But who in their right mind would want to inflict Unix on their mother? And why is this something that needs to be done? Different strokes for different folks. Until someone comes up with a really easy-to-use, fully GUI-based, Linux distribution, Linux is not suitable for people who don't want to hack a little. The problem-solving mindset goes with the territory for now.
Hmm, well, Katz's job description is "media critic", which encompasses "movie critic", so if as you say he's not much cop at that... well, maybe it's just his hobby, and he hacks some mean perl code for a living. In which case, don't be too hard on the guy, OK?
For the programmers among you, here's a simple flowchart-type thingie which explains the whole process. (Isn't it wonderful how you can find just about anything on the Web these days?). For those of you who can't wait to click on each link (why the guy didn't just do a diagram as in the original, I'll never know), here's my pathetic pure-text rendering. If the indentation doesn't look right on your browser, what can I tell you? Life is hell. For best results, buy the book: P.J. O'Rourke, "Age and Guile" -- worth the money for this alone.
But maybe you might spare a tiny pinch of sympathy for the people who died in the crash? They weren't "Nazi Germany". And what military applications did He have in those days?
"Pedantic is too small a word for it. It is... LIQUID OBLIQUITY. Crow wrong-headedness: FIT IT in your slashdot." (Prays that some English reader will recognise this, and find it at least mildly amusing.)
Exactly. It is amazing the amount of people who have posted to this thread enthusiastically claiming some sort of "victory" over fox.com: indeed, the article itself favors this skewed version of reality. When I check out www.fox.com in lynx, I get a blank screen. So much for new, improved, now 100% Linux-compatible fox.com. Oh, well: another big corporate website sucks big-time; film at eleven. I guess we could look on the bright side, and say that if the intent of the Web is to communicate information via hypertext, then whether I can see fox.com's site or not isn't very important, because they've got fuck-all to communicate.
Does the search engine in "older stuff" really stop after a few months? I haven't tested it in any depth, but it would suprise me if it didn't go back all the way; and a quick search just now took me back to May this year. I know that one can get back to the beginning of this year at least, if one knows the URL: e.g. here's one I saved. Another quick test: searching for "UnixWorld" gives two stories, that one and one from April 98. Wouldn't it be nice if a member of slashdot staff were to pop up now and tell us whether or not the archives do in fact extend back to the beginning?
All the old stories are archived, which I suppose works as a sort of simple time-capsule. Check out those older stories for a glimpse of a different slashdot: when 50 comments was a lot, before/. started being used as a PR/hype machine... and before it was September all year long;-)
Dragging myself manfully back on-topic, I loved the phrase in the announcement of Netscape 0.9 about it being "optimised for 14.4 modems". Those were the days.
SON OF KATZ!! Just when you thought it was safe to go back on slashdot... (hmm, anyone remember any other Jaws II promo lines?)
Really, come on, what is this drivel? Workers are exploited, period. Most "geeks", as you call them (and by which I suppose you to mean young introverted males (becuase it is mostly guys, isn't it?) with an interest in technology, particularly computers, bordering on the obssessive) work in well-paid hi-tech jobs, and are a hell of a lot better of than, say, a Uranium miner in South Africa or a textile worker in the Philipines. Yes, they are exploited; of course they are; but have a bit of perspective.
Re:Is this really an area that needs filling?
on
IceWM 1.0.0 released
·
· Score: 4
Here we go again... "If we want to take more of the Microsoft market share...". Who is this "we" I keep hearing about in this context? RedHat shareholders, or what? Linux developers will work on what they like to work on -- that's the whole point. Besides, if someone wants to use Linux, they should have a real reason e.g. wanting Unix on their desktop, or needing a reliable server platform; not be doing it "because it's simple" -- that's what NT is for. Sound isn't really complicated to set up, by the way; it just involves more than pushing a few buttons. As I've said, if these "new users" want things that simple, there are existing alternatives; and that's a good thing, because Linux sure isn't for them. To look at it another way, if you want to take more of the Microsoft market share, why don't you code up some of this "a little easier" stuff? Eh?
Hmm, did I just come through a time warp? Is it 2000 is a few weeks, not 1900? This is 19th materialist reductionism at its worst. I don't know what "consilience" is, but you could do with reading some philosophy of science. Briefly: behaviour in higher-level systems can't be "explained" exclusively in terms of what's going on in lower levels. Physics doesn't make biology "obsolete", anymore than biology makes psychology so, or psychology sociology.
Fine. Take either, or both. That is my point. If using a computer is difficult for you, obviously you need all the help you can get, which beginner's OSes such as MS Windows and MacOS provide. It's good to see that you are "out" about your problems with computers. I hope you become more proficient with time.
