So your advice in a nutshell would be: "act more like Katz, get noticed, get rich"?;-) Anyway... "you prefer the term writer to journalist when describing the same thing" -- exactly.
You were cruising around in a war zone, and you got shot at? Heavens, who would have thought it? Friendly fire -- it happens. Perhaps you think the Brits killed by the USAF during the Iraq affair should "not forget, and not forgive"? Sounds like a nice recipe for international chaos. What do you think the USA should do about this? Bomb Tel Aviv?/. readers should note that the link fair-mindedly included on the ussliberty.org page comprehensively demolishes any case for a deliberate Israeli attack -- here.
Well, I'm a professional writer. I say writer rather than journalist, precisely because the latter word means all too often the wretches who so distorted the Columbine events. I think it is unfortunate that you tar anyone who makes a living from writing (that's what "professional" means in this context, right?) with the same brush as Katz. I for one don't have a media agenda, and would like to think that my posts to slashdot are evaluated just as anyone's should be: on what they are actually saying, and I guess on the my/. track record, for stuff that's difficult to verify. I post to slashdot when I think I have something to say; I suggest a feature to Rob when it's a piece I probably couldn't sell, but want to write anyway. Seems to me that anyone who is good enough to make a living from writing doesn't *need* to do much self-promotion, in any case. Get the stuff published: people will read it, and if it's good, word gets around. Of course, if a "writer" hasn't got anything to say in the first place.... well, that's what editors are for. After all, there are alternatives for a failed writer-wannabe. I hear career progression at Mcdonald's is rapid -- plus all the fries you can eat!
If I ever got around to writing about Columbine (trying hard to get back on topic), I would start my research with this site, which rather oddly in this whole affair, is a place which does honestly try to stick to the facts about those two individuals who were at the centre of all this.
Jesus! Don't do that to me! I hadn't heard of this project before, so when I saw "WinLinux2000, I thought "Oh, no, Mr Bill!". Yeah, yeah, I know the GPL protects us all, but still, take care of your readers' blood pressure.
A little editorial control wouldn't have gone amiss here. Surely it is patently obvious that a story at "USA Today" is very unlikely to be "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters"? Indeed, it's not even really a "USA Today" story, just lifted from "The Times" (no longer "the newspaper of record"; more of an upmarket National Enquirer). Slashdot really shouldn't be cluttered with second-hand reworkings of stuff that Ungoed-Thomas (as another poster has pointed out) probably made up in the first place.
No, it is not a "Well-written, well-argued, well-defended" piece; it's a pretty typical case of pundit-speak. His assertion that Linux just couldn't handle such things as IRCd just intrigued me. True, he didn't even attempt to prove this beyond asserting that the IRC servers don't run Linux, therefore... I'm not so much interested in the Dvorak column per se, as in the truth of his allegation. Realistically, I wouldn't expect Dvorak to be informative; that's arguably not his job. He is thought-provoking sometimes, and I find that useful.
Fair enough. Yes, your point is clearer to me now. I guess I had seen so much "Yeah, but NT sucks!" in the comments on ZDNet that I was bursting to say something about it! So, is it true that Linux can't handle being an IRC server? If not, why not? I take the point about Solaris being more mature -- but then so's Xenix...
I saw this "they aren't running NT either" comment a few times on ZDNet, too. Why do people insist on doing this? You're only proving one of Dvorak's points for him -- that is, when you criticise Linux, don't expect a reasoned response. Too many people do this. "Linux can't do X". "Ah, neither can NT, yah, booh, sucks to you!". It would be both more interesting and better for Linux to hear some explanation of Dvorak's assertion about Linux not being able to run an IRC server: whether it's true, are there any examples of heavily-loaded Linux IRC servers, etc. We do ourselves a disfavour by assuming that anyone criticising Linux has ulterior motives -- promoting NT, for instance, as many people seem to think.
Of course Sun isn't a "true" friend to Linux. Sun is a friend to Sun, period. They are a big corporation, and, just like any of the other big corporations out there, if you put them in Microsoft's place, they'd behave in a very similar way (although perhaps not as effectively; say what you like about BG's programming credentials, but he sure knows a lot about business). Sun will use Linux to bash MS, yes; and as long as Linux is useful to them for this or some other purpose, they'll be "friends". But friends like that can quickly turn into enemies. It's a moot point, though; I think Linux has reached the stage where it is self-supporting in the commercial sense; Sun needs Linux more than Linux needs Sun.
