But, without the original recordings, "new copies" can't be made, effectively turning the existing print run into a limited edition. A limited edition of millions, perhaps, but still limited.
The artists only need to buy a single CD of the recording, and since they own the copyright, they can do as many copies of it as they want.
The first thing I notice: It's incredibly slow. To be of practical use, it must speed up at least by the factor 100 (probably more; I've still no result for my first query, and that was one of the example queries shown by the help command!).
Of course the right thing is to write it to be independent from version numbers, but test it with a certain version number (or version range), so that you can expect it to work with all versions, but know it works at least with version X.
Of course that still assumes you know the version number.
Does Seamonkey share this rapid-release nonsense? Because if extensions start to break anyway, I can as well go back to Seamonkey (I switched from Seamonkey to Firefox mostly because back then many extensions worked only on the latter; I haven't checked since whether that changed).
2) No more write it and forget it, never to be updated again. Updates will have to be a process not a project. You literally can't be bothered to test if your "xyz extension" is compatible with the latest version? Well, then we can't be bothered to use it anymore. That sound you're hearing is thousands of pure cruft addons getting flushed. Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on your post-processor.
The problem is that even plugins abandoned by the author can still be useful. There may not be an adequate replacement, and even if there is, it means considerable work to find it, to evaluate that it really does what you want, and possibly to relearn your use of it.
Well, the unnumbered version of Firefox will partially conform to some unnumbered version of HTML5. I feel I must have missed a zombie attack, or why does it seem as if brains are vanishing everywhere?
But that assumes that Firefox doesn't break the API the extension uses. With the Linux kernel it works exactly because great care is applied to keeping the kernel calls stable. Note that the kernel's driver API isn't stable, and therefore you have the same problems there (guess why distributions tend to backport bug fixes instead of simply using a new kernel version).
"I've found this bug in Firefox..." "Do you run the latest version?" "I don't know. I'm running the version my distro gives me." "So which one is it?" "I don't know. It won't tell me." "Please update to the latest version." "Well, I already have the latest version my distro gives me. If this is actually the latest version, I have no idea."
I'd expect the server rooms to be considerably harder to access than general offices. After all, I've one been at a job interview where I was asked to solve some problem for a test. While I did so, the interviewers left the room. I think it wouldn't have been too hard to plug something into an Ethernet port during that time. OTOH, getting into the server room would not have been possible, especially not alone.
Surely they mean "orbiting"? "Circling" even? But "circumventing"?
I was about to make the same point, but the OED gives several meaning for "circumvent", one of which is "To go round, make the circuit of." Still, it is not the way that most people use the word; I think we can conclude that TFA is not written by one of the web's better science journalists.
Yes it does. If it didn't, why bother with such complicated version numbers at all, instead of just using 1, 2, 3, 4,... without any "dot numbers"?
Version numbers, if done consistently, are a great way to inform the user about what to expect about a release. The exact scheme doesn't matter as much as consistency does. For example, commercial software often follows a "real number" approach (this is why Windows 3.1 was followed with Windows 3.11; it was supposed to be a very small improvement over Windows 3.1, as in 1/100 of a version), while open source usually (but not always) follows a sequence-of-integers apporach (which means that the step from 3.1 to 3.11 would be a jump of 10 minor versions).
Especially an "x.0" tends to be a warning: "Brand new version with major changes, expect not everything to work perfectly; use this only if you want to have cutting-edge software and don't care too much about bugs."
That's not the argument. The argument is that it's just a negligible cost compared to other costs so if you want to save money you better start elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
The artists only need to buy a single CD of the recording, and since they own the copyright, they can do as many copies of it as they want.
Hi. You might want to try that again (btw, what was the query?). You have to keep in mind that we just got slashdotted :-) Sorry!
On shell-fish: show -q 'about = "Paris"' visited rating
It's a sample query from the help command.