Quite so. I think people who are still making a fuss about "anti-Linux FUD" are missing the main point about it: that it plays on irrational feelings. The wave that MS rode from '90 on (when Windows 3.0 was released) wasn't really based on any rational evaluation of the advantages or disadvantages of their "new" OS: to that extent, its success was caused by the "positive equivalent" of FUD, if you will: i.e. marketing, pure and simple. Windows looked good, it was fun for computer journalists to play with, it was fun for managers to play with, it looked easy; so it took off. The fact that most office computer users were perfectly happy with Wordperfect 5.1 or Displaywrite 4.xx or whatever was beside the point, since decisions lead by advertising/marketing are irrational -- that's the whole point of ads and marketing campaigns. Now, things are different. The fickle tide of popular opinion, that so long carried MS, has turned: computer journalists, IT managers et al are looking for reasons not to like MS. Linux has appeared at the right time for them. It's a "whole new paradigm", if you'll excuse the Dilbert cartoon reference (I think my usage makes more sense than the original, mind). Linux promises a lot. It is (in this market) untried, untested, and therefore better than the old familiar MS stuff; just as Windows was once far more appealing than the alternative OS/2.
So, today, MS and allied forces attempt to generate anti-Linux "FUD"; that is to say, they go about using tried and testing marketing techniques to discredit the opposition. But it isn't working -- this should be obvious to anyone who follows the computer press. Why has the tide turned, the wind changed? God only knows. But it is certain that where the computer press lead, the computer managers will follow. And they are the people who will deliver the desktop.
An integrated spell checker? Isn't software for witches a rather small market niche? Oh... you mean a spelling checker? Well, I learned to spell at school. Perhaps Linux is intended for folks who've advanced beyond the "3 Rs"?
It's true Linux doesn't have a "fully integrated spelling checker"; neither does any OS I know of. I think you are talking about applications, though (shame I have to work out what you mean; maybe you should have paid more attention in English class). For the record, though, a simple vi macro calling ispell works fine for me: map V:w^M:!ispell -S -x %^M:e!^M^M with the advantage that if I don't like how it works, I can change it -- something that would be harder to do if it were "integrated". I guess integrated features are fine for people who can't figure out how to set up their own working environment on their computer. However, the whole point of Linux is the "do it yourself" approach. For those that don't like that, there are software packages available, such as Staroffice, that take a more "mainstream" i.e. "works like MS stuff" approach. That's fine. People who prefer MS Word are fine, too: I wouldn't dream of slagging them off, any more than I'd cast aspersions on schools for backward kids.
Hmm, interesting point of view. I must say, I don't visit/. so often nowadays, nor post so much, simply because I feel that an on-line forum that can accomodate the likes of Katz isn't for me. But, where else does one go? Technocrat has much better editorial control, and more intelligent posts, but doesn't have the "critical mass" in user numbers to generate real discussion -- 2 to 9 comments seems to be the usual range. I don't see people leaving slashdot; most are morely likely simply to ignore Katz. But there's the rub -- can Katz be ignored? I think not. He is symptomatic of a deeper problem at slashdot: the lack of proper editing. Stuff posted as news sometimes contains hearsay, rumour, and plain misinformation (not deliberate, I'm sure). Katz is not the only offender, merely far and away the worst.
Slashdot Mirror
Xanim, maybe? Check out the Xanim home page.
But who in their right mind would want to inflict Unix on their mother? And why is this something that needs to be done? Different strokes for different folks. Until someone comes up with a really easy-to-use, fully GUI-based, Linux distribution, Linux is not suitable for people who don't want to hack a little. The problem-solving mindset goes with the territory for now.
Hmm, well, Katz's job description is "media critic", which encompasses "movie critic", so if as you say he's not much cop at that... well, maybe it's just his hobby, and he hacks some mean perl code for a living. In which case, don't be too hard on the guy, OK?
Calm down, take a sedative, and stay off the Katzdot for a few weeks, OK?
For the programmers among you, here's a simple flowchart-type thingie which explains the whole process. (Isn't it wonderful how you can find just about anything on the Web these days?). For those of you who can't wait to click on each link (why the guy didn't just do a diagram as in the original, I'll never know), here's my pathetic pure-text rendering. If the indentation doesn't look right on your browser, what can I tell you? Life is hell. For best results, buy the book: P.J. O'Rourke, "Age and Guile" -- worth the money for this alone.
But maybe you might spare a tiny pinch of sympathy for the people who died in the crash? They weren't "Nazi Germany". And what military applications did He have in those days?
"Pedantic is too small a word for it. It is... LIQUID OBLIQUITY. Crow wrong-headedness: FIT IT in your slashdot." (Prays that some English reader will recognise this, and find it at least mildly amusing.)
Hmm, yes, he does indeed like to "stir it up". A more concise word for this is "troll".
Exactly. It is amazing the amount of people who have posted to this thread enthusiastically claiming some sort of "victory" over fox.com: indeed, the article itself favors this skewed version of reality. When I check out www.fox.com in lynx, I get a blank screen. So much for new, improved, now 100% Linux-compatible fox.com. Oh, well: another big corporate website sucks big-time; film at eleven. I guess we could look on the bright side, and say that if the intent of the Web is to communicate information via hypertext, then whether I can see fox.com's site or not isn't very important, because they've got fuck-all to communicate.
