Hmm, you mean you didn't work it out? Katz stuff is posted this way because too many people ticked that little box! We ignored him, and he didn't go away; indeed, only got more insistent.
Both these things are already done. There is a standard format for docs, and unmaintained docs are held in an "unmaintained" section.
> It's insanity like this that makes BSD look kind of appealing.
But then, in the BSD world, if someone's unhappy about something, they do something a bit more positive about it than pronouncing about what needs to be done on slashdot.
I found the move to 2.2 adequately documented. If you didn't, this is perhaps an indication that you're not the sort of person who should be upgrading their kernel by hand? That's one of the things distributions are for, you know.
Stop going to the pub at lunchtimes, Kurt. You know you can't handle it. Just because you're old enough to drink alcohol doesn't mean you have to: it's not big and it's not clever. OK?
> Jon, you wrote that one of the tenets of "Microsoftism" is a "passion > for mediocrity."
Heh, heh. Would this mean that people who use MS software also have a passion for mediocrity? Sure seems like it. Er, JK, perhaps you could explain what exactly are those `?'s that keep appearing in strange places in your articles? It couldn't be that the software you're using is from... no, no, forget it, that's too obviously absurd even to contemplate... I mean, the great antiMS icon JK couldn't be using... no, he couldn't... could he?
Actually, it's not a lot of work to duplicate the site, if the developers go about it properly -- using m4 macros to generate different versions of the html, for example. I think they just can't be bothered -- "if it looks good in IE, it'll do", is an attitude that's all too common.
Yes, I've heard the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words"; but I don't think it is often in fact the case. Point taken, though: the web isn't just about text, and information can be conveyed in other ways. Text is, however, far and away the most common means of conveying useful information over the web. We could get by with a web without images; a web without text would be well-nigh useless.
In my experience, web sites that are useful are usable with a text-only browser (though of course you can always view images with lynx via X & xli, if you have to); pages requiring a graphical browser to make sense are very likely to be content-free creations of corporate marketing.
A 486 is perfectly "usable", as is a 386 for that matter. I don't see what the cost of a replacement has to do with it. As for graphical browsers, the whole point of the Web is text, if you think about it (hypertext, remember?), so a "text-based broswer" is a pretty good tool for using it. If you just want pretty pictures, a TV is cheaper and easier to set up than a computer anyway.
The/. code detects when a poster is using a Windows machine, and responds by making them look dumb. As the man said: "Here's a nickel, kid; buy yourself a real operating system".
Or, just perhaps, it should go to Fred van Kempen. It would be a fitting reward for the splendid work he did on NET2. Without his work, Linux wouldn't be where it is today, so it seems only right that he should reap some of the profits as well.
> What about the guy whom was fired for using the word niggerdly because > someone thought it referred to black people in a derogative way or the
Is this for real? I mean, not just an urban legend? Do you have a source? (Not criticising, just somewhat overwhelmed and would like to find out more).
niggardly adj. from niggard, a mean or stingy person. [from Middle English nigon, probably of Scandanavian orgin].
Don't pay any attention to the actual comment I posted, wilya now? Too difficult, I guess. Like I say, if you want to argue, I'm here (although delayed a few days sometimes); if you don't, then... what can I say? Sorry if I've misunderstood you, but you don't seem to want to argue; you merely restate you case in increasingly-incoherent terms.
No it isn't! BUT, since you're obviously not intested in genuine debate, I guess "hear endeth the argument". (but one last hint: there's a strong argument for calling all of philosophy since the Vienna School Linguistic Philosophy: but I guess now that you've cleared it all up they can all just go home/roll in their graves (pick an appropriate response).
When was Linux ever a bare kernel, aside from the early days? Every linux dist. uses the GNU C lib., so no difference there. There has been a generally-agreed standard of what constitutes a working Linux OS from 93, and if you examine the competing products, you'll see they don't differ much from this baseline -- Slackware vs RedHat/etc/rc.d schemes is the biggest difference I can think of. I was rather vague in my initial comment (exasperation can do that); I hope this makes it clearer.
I actually agree with the gist of your post (as I interpret it), that is, that the realm of philosophy is those areas that haven't proven amenable to scientific investigation. Ironically, some philosophers would consider the very idea non-sensical -- oh well, there's nowt stranger than folk! My main point is, I don't concede that such a general proposition as "there can never be a proposition in language A that is not fully-translatable into language B" a statement ammenable to scientific proof. I find my empirical experience, plus the arguments of such philosopers as Heideigger, rather argues the opposite. Perhaps it is easy for those who belong to the dominant language/ideology combine on Earth right now to accede to the theory that language and thought are a one-to-one transformation. Speaking as an Irishman, my history seems to prove the opposite.
And you have +1 karma? Just shows how worthless it is. Resit Reading Comprehension 101 as a matter of urgency. (In case you don't get it, you clearly didn't understand what I wrote; please try harder next time).
What a pity you felt you had to post as AC. This is the best post I've seen on/. in a long time. But put a voice behind it! It's worth ten of JK's sermons! Stick an e-mail in there, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
"Here, it's more of a dry loathing, you know?"
Do you get paid to write for /.? If so, are you working freelance, or are you a member of And^H^H^HVA staff?
