The only use I can see for on-line documentation is for small things that don't require a lot of flipping back and forth for. Having to pull up the documentation on the screen just uses up my available screen space, or adds extra steps for me to refer back to the manual.
Give me a well-written book over on-line documentation any day. Something I can refer to when I'm far away from my computer, just planning what I intend to do. Something with a hefty index, and easy-to-find seperations between sections. Something I can mark up, stick bookmarks into, and open immediately to the interesting points by judging the thickness of the part I'm opening. Heck, gimme something I can fling across the room with a satisfying thud when things aren't going right!:)
Of course, most manuals these days aren't very well written. I still keep an old Zenith DOS 3.0 manual because later manuals tended to be incredibly light on content. But I'd rather have a manual for reference rather than on-line docs any day.
And don't even get me started on.pdf files. They're great for giving a layout that can be printed easily, but trying to get information from those slow-loading things is such a pain...
Don't you think commercials -- the real point of television -- are reason enough we should be getting the damn things for free?
Commercials are the reason you get the programming for free. Now they're trying to sell you something that no only advertizes to you, but also keeps track of the best times (for them) to advertize to you, and what to advertize to you about.
My immediate question is, why do they even need to be collecting data from my computer? If someone is smart enough to avoid the server-side logging than they probably won't be caught by scanning the task list.
All a task list scan shows is that a program with a certain name happens to be running. That information is not helpful at all without additional evidence from logging, and if the additional evidence exists than the scan probably isn't needed in the first place.
It makes me very tempted to start regularly running a do-nothing app that shows up as a "problem app" in the task list, just to see what would happen...
Yes, I should have mentioned that... The test server has, all along, maintained a policy that "bad things" can happen (up to and including a complete character wipe if necessary). It has been that way since the game was in beta stage.
I don't have any sympathy for the people who got extremely upset over the changes for that reason. I do think, however, that it would have been funnier if the test server patch message had said something like, "a lot of new enchancements have gone in today that should increase the overall enjoyment and playability of the game! Please check them out and tell us what you think!":)
how hard is it to end the tasks you don't want to be seen before firing up EQ?
Good question. The problem here is that Verant didn't let anyone know they were scanning the task list, or what the scanning was looking for. It's a bit much to expect users to think about every program they have running before starting up any other program.
Any scanning based on program/task names is a hideous choice in this kind of situation. I'm not sure what else they could do, but I am sure that I do not want them doing what they DID do.
"The client simply would examine a small subset of information on your system, none of it containing information personally identifiable to a third party, and only send it to our server in the event that you were "running" an illegal program at the same time you ran EQ." I'm assuming here "illegal program" means a program designed to give a user an advantage over other users in EQ.
You're assuming a good bit there. "illegal program" meant that, if you had the Microsoft debugger running on your system for any reason, the task name was sent to Verant's servers. This was tested by creating a test app (with a sleep loop), running the debugger on it, and watching the Everquest data stream while playing.
Now, granted, you *probably* don't have a reason for running a debugger on your system while you're playing Everquest. This is anything BUT a goof-proof system, however... the very fact that a do-nothing app would trigger the sending of information shows that. And I would rather not have a program scanning every task name I have running and reporting on whatever it sees fit, thankyouverymuch. (even though I DON'T do anything that should be reported)
"marketing materials didn't mention the requirement of purchasing any service or the exclusion of the use of the device for any purpose at the time I placed my order"
Woah, let me get this straight... they have to tell you what you are not able to use the device for?
You never paid for a device that could have a hard drive connected to it. You never paid for a computer that could be used with other ISP services. What you paid for was something that met the advertising claims of Netpliance - an "internet appliance" that could be used with their ISP.
If you're charged for the ISP without connecting to their service (the earlier sales policy didn't charge until you set up the account by connecting), then you could potentially have some case. But since you were never promised the capability of connecting a drive, I'm afraid I don't see any way you could claim that the lack of that capability is fraud.
This thing sounds like what my computer would be if I got around to upgrading my processor. Heck, my dad got something close to it through one of those e-machines deals for free (ISP contract, but he needed an ISP anyways). Why would I want something with the same parts as my computer for only playing games?