It occurs to me that a good project for someone with too much time on their hand s would be to write up a Vrasonevitch version of the inimitable Microsoft Windows Rules the Universe
I know that the Andover IPO isn't likely to generate as much heat and light as the Red Hat IPO, but I thought it would be opportune to point/.'ers towards the best commentary I've seen on the Red Hat affair. Let's hope the whole things goes a little more smoothly this time.
This was posted on the CyberWire Dispatch; don't know of an archive for this, so I've put it here. I think this piece says all that needs to be said. Like any spoilt child, if Vranesevich was just ignored, he would shut up.
Whinge, whinge, whinge... Surely you KNOW that what you've written is basically bollocks? This MUST be flamebait, right? What the hell, your `point' is made over and over, usually by ACs for some reason.... If you read at -1, you see everything, period. Nothing stops other people reading at -1 if they want to listen to you whingeing. If, on the other hand, folks prefer to concentrate on substantive contributions to the debate, they can set phasers to `1', and leave you alone in your own litle world. Clear now?
Looks like it: dunne:# nmap -sS -O -v www.windows2000test.com
Starting nmap V. 2.12 by Fyodor (fyodor@dhp.com, www.insecure.org/nmap/) Host (207.46.171.196) appears to be up... good. Initiating SYN half-open stealth scan against (207.46.171.196) Adding TCP port 80 (state Firewalled).
Thank you for illustrating exactly is wrong with the continuing British occupation of Ireland. Your dismissive attitude towards the natives' national aspirations is exactly what one would expect of a British colonial. 100% British settler, 0% Irish: that's you. You can call yourself Irish; I can't stop you. You can call yourself a Koala Bear too: there are institutions where such people can get the help they need. It is amazing how you have the gall to blame the Irish for the war in Ireland. You know damn well that it's the only language you people understand.
''Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted it that way.'' And got the British Army in to enforce that wish. ''England did let Ireland go'', gosh, you're ignorant. Your 'mothercountry' never 'let go' anything, it had been taken off their hands by war, in case you forgot, but oops, you will never have known anything about history in the first place. Did it ever occur to you that the island you obviously know only little about is Ireland as a whole and you lot should acctually pack and leave?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, an anti-Semite? Now I understand.
So your advice in a nutshell would be: "act more like Katz, get noticed, get rich"? ;-) Anyway... "you prefer the term writer to journalist when describing the same thing" -- exactly.
Yeah, `wget -r' is a great idea if you want most of the damn site! For just one page, `lynx -dump > filename' is better, if you don't mind plain text.
You were cruising around in a war zone, and you got shot at? Heavens, who would have thought it? Friendly fire -- it happens. Perhaps you think the Brits killed by the USAF during the Iraq affair should "not forget, and not forgive"? Sounds like a nice recipe for international chaos. What do you think the USA should do about this? Bomb Tel Aviv? /. readers should note that the link fair-mindedly included on the ussliberty.org page comprehensively demolishes any case for a deliberate Israeli attack -- here.
If I ever got around to writing about Columbine (trying hard to get back on topic), I would start my research with this site, which rather oddly in this whole affair, is a place which does honestly try to stick to the facts about those two individuals who were at the centre of all this.
(ignore my .sig this once, I think)
Jesus! Don't do that to me! I hadn't heard of this project before, so when I saw "WinLinux2000, I thought "Oh, no, Mr Bill!". Yeah, yeah, I know the GPL protects us all, but still, take care of your readers' blood pressure.
A little editorial control wouldn't have gone amiss here. Surely it is patently obvious that a story at "USA Today" is very unlikely to be "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters"? Indeed, it's not even really a "USA Today" story, just lifted from "The Times" (no longer "the newspaper of record"; more of an upmarket National Enquirer). Slashdot really shouldn't be cluttered with second-hand reworkings of stuff that Ungoed-Thomas (as another poster has pointed out) probably made up in the first place.
Define "win". By my definition, Linux has already won. We really don't need to spend so much effort tilting at windmills.
No, it is not a "Well-written, well-argued, well-defended" piece; it's a pretty typical case of pundit-speak. His assertion that Linux just couldn't handle such things as IRCd just intrigued me. True, he didn't even attempt to prove this beyond asserting that the IRC servers don't run Linux, therefore... I'm not so much interested in the Dvorak column per se, as in the truth of his allegation. Realistically, I wouldn't expect Dvorak to be informative; that's arguably not his job. He is thought-provoking sometimes, and I find that useful.