In jail? Yeah, behind bars; or maybe out there somewhere still, snowing some other gullible wretch.
Hmm, you mean you didn't work it out? Katz stuff is posted this way because too many people ticked that little box! We ignored him, and he didn't go away; indeed, only got more insistent.
> It's insanity like this that makes BSD look kind of appealing.
But then, in the BSD world, if someone's unhappy about something, they do something a bit more positive about it than pronouncing about what needs to be done on slashdot.
I found the move to 2.2 adequately documented. If you didn't, this is perhaps an indication that you're not the sort of person who should be upgrading their kernel by hand? That's one of the things distributions are for, you know.
Stop going to the pub at lunchtimes, Kurt. You know you can't handle it. Just because you're old enough to drink alcohol doesn't mean you have to: it's not big and it's not clever. OK?
> for mediocrity."
Heh, heh. Would this mean that people who use MS software also have a passion for mediocrity? Sure seems like it. Er, JK, perhaps you could explain what exactly are those `?'s that keep appearing in strange places in your articles? It couldn't be that the software you're using is from... no, no, forget it, that's too obviously absurd even to contemplate... I mean, the great antiMS icon JK couldn't be using... no, he couldn't... could he?
Yo! Jon! Respect! Yo! My man!
Jesus H. Christ... What is this? A Jewish version of Father Trendy?
Actually, it's not a lot of work to duplicate the site, if the developers go about it properly -- using m4 macros to generate different versions of the html, for example. I think they just can't be bothered -- "if it looks good in IE, it'll do", is an attitude that's all too common.
Hah! Most excellent! Make this the next slashdot poll!
In my experience, web sites that are useful are usable with a text-only browser (though of course you can always view images with lynx via X & xli, if you have to); pages requiring a graphical browser to make sense are very likely to be content-free creations of corporate marketing.
A 486 is perfectly "usable", as is a 386 for that matter. I don't see what the cost of a replacement has to do with it. As for graphical browsers, the whole point of the Web is text, if you think about it (hypertext, remember?), so a "text-based broswer" is a pretty good tool for using it. If you just want pretty pictures, a TV is cheaper and easier to set up than a computer anyway.
The /. code detects when a poster is using a Windows machine, and responds by making them look dumb. As the man said: "Here's a nickel, kid; buy yourself a real operating system".
But above all, Windows offers unbeatable support for DOUBLE POSTING!
Or, just perhaps, it should go to Fred van Kempen. It would be a fitting reward for the splendid work he did on NET2. Without his work, Linux wouldn't be where it is today, so it seems only right that he should reap some of the profits as well.
Is this for real? I mean, not just an urban legend? Do you have a source? (Not criticising, just somewhat overwhelmed and would like to find out more).
niggardly adj. from niggard, a mean or stingy person. [from Middle English nigon, probably of Scandanavian orgin].
Don't pay any attention to the actual comment I posted, wilya now? Too difficult, I guess. Like I say, if you want to argue, I'm here (although delayed a few days sometimes); if you don't, then... what can I say? Sorry if I've misunderstood you, but you don't seem to want to argue; you merely restate you case in increasingly-incoherent terms.
No it isn't! BUT, since you're obviously not intested in genuine debate, I guess "hear endeth the argument". (but one last hint: there's a strong argument for calling all of philosophy since the Vienna School Linguistic Philosophy: but I guess now that you've cleared it all up they can all just go home/roll in their graves (pick an appropriate response).
When was Linux ever a bare kernel, aside from the early days? Every linux dist. uses the GNU C lib., so no difference there. There has been a generally-agreed standard of what constitutes a working Linux OS from 93, and if you examine the competing products, you'll see they don't differ much from this baseline -- Slackware vs RedHat /etc/rc.d schemes is the biggest difference I can think of. I was rather vague in my initial comment (exasperation can do that); I hope this makes it clearer.
I actually agree with the gist of your post (as I interpret it), that is, that the realm of philosophy is those areas that haven't proven amenable to scientific investigation. Ironically, some philosophers would consider the very idea non-sensical -- oh well, there's nowt stranger than folk! My main point is, I don't concede that such a general proposition as "there can never be a proposition in language A that is not fully-translatable into language B" a statement ammenable to scientific proof. I find my empirical experience, plus the arguments of such philosopers as Heideigger, rather argues the opposite. Perhaps it is easy for those who belong to the dominant language/ideology combine on Earth right now to accede to the theory that language and thought are a one-to-one transformation. Speaking as an Irishman, my history seems to prove the opposite.
"If you can devise a test to see if people can't conceptualize an idea without a word for it, then it becomes a testable theory."
Have you, or has anyone else, devised such a generic test? If not, then you are rather hoist on your own petard, are you not?
And you have +1 karma? Just shows how worthless it is. Resit Reading Comprehension 101 as a matter of urgency. (In case you don't get it, you clearly didn't understand what I wrote; please try harder next time).
What a pity you felt you had to post as AC. This is the best post I've seen on /. in a long time. But put a voice behind it! It's worth ten of JK's sermons! Stick an e-mail in there, at least.
The days of philosophy's monopoly over the mind are long past, and philosophy is better because of it.
and
I use windows. Sorry.
are somehow related.
Completely wrong. Try to catch up on some 20th Century philosophy in your free time.