And I love the press release: "Microsoft is developing a high-performance, easy-to-use platform that will enable developers to create better games, faster." Why do I feel like I've heard this line before? Couldn't be all those claims in the installation processes of Win95 & 98 ("It really does make your games faster! Promise!")
Found a more comprehensive page on the same subject at this location that is probably where the information I originally remembered came from. And, since this is slipping off topic rather fast, I'll stop there. True or not, the story does have a useful moral.:)
Well, this story is in a lot of college business books, but it's also on a lot of urban myths pages.. for example, here.
I also seem to remember a debunking page that mentioned that "no va" wouldn't be correct Spanish, but that could be faulty memory (my choice in high school was French:)
Is that because the location information is best structured that way, or because people aren't used to structuring it as hypertext (or hyperwhatever, as a node could well not be text...), or because the tools for structuring it in that fashion are inconvenient or unfamiliar?
Well, let's see... On my local computer I have a few different file types, including: Access Databases, MS Word Documents, HTML Documents, Graphics, Assembly source code, C++ source code, a large variety of DOS and Windows executables, many different varieties of archive files, mp3 files, plain text files, Persistence of Vision files, video files, wav files....
Of all of these, "browsing" my computer (in the WWW sense) assists me with only two types of files: graphics, and html. I don't need an integrated web browser for any of the other file types, and it would require extra work on my part to create an html document that would allow an integrated web browser to give me anything extra. If I actually needed a program that could view html documents, it makes more sense (to me.. my own personal opinion, of course:) to open a program that is specifically designed to read and manipulate html.
Mr. Neilson's statement was that it didn't make sense to use a different program on the information simply based on the location. I agree... but I disagree that a web browser is used to look at the same information on remote computers as a local file browser. I do not use files on my local computer the way I use html files on a server, but rather more the way I use an FTP client. The information that a web browser displays, then, is seperated from the information on my local computer by much more than location.
"Fundamentally, it is pretty silly to have a special browser for certain information objects simply because they happen to come from a specific storage location. There is no reason to treat information differently because it comes from the Internet instead of coming from your harddisk."
I've always been curious about this mindset. Generally, information on the internet is in the form of HTML or text files, and any other files need to be copied to a local location before being usable (Causing a long wait time, breaking any illusions of transparency). Internet files are also generally organized by someone who has an eye towards both navigation and graphical prettiness. The majority of the information is contained in the connections between various files, allowing for quick movements to different spots (in well-designed sites, of course)
Local files, on the other hand, are created using many different types of programs, and require a seperate application to view more often than web information does. Local information is being created by a single user for specialized use, with little view towards the overall structure of the filesystem. Information is usually contained within single files, with little relation to other files other than basic categories in directories.
Why, then, is there this idea that the same tool should be used for both types of information? I typically use a web browser for viewing HTML files: it lets me click the links that someone else has set up to ease my movement, applies the format the web author created, and gives me an interface for the time-consuming file download. Why should this be integrated with the program I use to navigate a directory tree of files that do not have links, lack an html format, and do not need to be downloaded from an incredibly slow resource to be used? And, what kind of justification is there for NOT splitting up access of a resource with millisecond responses from one with responses that can range all the way to hours?
Beats me... I actually expected to be moderated down for mine, since it's skirting the edges of being a flame. Maybe someone read the first part of your post and thought he was in the Netscape release article?
Oh well, that's the problem with moderation... it lets the 'general public' police itself, but it also lets the 'general public' police itself. At least it doesn't have a permanent effect...
I apologize. Slashdot is sorry that it posted something that didn't interest you, personally. If you would please post your personal preferences, Slashdot will be happy to restrict all future articles to only such things that are entirely within your personal definition of "news for nerds", and "stuff that matters".
Err.. what's that you say? I'm not qualified to speak for Slashdot? Odd... but I suppose you're qualified to speak for all the 'nerds' who DO believe this story is "stuff that matters" (including the nerds who run this site), huh?
