I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the key point here. If the craft that was lost had been a manned vessel, the crew would have seen that it was coming down in unsuitable terrain, and taken evasive action. We need manned missions to the planets; it's the only way to be sure. Besides, unmanned probes are all fine and dandy for the scientists, but they aren't actually getting us any closer to what should be our goal: expansion into the rest of the Solar System. Remember: expand or die.
As far as I recall, it has to do with the fact that the bumblebee (and other sorts, for all I know) is continually altering the pitch of its wings during flight -- the scientists who were baffled by its seemingly-impossible ability to fly had only consider the case of static wings.
What do you mean, "Linux can't afford multi-million dollar ad campaigns"? Linux is an Operating System, remember? I bet it can't vote or drink beer either. If you mean, Linux distribution companies, then I think RedHat for one can afford to spend -- and I'll bet does spend -- quite a bit on advertising these days, don't you?
"marketing their product"? What the fuck are you talking about? Have I just stumbled into an MBA class by accident? Christ, the worst thing about the increasing popularity of Linux is that drivel like this becomes more and more common with every passing day. Oh, well, goes with the territory I suppose. "Marketing their product" indeed! Be off with you, you pointy-haired wretch!
Yes, it is childish. All this anti-MS crap that has accumulated around Linux is getting old fast. If people want to bash MS, that's their business (though the phrase "get a life" springs to mind); but why must they drag Linux into it? The raison d'etre for Linux had nothing to do with Microsoft: it was conceived and built as a free Unix, and that is what it remains -- which reminds me, please note that FreeBSD advocates don't seem to need to resort to such dumb stunts. Sometimes I wonder whether it's Linux or themselves these people are publicising.
To cut a long story short: I actually agree with you! The standard is a simple one, and conforming to it is simple; so people should conform to it, period. I guess I was responding more to the intensity with which you addressed the issue. But, on second thoughts, your tone *was* appropriate. Non-compliance with standards is a real problem, even when, nay, especially when, "friendlies" are doing it.
(Creeps off to run his home page through weblint...)
On reality point one: lynx copes fine with frames. It gives a link to each framed page, which is often a more convenient way to look at the site anyway. Now table-display is another story. Why oh why w3m can do it and lynx can't I don't know.
The TeXbook, Donald E. Knuth, Addison-Wesley, 1984. The ISBN is 0201134489. There is an etext version of the book (in TeX format, naturally) out there somewhere, also.
"just because it looks good on the surface"?! But the surface is all there is to a web page! HTML is a mark-up language; it is supposed to present page content, and that's all. If it does that well -- and/. does look well in any browser I've tried -- then it works. And you can't compare generated HTML code to, say, C code: issues of maintainability don't arise, for example. I don't see what you're getting so worked up about. Does/. work, or doesn't it? What are the practical effects of the generated code not always conforming to the spec? I like/., and I find it neither sloppy, nor incompetent, nor unprofessional. Your attitude seems extreme, compared to what you're actually saying. I should say that if you were criticising the perl code, that would be different.
Yes, excellent idea. Matt wrote "Linux Installation and Getting Started", the text file (remember them?!) that became "Running Linux", back in 1992, I think it was (my copy is 2.2.2, dated Feb '95, and the copyright notice says 1992--1994). I can remember getting a lot of help from it when I started using Linux. It remains the best single introduction for the newbie.
Well, another man's meat and all that, but... I haven't read Kim Stanley Robinsion, so I can't comment on the implicit comparison between him and JK. I know one thing: I'm a writer, and if anyone ever compares me to Katz, I'll sthcream and sthcream and sthcream!! Seriously, the piece is badly-written, ill-organised, says very little, and what it does say Katz has said before in slightly different words in umpteen previous articles. My guess is he's putting together another book, and is using slashdot to thrash out his "ideas". Since there is no real editorial control here, he gets paid for posting pretty much anything -- and doesn't it show? Of course, this is just my opinion. But, how seriously can you take an AMERICAN who doesn't know that Edgar Allen Poe invented sci fi?
Read "Thoughts From the Furnace" to see exactly how little Rob cares about adverse reaction to Katz. Katz's attitude is the same: anyone who criticizes is a "flamer". There is little the mere users of slashdot can do, other than vote with our browsers so to speak -- but where can we go?
Yes, good point. Maybe talking to the webmaster doesn't do much good in many cases. But please, do note that, as has been pointed out already, this site works fine with at least one Linux browser, lynx with ssl patch, so it doesn't seem as though it's a windows-only site, just that they are banning what they believe to be insecure browsers.