Does the search engine in "older stuff" really stop after a few months? I haven't tested it in any depth, but it would suprise me if it didn't go back all the way; and a quick search just now took me back to May this year. I know that one can get back to the beginning of this year at least, if one knows the URL: e.g. here's one I saved. Another quick test: searching for "UnixWorld" gives two stories, that one and one from April 98. Wouldn't it be nice if a member of slashdot staff were to pop up now and tell us whether or not the archives do in fact extend back to the beginning?
Dragging myself manfully back on-topic, I loved the phrase in the announcement of Netscape 0.9 about it being "optimised for 14.4 modems". Those were the days.
So use a different DNS server?
Really, come on, what is this drivel? Workers are exploited, period. Most "geeks", as you call them (and by which I suppose you to mean young introverted males (becuase it is mostly guys, isn't it?) with an interest in technology, particularly computers, bordering on the obssessive) work in well-paid hi-tech jobs, and are a hell of a lot better of than, say, a Uranium miner in South Africa or a textile worker in the Philipines. Yes, they are exploited; of course they are; but have a bit of perspective.
How about ENGLAND?! sheessh...
Here we go again... "If we want to take more of the Microsoft market share...". Who is this "we" I keep hearing about in this context? RedHat shareholders, or what? Linux developers will work on what they like to work on -- that's the whole point. Besides, if someone wants to use Linux, they should have a real reason e.g. wanting Unix on their desktop, or needing a reliable server platform; not be doing it "because it's simple" -- that's what NT is for. Sound isn't really complicated to set up, by the way; it just involves more than pushing a few buttons. As I've said, if these "new users" want things that simple, there are existing alternatives; and that's a good thing, because Linux sure isn't for them. To look at it another way, if you want to take more of the Microsoft market share, why don't you code up some of this "a little easier" stuff? Eh?
Much as I hate to nick-pick... vi isn't GNU, nor is Apache.
Hah! Proof that complaining about Slashdot doesn't work: JonKatz will be right back after this short break...
Hmm, did I just come through a time warp? Is it 2000 is a few weeks, not 1900? This is 19th materialist reductionism at its worst. I don't know what "consilience" is, but you could do with reading some philosophy of science. Briefly: behaviour in higher-level systems can't be "explained" exclusively in terms of what's going on in lower levels. Physics doesn't make biology "obsolete", anymore than biology makes psychology so, or psychology sociology.
Fine. Take either, or both. That is my point. If using a computer is difficult for you, obviously you need all the help you can get, which beginner's OSes such as MS Windows and MacOS provide. It's good to see that you are "out" about your problems with computers. I hope you become more proficient with time.
So, today, MS and allied forces attempt to generate anti-Linux "FUD"; that is to say, they go about using tried and testing marketing techniques to discredit the opposition. But it isn't working -- this should be obvious to anyone who follows the computer press. Why has the tide turned, the wind changed? God only knows. But it is certain that where the computer press lead, the computer managers will follow. And they are the people who will deliver the desktop.
It's true Linux doesn't have a "fully integrated spelling checker"; neither does any OS I know of. I think you are talking about applications, though (shame I have to work out what you mean; maybe you should have paid more attention in English class). For the record, though, a simple vi macro calling ispell works fine for me: :w^M:!ispell -S -x %^M:e!^M^M
map V
with the advantage that if I don't like how it works, I can change it -- something that would be harder to do if it were "integrated". I guess integrated features are fine for people who can't figure out how to set up their own working environment on their computer. However, the whole point of Linux is the "do it yourself" approach. For those that don't like that, there are software packages available, such as Staroffice, that take a more "mainstream" i.e. "works like MS stuff" approach. That's fine. People who prefer MS Word are fine, too: I wouldn't dream of slagging them off, any more than I'd cast aspersions on schools for backward kids.
It is rather ironic that an article about Netscape's non-compliance with web standards displays nothing but a blank screen when viewed with lynx.
Hmm, interesting point of view. I must say, I don't visit /. so often nowadays, nor post so much, simply because I feel that an on-line forum that can accomodate the likes of Katz isn't for me. But, where else does one go? Technocrat has much better editorial control, and more intelligent posts, but doesn't have the "critical mass" in user numbers to generate real discussion -- 2 to 9 comments seems to be the usual range. I don't see people leaving slashdot; most are morely likely simply to ignore Katz. But there's the rub -- can Katz be ignored? I think not. He is symptomatic of a deeper problem at slashdot: the lack of proper editing. Stuff posted as news sometimes contains hearsay, rumour, and plain misinformation (not deliberate, I'm sure). Katz is not the only offender, merely far and away the worst.
Katzdot
Hey, yes! Let's turn the Web into TV! That would be a great idea! Not.