All sarcasm aside, does one article about censorship of a South Park song among the technical and philosophical stories that have been posted today really qualify Slashdot for the jab of "Southparkdot"?
'Nerds' have notoriously varied preferences (check the Jargon file for a good description), and Slashdot does a fairly good job of catering to the most prevelant of those preferences (aside from Jon Katz, of course:). After all, someone must have been interested in the story to have submitted it.
Um, if you'd read my post, you would have seen that I stated that IE5 was fairly stable on one of my computers (and I forgot to mention, Netscape crashes that computer every time I try it.. not immediately, but at some time after netscape is started the computer will definately crash).
On the other hand, Netscape is completely stable on my other computer, and IE5 isn't. There's no "windows newbie" about it, no "lost credibility"... Netscape is stable, IE isn't, on this particular computer.
So basically, I pointed out a case where what you said was correct, and a case where it isn't. Which proves that what you said, while correct in some cases, is incorrect in other cases. If IE's crashes on the one machine are caused by my mucking up the configuration (it's not) then the mucked-up config should also crash Netscape and all the other programs I use regularly on that computer.
Lovely suggestion. Glad it works fine for you. Unfortunately, I don't much care, unless you're offering me the use of your computer. If that's the case, get in touch with me and I'll give you details for shipping it to me...
Before IE5, IE was known to crash once or twice too.
Gee, IE must be wonderful, huh?
I'll admit, IE5 seems fairly stable on my Win95 box here.. though I have had it crash a few times.
On my Win98 computer at home, however... I use Netscape 4.7. Haven't had a single crash in it. Whenever I end up trying to use Explorer to browse, on the other hand, chances are things are gonna go down fast (and bring the whole computer crashing to a halt).
Doggoneit, everything up to M10 worked all right on my (Win95) system. Only problem was that underlines on buttons had a tendancy to extend past the text that was underlined (in some cases past the buttons).
But both M12 and M13 absolutely refuse to run on my system. This most recent release displays an error message about loading prefwind.dll on the console display, and then crashes as soon as the "next" button is pushed in the "create new user" window (exception 10H in MSVCRT.DLL).
Anyone have any ideas? I ran the installer like the release notes said (to update the DLLs), and it hasn't made any difference. I would really like to be able to get away from using IE on this system (and not because of any zealotry, I just don't like the way IE works).
Read my post... I said that the GPL *does* have to do with freedom, just not the kind of freedom that he was talking about. GPL is free code, not free people coding.
Perhaps the problem here is that you're confusing your own, personal freedom with a more general freedom.
In other words, the code is free.. not you. You're free to do whatever you want with the code, as long as you do not do something that infringes on the freedom of the code.
And yes, it does seem silly saying the code has freedom. But the general principle works, despite the odd phraseology. If you don't agree with it, no one is forcing you to use the code that is GPL'd... go write your own code from scratch so you can have control over it, and leave the free code alone.
And watch some little fascist moderate this down....
I could have moderated this down, but I decided the moderation wouldn't be quite descriptive enough. So, instead, I'm going to give a descriptive reply and let someone else moderate if they see fit.
Here's the reason I would have moderated your post down: It is flamebait. The problem is not in what you said, but rather the way you said it. Even though I am not a "Linux meathead" (I don't even completely consider myself a Linux user yet) I still saw what you said as insulting.
Next time, try being a bit more polite in what you say, and you won't have to worry about "little fascist" moderators. Insults are what lead to negative moderation.
I don't think I've ever seen so much information about the differences between BSD and Linux before. Some I've seen before, but that looks like a very comprehensive list without the usual biases (one way or the other). Thank you very much, I've been looking for something like that for ages!:)
Slashdot Mirror
The only use I can see for on-line documentation is for small things that don't require a lot of flipping back and forth for. Having to pull up the documentation on the screen just uses up my available screen space, or adds extra steps for me to refer back to the manual.
:)
.pdf files. They're great for giving a layout that can be printed easily, but trying to get information from those slow-loading things is such a pain...