Linux driver support is inadequete. Well, depends. Linux supports my hardware.
can't cut and paste in X. Yes you can. RTFM.
nightmare printer support. Another old chestnut. Printing from Linux works just fine. If it takes more than three clicks, so what? I mean, how hard is lpr , for Christ's sake?
Your basic point seems to be, Linux ain't like Windows! No, it isn't -- that's why it's called LINUX. There was a good post on this subject recently, and the guy has a good essay on his site which deals with this in greater depth; but, in a nutshell, if you want Windows, use Windows!
"lives under bridges and eats Billy Goats?" Hmm, it's one theory. Yeah, you're right. I checked the jargon file, and troll doesn't have the meaning I gave to it. Happy now?! But the point I was trying to make was, that Katz's pieces are content-free, in the sense that they are less about the subject than they are about provoking a response, generating the hits, cranking up the figures to show to the ad men. In that sense, he acts very like a troll.
Would it be too much to ask for you to stop bitching and start cranking out some of this easy-to-use code for "blind, deaf and possible [stet] emotionally disturbed farm animal"? Or are you too busy telling everyone how Linux should develop? I'm perfectly happy with Linux the way it is. Many other users are; many other developers are. What is it with this need people have to shoehorn Linux into one monolithic box? For the nth time: if there's money to be made providing an alternative to Windows, then some Linux distribution-maker will step in there; indeed, they already are: witness Caldera, for one. But don't expect miracles: Linux is Unix, and that isn't going to change. As an OS "anyone can use", it is not going to cut it.
Well, if the sites works for lynx, what's the problem?! It probably looks fine under Netscape and Mozilla too, if you can hack them so that they id themselves as lynx (HTTP_USER_AGENT or whatever). I hope we are not going to see a spate of stories like this: "www.so-and-so.com doesn't work on my browser". I mean, get used to it, people. This happens all the time. If we had a story about it on slashdot every time, there wouldn't be room for anything else. If you want to do something a bit more constructive than whining on slashdot, check out the Campaign for a Non-Browser Specific WWW. Then, write to the webmaster of offending sites, let them know they're fucking up, and point them at that page.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the key point here. If the craft that was lost had been a manned vessel, the crew would have seen that it was coming down in unsuitable terrain, and taken evasive action. We need manned missions to the planets; it's the only way to be sure. Besides, unmanned probes are all fine and dandy for the scientists, but they aren't actually getting us any closer to what should be our goal: expansion into the rest of the Solar System. Remember: expand or die.
Nope. Real men are too busy drinking beer and scoring with chicks to indulge in distro wars. (But we do use slackware, actually).
As far as I recall, it has to do with the fact that the bumblebee (and other sorts, for all I know) is continually altering the pitch of its wings during flight -- the scientists who were baffled by its seemingly-impossible ability to fly had only consider the case of static wings.
Hmm: the link you give simply asserts that this is an urban legend -- there's no further information.
What do you mean, "Linux can't afford multi-million dollar ad campaigns"? Linux is an Operating System, remember? I bet it can't vote or drink beer either. If you mean, Linux distribution companies, then I think RedHat for one can afford to spend -- and I'll bet does spend -- quite a bit on advertising these days, don't you?
"marketing their product"? What the fuck are you talking about? Have I just stumbled into an MBA class by accident? Christ, the worst thing about the increasing popularity of Linux is that drivel like this becomes more and more common with every passing day. Oh, well, goes with the territory I suppose. "Marketing their product" indeed! Be off with you, you pointy-haired wretch!
Yes, it is childish. All this anti-MS crap that has accumulated around Linux is getting old fast. If people want to bash MS, that's their business (though the phrase "get a life" springs to mind); but why must they drag Linux into it? The raison d'etre for Linux had nothing to do with Microsoft: it was conceived and built as a free Unix, and that is what it remains -- which reminds me, please note that FreeBSD advocates don't seem to need to resort to such dumb stunts. Sometimes I wonder whether it's Linux or themselves these people are publicising.
(Creeps off to run his home page through weblint...)
The whore riding on its back? That would be JonKatz.
On reality point one: lynx copes fine with frames. It gives a link to each framed page, which is often a more convenient way to look at the site anyway. Now table-display is another story. Why oh why w3m can do it and lynx can't I don't know.
Ed: The Standard Text Editor.