Fair enough. Yes, your point is clearer to me now. I guess I had seen so much "Yeah, but NT sucks!" in the comments on ZDNet that I was bursting to say something about it! So, is it true that Linux can't handle being an IRC server? If not, why not? I take the point about Solaris being more mature -- but then so's Xenix...
I saw this "they aren't running NT either" comment a few times on ZDNet, too. Why do people insist on doing this? You're only proving one of Dvorak's points for him -- that is, when you criticise Linux, don't expect a reasoned response. Too many people do this. "Linux can't do X". "Ah, neither can NT, yah, booh, sucks to you!". It would be both more interesting and better for Linux to hear some explanation of Dvorak's assertion about Linux not being able to run an IRC server: whether it's true, are there any examples of heavily-loaded Linux IRC servers, etc. We do ourselves a disfavour by assuming that anyone criticising Linux has ulterior motives -- promoting NT, for instance, as many people seem to think.
Of course Sun isn't a "true" friend to Linux. Sun is a friend to Sun, period. They are a big corporation, and, just like any of the other big corporations out there, if you put them in Microsoft's place, they'd behave in a very similar way (although perhaps not as effectively; say what you like about BG's programming credentials, but he sure knows a lot about business). Sun will use Linux to bash MS, yes; and as long as Linux is useful to them for this or some other purpose, they'll be "friends". But friends like that can quickly turn into enemies. It's a moot point, though; I think Linux has reached the stage where it is self-supporting in the commercial sense; Sun needs Linux more than Linux needs Sun.
And the URL is... this here
It occurs to me that a good project for someone with too much time on their hand s would be to write up a Vrasonevitch version of the inimitable Microsoft Windows Rules the Universe
I know that the Andover IPO isn't likely to generate as much heat and light as the Red Hat IPO, but I thought it would be opportune to point /.'ers towards the best commentary I've seen on the Red Hat affair. Let's hope the whole things goes a little more smoothly this time.
This was posted on the CyberWire Dispatch; don't know of an archive for this, so I've put it here. I think this piece says all that needs to be said. Like any spoilt child, if Vranesevich was just ignored, he would shut up.
Whinge, whinge, whinge... Surely you KNOW that what you've written is basically bollocks? This MUST be flamebait, right? What the hell, your `point' is made over and over, usually by ACs for some reason.... If you read at -1, you see everything, period. Nothing stops other people reading at -1 if they want to listen to you whingeing. If, on the other hand, folks prefer to concentrate on substantive contributions to the debate, they can set phasers to `1', and leave you alone in your own litle world. Clear now?
I have it, but can't for the life of me find the URL. I've stuck it on my site, !Xinul, if you're still interested. Look for "a blast from the past".
OK....
Although soem of the URLs say "search", I didn't do any searching, just clicked on links.
And I have now just proved how easy I can get to male pr0n on-line -- oh, no, what have I done?!
> ---> Did you know Linux stands for Linux Is Not UniX ?
Er..., no it doesn't. Linux == Linus' Unix, to the best of my recollection.
Looks like it:
... good.
dunne:# nmap -sS -O -v www.windows2000test.com
Starting nmap V. 2.12 by Fyodor (fyodor@dhp.com, www.insecure.org/nmap/)
Host (207.46.171.196) appears to be up
Initiating SYN half-open stealth scan against (207.46.171.196)
Adding TCP port 80 (state Firewalled).
Thank you for illustrating exactly is wrong with the continuing British occupation of Ireland. Your dismissive attitude towards the natives' national aspirations is exactly what one would expect of a British colonial. 100% British settler, 0% Irish: that's you. You can call yourself Irish; I can't stop you. You can call yourself a Koala Bear too: there are institutions where such people can get the help they need. It is amazing how you have the gall to blame the Irish for the war in Ireland. You know damn well that it's the only language you people understand.
British OR Irish -- you choose. You can't be both.
''Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted
it that way.''
And got the British Army in to enforce that wish.
''England did let Ireland go'', gosh, you're ignorant.
Your 'mothercountry' never 'let go' anything, it had been taken off their hands by war, in case you forgot, but oops, you will never have known anything about history in the first place.
Did it ever occur to you that the island you obviously know only little about is Ireland as a whole and you lot should acctually pack and leave?
Bombs in Dublin/Monaghan 1974? Concentration camps? Systematic use of torture? Wake up, for fuck's sake.