Give me a well-written book over on-line documentation any day. Something I can refer to when I'm far away from my computer, just planning what I intend to do. Something with a hefty index, and easy-to-find seperations between sections. Something I can mark up, stick bookmarks into, and open immediately to the interesting points by judging the thickness of the part I'm opening. Heck, gimme something I can fling across the room with a satisfying thud when things aren't going right!
Of course, most manuals these days aren't very well written. I still keep an old Zenith DOS 3.0 manual because later manuals tended to be incredibly light on content. But I'd rather have a manual for reference rather than on-line docs any day.
And don't even get me started on
Don't you think commercials -- the real point of television -- are reason enough we should be getting the damn things for free?
Commercials are the reason you get the programming for free. Now they're trying to sell you something that no only advertizes to you, but also keeps track of the best times (for them) to advertize to you, and what to advertize to you about.
Yes, I know about this.
My immediate question is, why do they even need to be collecting data from my computer? If someone is smart enough to avoid the server-side logging than they probably won't be caught by scanning the task list.
All a task list scan shows is that a program with a certain name happens to be running. That information is not helpful at all without additional evidence from logging, and if the additional evidence exists than the scan probably isn't needed in the first place.
It makes me very tempted to start regularly running a do-nothing app that shows up as a "problem app" in the task list, just to see what would happen...
Yeah, I'm not impressed by the whines about the joke either. I was just pointing out that the april fools thing had nothing to do with hackers.
Yes, I should have mentioned that... The test server has, all along, maintained a policy that "bad things" can happen (up to and including a complete character wipe if necessary). It has been that way since the game was in beta stage.
:)
I don't have any sympathy for the people who got extremely upset over the changes for that reason. I do think, however, that it would have been funnier if the test server patch message had said something like, "a lot of new enchancements have gone in today that should increase the overall enjoyment and playability of the game! Please check them out and tell us what you think!"
how hard is it to end the tasks you don't want to be seen before firing up EQ?
Good question. The problem here is that Verant didn't let anyone know they were scanning the task list, or what the scanning was looking for. It's a bit much to expect users to think about every program they have running before starting up any other program.
Any scanning based on program/task names is a hideous choice in this kind of situation. I'm not sure what else they could do, but I am sure that I do not want them doing what they DID do.
"The client simply would examine a small subset of information on your system, none of it containing information personally identifiable to a third party, and only send it to our server in the event that you were "running" an illegal program at the same time you ran EQ." I'm assuming here "illegal program" means a program designed to give a user an advantage over other users in EQ.
You're assuming a good bit there. "illegal program" meant that, if you had the Microsoft debugger running on your system for any reason, the task name was sent to Verant's servers. This was tested by creating a test app (with a sleep loop), running the debugger on it, and watching the Everquest data stream while playing.
Now, granted, you *probably* don't have a reason for running a debugger on your system while you're playing Everquest. This is anything BUT a goof-proof system, however... the very fact that a do-nothing app would trigger the sending of information shows that. And I would rather not have a program scanning every task name I have running and reporting on whatever it sees fit, thankyouverymuch. (even though I DON'T do anything that should be reported)
Sorry, you're a bit wrong on that. The changes actually effected people in-game: spells took longer to cast, heals didn't heal as much, and so forth.
It wasn't just the *evil, nasty hackers* that were hit by the "april fools joke". Anyone who played on the test server was hit.
"marketing materials didn't mention the requirement of purchasing any service or the exclusion of the use of the device for any purpose at the time I placed my order"
Woah, let me get this straight... they have to tell you what you are not able to use the device for?
You never paid for a device that could have a hard drive connected to it. You never paid for a computer that could be used with other ISP services. What you paid for was something that met the advertising claims of Netpliance - an "internet appliance" that could be used with their ISP.
If you're charged for the ISP without connecting to their service (the earlier sales policy didn't charge until you set up the account by connecting), then you could potentially have some case. But since you were never promised the capability of connecting a drive, I'm afraid I don't see any way you could claim that the lack of that capability is fraud.