The first thing I notice: It's incredibly slow. To be of practical use, it must speed up at least by the factor 100 (probably more; I've still no result for my first query, and that was one of the example queries shown by the help command!).
I'm running 3.6.13 and I also have the delete button.
I wonder how discussions like this work out without version numbers ...
Of course the right thing is to write it to be independent from version numbers, but test it with a certain version number (or version range), so that you can expect it to work with all versions, but know it works at least with version X.
Of course that still assumes you know the version number.
Because there's no adequate replacement?
Does Seamonkey share this rapid-release nonsense? Because if extensions start to break anyway, I can as well go back to Seamonkey (I switched from Seamonkey to Firefox mostly because back then many extensions worked only on the latter; I haven't checked since whether that changed).
So it's the extension writer's fault that Mozilla didn't define a stable extension API?
The problem is that even plugins abandoned by the author can still be useful. There may not be an adequate replacement, and even if there is, it means considerable work to find it, to evaluate that it really does what you want, and possibly to relearn your use of it.
Well, the unnumbered version of Firefox will partially conform to some unnumbered version of HTML5.
I feel I must have missed a zombie attack, or why does it seem as if brains are vanishing everywhere?
Your eternal life seems to be incompatible with oxygen.
But that assumes that Firefox doesn't break the API the extension uses. With the Linux kernel it works exactly because great care is applied to keeping the kernel calls stable. Note that the kernel's driver API isn't stable, and therefore you have the same problems there (guess why distributions tend to backport bug fixes instead of simply using a new kernel version).
So it's basically semantic web, but concentrated in a single server?
"I've found this bug in Firefox ..."
"Do you run the latest version?"
"I don't know. I'm running the version my distro gives me."
"So which one is it?"
"I don't know. It won't tell me."
"Please update to the latest version."
"Well, I already have the latest version my distro gives me. If this is actually the latest version, I have no idea."
How would an attacker cause a fire or a massive water leak in the server room?
I didn't find a link where I can actually access any data (not even to read it).
I'd expect the server rooms to be considerably harder to access than general offices. After all, I've one been at a job interview where I was asked to solve some problem for a test. While I did so, the interviewers left the room. I think it wouldn't have been too hard to plug something into an Ethernet port during that time. OTOH, getting into the server room would not have been possible, especially not alone.
Surely they mean "orbiting"? "Circling" even? But "circumventing"?
I was about to make the same point, but the OED gives several meaning for "circumvent", one of which is "To go round, make the circuit of." Still, it is not the way that most people use the word; I think we can conclude that TFA is not written by one of the web's better science journalists.
Or maybe not by a native English speaker?
But in that case it would encapsulate the star - not circle it.
Yeah, that's what the engineers told the management, too. But the management didn't believe it. So they built it around the planet instead.
It is pitch black. Probably the home world of the grues.
Well, at least he didn't do it Emacs style, by simply removing the first version number. Then we would have Linux 6.x now. Or even Linux 7.
Yes it does. If it didn't, why bother with such complicated version numbers at all, instead of just using 1, 2, 3, 4, ... without any "dot numbers"?
Version numbers, if done consistently, are a great way to inform the user about what to expect about a release. The exact scheme doesn't matter as much as consistency does. For example, commercial software often follows a "real number" approach (this is why Windows 3.1 was followed with Windows 3.11; it was supposed to be a very small improvement over Windows 3.1, as in 1/100 of a version), while open source usually (but not always) follows a sequence-of-integers apporach (which means that the step from 3.1 to 3.11 would be a jump of 10 minor versions).
Especially an "x.0" tends to be a warning: "Brand new version with major changes, expect not everything to work perfectly; use this only if you want to have cutting-edge software and don't care too much about bugs."
That's not the argument. The argument is that it's just a negligible cost compared to other costs so if you want to save money you better start elsewhere.
Unless it fails for some stupid reason like some metric/US unit mismatch in the code ...
Yeah, it comes with the new iSpill feature.