revolution, when they have all your health, social, financial and work data in unified government databanks will be the Give Me Back My Data Revolution. Who knows?
I actually agree with you (that it will get worse), because I notice the the millenials" will actually go to a music concert and not watch itat all, except via their tiny cellphone screen, so they can look cool on Facebook, or tweeting they're in the concert. That is is simply a retarded way to act. Eventually, they will come to realize that life gets better once you stop faking it.
What about if you prefer a nice glass of wine, a nice leather seat, a lamp, and a book by Kierkegaard (about how organized Christianity is the pits - yes, that would make one a terror suspect, wouldn't it?), instead of wasting time reading the shitload of opinions about *nothing* your ex-girlfriends, your ex-didn't-wanna-be-your-girfriend-then-but-wants-to-fuck-you-now-desperately and ex-college mates insist on posting on social networks?
I barely have time to read books by the great minds... I care very little about reading the opinion of tens, dozens - or hundreds of people (FB "friends") - few of which have anything really substantial and interest to say or live a de facto interesting life (99.99999% of us really don't).
That kind of statistics is so, so WRONG on so many levels, it's like saying the intelligence community if full of morons who don't understand the unbelievable number of confounding variables and the statistical selection bias involved. So much so, that I have a hard time believing that story posted is even true. IF it is, then it is appalling. It
That's some totalitarian shit, for real!
I guess comrade Stalin and the Khmer Rouge would've loved this era of ours!
Really, some people in the intelligence community are just losing their minds...
Where I think your logic goes wrong is that it probably doesn't conform to the way commercial deals are done. The deal with an OEM is a two-way street, probably, and they install your software, and they probably exempt themselves from certain responsibilities regarding your software.
I have a beef with opinions such as yours. You seem to imply the value of having source code is one of having the regalities of a freeloader. That is to say, we must have the source code, so some dude who specializes in repackaging make us a nice binary, because all we care about is "apt-get install my-freeloading-shit".
To which I say: no! The value of source code is that if you would like to see the code, to learn how it was done, so that perhaps you can not only just use it, but contribute back, then you might want the source code. This "contract" may or may not make your life easy. The whole idea, when back in the BSD Unix days (the people who invented this open source thing), was one of learning and cooperation.
Now, if you think I'm some sort of idealist hippie neckbeard, then read my other post (the one in which I propose proprietary binaries + updates with source code with a BSD license - which would allow that, instead of the infamous GPL. This empowers the individual developer. Read: money.)
In fact, if the developer wants to makes some money off his own software (which might exclude install scripts and makefiles), then who is to say he can't put food on his table, because some free software freeloading unemployed student, living in his parent's home doesn't like it and think it goes against "freedom"?
This might work for Linux too, because the repackagers are usually a few versions late (Debian? Oh, gawd).
Proprietary methods of install + updates are much, much better then stupid build scripts.
Build scripts are for nerds. Nerdiculous solutions, we now can say with near 100% certainty, will not get you the chics YOU deserve!
We would like to see Real People start using Fine Open Source Software.
Sorry, I meant not the cover, the booklet. Don't want to mislead anyone aiming Super Cool status.
AND, if you give them @OpenBSD money, they print your name on the CD cover, which makes you look Super Cool!!!
You can't do this with the GPL license, if you're not OK with other people putting up binaries, as they have the right to distribute, and even sell binaries.
Which proves, once again, how stupid it is to use the GPL. He could use the BSD license, then provide pay-for-binaries with some sort of proprietary installers and binary updating mechanism. Instead, with the GPL, everyone can steal his binaries. Of course, it wouldn't prevent anyone else from coming up with their installation and updating mechanism, but they would have to put in the work. It would still be advantageous to cooperate with the main project, because you would get more hands and brains working on the same source code. That is the beauty of the BSD license: it's a license for the real world. Not a license backed by corporations and advocated by a screaming army of unemployed students, like the GPL.
In this way, you get the source code, but if you want the convenience, you must pay for his exclusive method of installation and updates. He could push updates and bugfixes constantly. This would go hand in hand with current buzzwords, such as "the lean start up", "A/B testing" and the model of "release early" of free software (you see this constant updating in products such as Evernote, etc.).
I believe this would be a great model for developers who are writing for the desktop, instead of doing software for servers. In this way, we could have a healthy software ecosystem for the desktop, which is still lacking in the Linux landscape, that is just ridden with the problem of having to rely on the small army of "developers" who repackage the source code (they're really repackagers...), who are always behind the curve in comparison with their Mac OS/WIndows counterparts.
Brilliant and obvious idea. At first, I thought this would only apply to Windows or Mac platforms. However, once you realize that Linux distros are always late in their software repackaging, this might work on Linux too.