This thing sounds like what my computer would be if I got around to upgrading my processor. Heck, my dad got something close to it through one of those e-machines deals for free (ISP contract, but he needed an ISP anyways). Why would I want something with the same parts as my computer for only playing games?
And I love the press release: "Microsoft is developing a high-performance, easy-to-use platform that will enable developers to create better games, faster." Why do I feel like I've heard this line before? Couldn't be all those claims in the installation processes of Win95 & 98 ("It really does make your games faster! Promise!")
Truth or fiction? The world may never know. :)
:)
Found a more comprehensive page on the same subject at this location that is probably where the information I originally remembered came from. And, since this is slipping off topic rather fast, I'll stop there. True or not, the story does have a useful moral.
Well, this story is in a lot of college business books, but it's also on a lot of urban myths pages.. for example, here.
:)
I also seem to remember a debunking page that mentioned that "no va" wouldn't be correct Spanish, but that could be faulty memory (my choice in high school was French
Is that because the location information is best structured that way, or because people aren't used to structuring it as hypertext (or hyperwhatever, as a node could well not be text...), or because the tools for structuring it in that fashion are inconvenient or unfamiliar?
:) to open a program that is specifically designed to read and manipulate html.
Well, let's see... On my local computer I have a few different file types, including: Access Databases, MS Word Documents, HTML Documents, Graphics, Assembly source code, C++ source code, a large variety of DOS and Windows executables, many different varieties of archive files, mp3 files, plain text files, Persistence of Vision files, video files, wav files....
Of all of these, "browsing" my computer (in the WWW sense) assists me with only two types of files: graphics, and html. I don't need an integrated web browser for any of the other file types, and it would require extra work on my part to create an html document that would allow an integrated web browser to give me anything extra. If I actually needed a program that could view html documents, it makes more sense (to me.. my own personal opinion, of course
Mr. Neilson's statement was that it didn't make sense to use a different program on the information simply based on the location. I agree... but I disagree that a web browser is used to look at the same information on remote computers as a local file browser. I do not use files on my local computer the way I use html files on a server, but rather more the way I use an FTP client. The information that a web browser displays, then, is seperated from the information on my local computer by much more than location.
In the article The Internet Desktop, Nielsen states:
"Fundamentally, it is pretty silly to have a special browser for certain information objects simply because they happen to come from a specific storage location. There is no reason to treat information differently because it comes from the Internet instead of coming from your harddisk."
I've always been curious about this mindset. Generally, information on the internet is in the form of HTML or text files, and any other files need to be copied to a local location before being usable (Causing a long wait time, breaking any illusions of transparency). Internet files are also generally organized by someone who has an eye towards both navigation and graphical prettiness. The majority of the information is contained in the connections between various files, allowing for quick movements to different spots (in well-designed sites, of course)
Local files, on the other hand, are created using many different types of programs, and require a seperate application to view more often than web information does. Local information is being created by a single user for specialized use, with little view towards the overall structure of the filesystem. Information is usually contained within single files, with little relation to other files other than basic categories in directories.
Why, then, is there this idea that the same tool should be used for both types of information? I typically use a web browser for viewing HTML files: it lets me click the links that someone else has set up to ease my movement, applies the format the web author created, and gives me an interface for the time-consuming file download. Why should this be integrated with the program I use to navigate a directory tree of files that do not have links, lack an html format, and do not need to be downloaded from an incredibly slow resource to be used? And, what kind of justification is there for NOT splitting up access of a resource with millisecond responses from one with responses that can range all the way to hours?
Beats me... I actually expected to be moderated down for mine, since it's skirting the edges of being a flame. Maybe someone read the first part of your post and thought he was in the Netscape release article?
Oh well, that's the problem with moderation... it lets the 'general public' police itself, but it also lets the 'general public' police itself. At least it doesn't have a permanent effect...
I apologize. Slashdot is sorry that it posted something that didn't interest you, personally. If you would please post your personal preferences, Slashdot will be happy to restrict all future articles to only such things that are entirely within your personal definition of "news for nerds", and "stuff that matters".
:). After all, someone must have been interested in the story to have submitted it.
