They haven't released the details yet. Responsible disclosure or something.
Looks like it requires a MITM and only works for intercepting pictures send over iMessage?
That's about all I can see, but I don't trust them until they release a metasploit module.
I'm being facetious. They list the GPL as a problem under the section about why most OSs don't get enough contributors. That's clearly vacuous as Linux gets far more contributors than the OSs with "less restrictive" licenses.
Indeed, Linus has cited the GPL as one of the reasons that Linux was successful and got so many contributions.
Maybe Redux will be something interesting. But, as I said, they need to do a lot of work first, and then, maybe, there will be others willing to help out.
Well, most of the time you are right. And then there was Python.
Python is like Fortran: used by datascientists who really don't know what they're doing otherwise.
Python is like BASIC: "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to Python: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration"
Python: the language where syntax errors are invisible.
Well yeah, you know, he actually has color on his single terminal. That's his graphics system. Cool OS (although until five days ago he had scrolling issues. Way to use the language to keep the bugs out).
've never seen head of lettuce as containing the Nr gene for aphid resistance bred in from the wild species Lactuca serriola. I've never seen a product containing watermelon labeled as containing an artificially produced polyploid, as seedless watermelons are. I've never seen an apple labeled as being a bud sport, a somatic mutant derived form a chance shoot, as many apples in stores are. I've enver seen citrus labeled as having been developed through radiation induced mutagenesis, yet that happens. I've never seen corn be labeled as having been produced via doubled haploid hybridization, yet that is also a thing.
When you say it like that, it sounds kind of scary.
I'm conflicted over this. I agree that the label is intended to stigmatize. But I can't quite see that we shouldn't have them. The people who want the label to be there want it because it's scary sounding and they hope it will dissuade people from buying food that contains GMOs. And those people want to undermine the GMO food industry for a lot of stupid, superstitious, bullshit reasons.
For me, it's entirely how the product is labeled. If it's a giant scary GMO on the front of the product, I don't support that, because the purpose is to scare people away from buying it.
If it's a line at the end of the ingredients or something, then I can support that, because the people who care can find out, and the rest of the world doesn't have to be pestered by ideology.
Do they ask the customers if they're willing to pay extra for these things? Generally, no.
Sometimes they do, yes. Haven't you ever heard of a customer satisfaction survey?
When a company cuts costs by reducing customer service quality, and you don't quit their service, then you just voted with your wallet. Of course, you're not the only 'voter,' and in general Americans are not willing to pay for better customer service.
I think that's a big part of the problem with doing a big rewrite: people who wrote lousy code will write lousy code. For most people, it's better off to learn how to fix things than to try to rewrite it perfectly from scratch.
Imagine if firefox had been constantly focused on improving quality all this time. Right now they would have one amazing browser.
Selective breeding is a lot more predictable than directly twiddling genes.
Not really. Selective breeding can end up with some really bizarre things, and has given us poisonous potatoes.
GMOs get a lot more testing before they make it to your dinner table, as well.
The key difference is that in each of the examples where it worked, it was a different team doing the rewrite (and in the case of Phoenix, it wasn't really a rewrite, it was a code cleanup).
The guys at Mozilla have been making lousy decisions for a while now, if they decided to rewrite, do you really think the result would be an improvement, or do you think they would just make the same mistakes?
Slashdot Mirror
I think 99% is an underestimation.
And the rest are busy writing their own OS.
I'm actually waiting for the hackers to have a field day with this;
Then you might be interested in this.
There's an image viewer. There's a taskbar/launcher with icons. Pop up menus. Fonts. Pointer device: check.
Where is the source for those things?
I use the language that has the libraries I need. That doesn't make the language any less brain-dead.
And when Dijkstra said it, he was right.
Indeed, the number of 'unsafe' sections in Redox OS is so high that the claim of memory safety is charming rather than accurate.
It doesn't have a GUI. It's console only. The screenshots are deceptive.
When was the last time your DVD player got an update?
good point
oh yeah, and Python supporters have the same crappy arguments as BASIC supporters did, too.
No, I'm really not.
They haven't released the details yet. Responsible disclosure or something.
Looks like it requires a MITM and only works for intercepting pictures send over iMessage?
That's about all I can see, but I don't trust them until they release a metasploit module.
Have they updated the software recently?
I'm being facetious. They list the GPL as a problem under the section about why most OSs don't get enough contributors. That's clearly vacuous as Linux gets far more contributors than the OSs with "less restrictive" licenses.
Indeed, Linus has cited the GPL as one of the reasons that Linux was successful and got so many contributions.
Maybe Redux will be something interesting. But, as I said, they need to do a lot of work first, and then, maybe, there will be others willing to help out.
Yeah, it's on the list.
The real question is whether they'll use X or Wayland.
Well, most of the time you are right. And then there was Python.
Python is like Fortran: used by datascientists who really don't know what they're doing otherwise.
Python is like BASIC: "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to Python: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration"
Python: the language where syntax errors are invisible.
Well yeah, you know, he actually has color on his single terminal. That's his graphics system. Cool OS (although until five days ago he had scrolling issues. Way to use the language to keep the bugs out).
I'm actually impressed that they still support their device from 2007
I'll tell you it's a really weird feeling to get an email with the subject "Try her lips"
"State law requires us to inform you that this product contains high levels of di-hydrogen monoxide."
Never eat anything you can't pronounce!
've never seen head of lettuce as containing the Nr gene for aphid resistance bred in from the wild species Lactuca serriola. I've never seen a product containing watermelon labeled as containing an artificially produced polyploid, as seedless watermelons are. I've never seen an apple labeled as being a bud sport, a somatic mutant derived form a chance shoot, as many apples in stores are. I've enver seen citrus labeled as having been developed through radiation induced mutagenesis, yet that happens. I've never seen corn be labeled as having been produced via doubled haploid hybridization, yet that is also a thing.
When you say it like that, it sounds kind of scary.
I'm conflicted over this. I agree that the label is intended to stigmatize. But I can't quite see that we shouldn't have them. The people who want the label to be there want it because it's scary sounding and they hope it will dissuade people from buying food that contains GMOs. And those people want to undermine the GMO food industry for a lot of stupid, superstitious, bullshit reasons.
For me, it's entirely how the product is labeled. If it's a giant scary GMO on the front of the product, I don't support that, because the purpose is to scare people away from buying it.
If it's a line at the end of the ingredients or something, then I can support that, because the people who care can find out, and the rest of the world doesn't have to be pestered by ideology.
Do they ask the customers if they're willing to pay extra for these things? Generally, no.
Sometimes they do, yes. Haven't you ever heard of a customer satisfaction survey?
When a company cuts costs by reducing customer service quality, and you don't quit their service, then you just voted with your wallet. Of course, you're not the only 'voter,' and in general Americans are not willing to pay for better customer service.
I think that's a big part of the problem with doing a big rewrite: people who wrote lousy code will write lousy code. For most people, it's better off to learn how to fix things than to try to rewrite it perfectly from scratch.
Imagine if firefox had been constantly focused on improving quality all this time. Right now they would have one amazing browser.
Selective breeding is a lot more predictable than directly twiddling genes.
Not really. Selective breeding can end up with some really bizarre things, and has given us poisonous potatoes.
GMOs get a lot more testing before they make it to your dinner table, as well.
The key difference is that in each of the examples where it worked, it was a different team doing the rewrite (and in the case of Phoenix, it wasn't really a rewrite, it was a code cleanup).
The guys at Mozilla have been making lousy decisions for a while now, if they decided to rewrite, do you really think the result would be an improvement, or do you think they would just make the same mistakes?