This just goes to show the shocking lack of innovation and forward thinking in open source software. Some people have, in fact, put in long hours to work out the conflicting libraries problem. Some people have, in fact, come up with creative and cutting-edge solutions, such as designing a referentially transparent formal DSL precisely for that, with non-destructive updates, such as this project:
http://nixos.org/nixos/
Instead, what we see is open source once again emulating the bad parts of Windows (but, to be fair, a good amount of innovation has been coming out of Microsoft: it adopts formal methods for driver verification, PowerShell (years ahead of anything on Linux), and pushes language innovations such as F# and the newer features C# has).
Advanced projects such the Nix package management system seem simply go way over the heads of the Unix gurus, the gray neckbeards and the not-so-old, that insist very much on older programming paradigms.
Let's leave the humongous gigahertz and RAMs for really important task, such as scientific computing, multimedia, and CAD stuff.
Office suites should definitely not need to take that road.
Really? Do "we"? Does every school, city hall, government agency in the U.S and this little old blue planet of ours have 3 GHZ quadcores, and 16 GB RAMs?
You seem to forget something: if you ain't got the dough for quadcores, you're probably trying to save money on Microsoft licenses, too...Now can you connect the dots?
Oh, Debian patches, how reassuring! Now I'm certain I shouldn't get anywhere near LO. They can't even keep their servers from being hacked (not once, more than once...), and even Ubuntu sometimes breaks during upgrades!
This is just wasted energy...They should put their muscle behind KDE's Office suite, if they were looking for a free software project to play with. It actually has some nice and original features here and there.
I don't know whether I would be downloading OpenOffice for a new install. But I'm still running OO. Not out of "loyalty" but simply because it works. And if you rely on it, "things that work" have a very strong argument for not fiddling with it. At least on a computer you really need.
Good point. My experience with the likes of one of those Linux hacker-happy products is break, break, break, and spent lots of time fixing thing and loosing time and money (gratuitous ABI breakage ? - F. Y. very much, "hackers". Remind me again why every time I walk into an engineering lab, they got their measurements done on a Windows box). That's why I don't use Debian (after years of putting up with their shit), but rather pay yearly for a distro with support (Mandriva), and resort to FreeBSD, Apple and Microsoft for my other needs (I actually don't "need" Linux, I just use it because I think my distro's KDE has niceties, such as metadata-aware file indexing, via Nepomuk integration, and just to generally keep up to date. Pretty much all developer tools on a Linux platform are either available at another platform or is actually a worse tool).
The OpenOffice's Basic is similar to VB.
You're talking fairly simple use. However, in larger-sized businesses, your needs will grow: integration with a large SQL database, electronic documentation workflow, integrating C++ and Excel for numerical analysis of risk models, etc. Google and OO are not up to par, and lag behind the curve.
Google Docs was supposed to the MS Office killer, but Google hasn't actually done anything for real with its product. I'm not sure how you can integrate Google's own products across the board. Can you integrate Gmail and Google Docs and calendar? If you can, it's probably through a shitload of Java APIs.There doesn't seem to be many books about this, I don't seem to remember. It certainly doesn't look sensible or easy for the average busy man. That crowd simply *has* to stick with Microsoft! Even for web stuff...just look at the marvelous product Yahoo developed with their Pipes. That's web mashup done right for the masses (unfortunately, a little-known and badly promoted product from Yahoo). One would think there would be a Google equivalent, but no...There's something seriously gone awry at GOOG. It's like we are seeing the symptoms of a disease, but we don't know what it is yet.
Anyways, differently from MS products, which has - not to say "dumbed-down" - "accessible" versions of everything around everything they do (think about Visual Basic and Excel, or Access and something else), Google seems not willing or not ready to really deliver integrated products. That's probably why so many developers prefer to invest in Facebook's environment, while Google seems to be playing catch up in this area.
Google doesn't even get Android right...As anyone who's dealt with Android knows, it will let a relatively "old" (say, year-old) Android just die. Newer apps won't install... it's a backwards compatibility nightmare, while Apple tries to maintain support for your hardware for a long time. Both Apple and Microsoft create an environment in which you know you will be rewarded in the long run for sticking with them. Google, by comparison, is chaotic, patchy, and - with the exception of search - everything they do looks like a hack - that's what it looks to me from afar, IMHO.
You clearly don't know what your talking about. You can use Access as a front-end to your "real" database. Nothing beats Access for the person who needs a medium-sized database of clients. If your needs grow, it will scale accessing a SQL server. You can find plenty of books about Microsoft's products, and as to OpenOffice, all you have is a bunch of loose, incoherent, outdated documentation.
Oh, just millions of people who work at an office and need small to medium-size (relational - though they don't actually know anything about RBs) databases.