Err.. what's that you say? I'm not qualified to speak for Slashdot? Odd... but I suppose you're qualified to speak for all the 'nerds' who DO believe this story is "stuff that matters" (including the nerds who run this site), huh?
All sarcasm aside, does one article about censorship of a South Park song among the technical and philosophical stories that have been posted today really qualify Slashdot for the jab of "Southparkdot"?
'Nerds' have notoriously varied preferences (check the Jargon file for a good description), and Slashdot does a fairly good job of catering to the most prevelant of those preferences (aside from Jon Katz, of course
Um, if you'd read my post, you would have seen that I stated that IE5 was fairly stable on one of my computers (and I forgot to mention, Netscape crashes that computer every time I try it.. not immediately, but at some time after netscape is started the computer will definately crash).
On the other hand, Netscape is completely stable on my other computer, and IE5 isn't. There's no "windows newbie" about it, no "lost credibility"... Netscape is stable, IE isn't, on this particular computer.
So basically, I pointed out a case where what you said was correct, and a case where it isn't. Which proves that what you said, while correct in some cases, is incorrect in other cases. If IE's crashes on the one machine are caused by my mucking up the configuration (it's not) then the mucked-up config should also crash Netscape and all the other programs I use regularly on that computer.
Lovely suggestion. Glad it works fine for you. Unfortunately, I don't much care, unless you're offering me the use of your computer. If that's the case, get in touch with me and I'll give you details for shipping it to me...
Ok, ok, please stop! My co-workers are looking at me funny, and I almost sprayed coke all over my monitor!
:)
;-)
Gad, that's hilarious... Very well done, Mr. Anonymous. I haven't seen so much believable BS in a long time.
(You are joking, right?
Before IE5, IE was known to crash once or twice too.
Gee, IE must be wonderful, huh?
I'll admit, IE5 seems fairly stable on my Win95 box here.. though I have had it crash a few times.
On my Win98 computer at home, however... I use Netscape 4.7. Haven't had a single crash in it. Whenever I end up trying to use Explorer to browse, on the other hand, chances are things are gonna go down fast (and bring the whole computer crashing to a halt).
Doggoneit, everything up to M10 worked all right on my (Win95) system. Only problem was that underlines on buttons had a tendancy to extend past the text that was underlined (in some cases past the buttons).
But both M12 and M13 absolutely refuse to run on my system. This most recent release displays an error message about loading prefwind.dll on the console display, and then crashes as soon as the "next" button is pushed in the "create new user" window (exception 10H in MSVCRT.DLL).
Anyone have any ideas? I ran the installer like the release notes said (to update the DLLs), and it hasn't made any difference. I would really like to be able to get away from using IE on this system (and not because of any zealotry, I just don't like the way IE works).
Read my post... I said that the GPL *does* have to do with freedom, just not the kind of freedom that he was talking about. GPL is free code, not free people coding.
Perhaps the problem here is that you're confusing your own, personal freedom with a more general freedom.
In other words, the code is free.. not you. You're free to do whatever you want with the code, as long as you do not do something that infringes on the freedom of the code.
And yes, it does seem silly saying the code has freedom. But the general principle works, despite the odd phraseology. If you don't agree with it, no one is forcing you to use the code that is GPL'd... go write your own code from scratch so you can have control over it, and leave the free code alone.
And watch some little fascist moderate this down....
I could have moderated this down, but I decided the moderation wouldn't be quite descriptive enough. So, instead, I'm going to give a descriptive reply and let someone else moderate if they see fit.
Here's the reason I would have moderated your post down: It is flamebait. The problem is not in what you said, but rather the way you said it. Even though I am not a "Linux meathead" (I don't even completely consider myself a Linux user yet) I still saw what you said as insulting.
Next time, try being a bit more polite in what you say, and you won't have to worry about "little fascist" moderators. Insults are what lead to negative moderation.
I don't think I've ever seen so much information about the differences between BSD and Linux before. Some I've seen before, but that looks like a very comprehensive list without the usual biases (one way or the other). Thank you very much, I've been looking for something like that for ages! :)