The TeXbook, Donald E. Knuth, Addison-Wesley, 1984. The ISBN is 0201134489. There is an etext version of the book (in TeX format, naturally) out there somewhere, also.
Looks like they are providing an object lesson in this subject, anyways...
"just because it looks good on the surface"?! But the surface is all there is to a web page! HTML is a mark-up language; it is supposed to present page content, and that's all. If it does that well -- and /. does look well in any browser I've tried -- then it works. And you can't compare generated HTML code to, say, C code: issues of maintainability don't arise, for example. I don't see what you're getting so worked up about. Does /. work, or doesn't it? What are the practical effects of the generated code not always conforming to the spec? I like /., and I find it neither sloppy, nor incompetent, nor unprofessional. Your attitude seems extreme, compared to what you're actually saying. I should say that if you were criticising the perl code, that would be different.
Why would the code need to be cleaned up? It looks good in lynx and netscape, which is surely a good enough practical acid test.
Yes, excellent idea. Matt wrote "Linux Installation and Getting Started", the text file (remember them?!) that became "Running Linux", back in 1992, I think it was (my copy is 2.2.2, dated Feb '95, and the copyright notice says 1992--1994). I can remember getting a lot of help from it when I started using Linux. It remains the best single introduction for the newbie.
The award should go to Keith Bostic, for nvi. Surely this is obvious? I'm sure all these other editors are very nice, but why reinvent the wheel?
Well then we have differing ideas of what slashdot is and should be, and that's that, I suppose.
Well, another man's meat and all that, but... I haven't read Kim Stanley Robinsion, so I can't comment on the implicit comparison between him and JK. I know one thing: I'm a writer, and if anyone ever compares me to Katz, I'll sthcream and sthcream and sthcream!! Seriously, the piece is badly-written, ill-organised, says very little, and what it does say Katz has said before in slightly different words in umpteen previous articles. My guess is he's putting together another book, and is using slashdot to thrash out his "ideas". Since there is no real editorial control here, he gets paid for posting pretty much anything -- and doesn't it show? Of course, this is just my opinion. But, how seriously can you take an AMERICAN who doesn't know that Edgar Allen Poe invented sci fi?
Read "Thoughts From the Furnace" to see exactly how little Rob cares about adverse reaction to Katz. Katz's attitude is the same: anyone who criticizes is a "flamer". There is little the mere users of slashdot can do, other than vote with our browsers so to speak -- but where can we go?
Yes, good point. Maybe talking to the webmaster doesn't do much good in many cases. But please, do note that, as has been pointed out already, this site works fine with at least one Linux browser, lynx with ssl patch, so it doesn't seem as though it's a windows-only site, just that they are banning what they believe to be insecure browsers.
Your basic point seems to be, Linux ain't like Windows! No, it isn't -- that's why it's called LINUX. There was a good post on this subject recently, and the guy has a good essay on his site which deals with this in greater depth; but, in a nutshell, if you want Windows, use Windows!
"lives under bridges and eats Billy Goats?" Hmm, it's one theory. Yeah, you're right. I checked the jargon file, and troll doesn't have the meaning I gave to it. Happy now?! But the point I was trying to make was, that Katz's pieces are content-free, in the sense that they are less about the subject than they are about provoking a response, generating the hits, cranking up the figures to show to the ad men. In that sense, he acts very like a troll.
Would it be too much to ask for you to stop bitching and start cranking out some of this easy-to-use code for "blind, deaf and possible [stet] emotionally disturbed farm animal"? Or are you too busy telling everyone how Linux should develop? I'm perfectly happy with Linux the way it is. Many other users are; many other developers are. What is it with this need people have to shoehorn Linux into one monolithic box? For the nth time: if there's money to be made providing an alternative to Windows, then some Linux distribution-maker will step in there; indeed, they already are: witness Caldera, for one. But don't expect miracles: Linux is Unix, and that isn't going to change. As an OS "anyone can use", it is not going to cut it.
Well, if the sites works for lynx, what's the problem?! It probably looks fine under Netscape and Mozilla too, if you can hack them so that they id themselves as lynx (HTTP_USER_AGENT or whatever). I hope we are not going to see a spate of stories like this: "www.so-and-so.com doesn't work on my browser". I mean, get used to it, people. This happens all the time. If we had a story about it on slashdot every time, there wouldn't be room for anything else. If you want to do something a bit more constructive than whining on slashdot, check out the Campaign for a Non-Browser Specific WWW. Then, write to the webmaster of offending sites, let them know they're fucking up, and point them at that page.