I got swamped by invites from facebook when several of my friends gave it access to their address books.
You think that's bad? I'm a member of a mailing list doing community support for my favorite Linux distro. Within the last month, two different twits signed up for some social networking site I'd never heard of (a different one each time, naturally) and without thinking gave the site complete access to their address book. How do I know? I know because each site sent an invite to the list using said twit's email address. Now, multiply that by the number of mailing lists each twit was on and see how many people that added up to.
I spent my time doing tech support for an ISP too. Not just helldesk, senior level. In our case, if you had a LAN, you had to be willing to hook one machine up to the modem without the router and see if it could connect; if it did, it's the router and unless we supplied it we weren't responsible. Not everybody liked it, but we were up front about it and didn't make exceptions for anybody.
I, OTOH, went to XFCE. As you say, it took a little getting used to, but I've no regrets. Much faster, less of a resource hog and it lets me do things the way I like, not like some ivory-tower dev thinks I like to do things.
I know you're joking, but things like that have happened before, and I'm sure they'll happen again. As an example, back when Microsoft brought out IE 5, Earthlink's connection software jumped from Total Access 2 all the way to Total Access 5. I'm sure the marketdroids were highly impressed, but nobody else was, especially tech support.
Isnt every network exposed to the public (esp. mid size or larger commercial ones) continously under attempted attack?
Yes, of course they are. However, there are examples of SQL injection attacks going back to November, 2005. There's no excuse for a company as big as Sony to be vulnerable to them almost five years later.
If I need to run more than one command as root, I just use su or, if I need all of root's environment, su -. Of course, it helps that I'd ran Linux as a secondary OS for about eight years, and I've been running it as my primary OS ever since Fedora 9 came out, and I've learned how to be very careful as root. As an example, I never delete anything as root until after I've used ls with the same argument to see exactly what I'm going to delete and I've kept the default root alias for rm: rm -i. This gives me a second safety net because I have to confirm each and every file deleted.
As far as "seeing it as an alternative to su," it's not that I see it that way, it's that most people use it that way and personally, I see no reason for using it that way.
Sudo for instance is not nearly as strong as UAC in many regards, especially if you have the timeout configured.
Which is why I don't use it on my Fedora box. I've given out accounts on my home box to a few friends, so they can do network trouble-shooting (pings and traceroutes) over a different ISP and/or backbone segment. None of them have the root password. When I need to do something that requires escalated privileges, I use su for multiple commands or su -c for a single command. The only reason I'd ever use sudo if I had the root password is if I were working someplace that made that company policy. (Yes, I've heard of places like that.) At home, it's my box, my rules and my rules include "no using sudo."
I use Linux so I clicked on your link to see what happened. Firefox gave me an error message because it didn't have an application linked to apt. Of course, I use Fedora, which doesn't use apt-get. Just another example of how, in the Linux world, there's not One True Way to do things. (FYI, in Fedora the equivalent is yum.)
If what you write were true, geeks would still be using punched cards or paper tape. As an example, I learned how to use computers in an "80 column wold" but now I use Linux and XFCE. Until recently I used Gnome, but I didn't like the way the devs took almost all of the user configuration away from the new Gnome Shell so I migrated to something that I can still set up to work the way I want not the way somebody else thinks I should want it.
If I were still using Windows, I think that that's one of the things I'd like least about the newer versions of Windows: the One Size Fits All GUI that doesn't let you set things up the way you want them or allow you to enable the new features one-by-one as you get used to them or disable them again if you find you don't like them. Never mind all of the FOSS arguments for using Linux, the ability to customize your computer and switch from one DE to another if you don't like the way one works is the main reason I switched and each time I read about the latest version of Windows I get happier with Linux. That's not to say that everybody should switch, mind you; if you're happy with Windows and you like the way it works, by all means keep using it; just don't ask me to join you.
But really, you want the desktop to fade away so you can focus on whatever productivity you're working on.
No I don't. Unlike some people, I almost never maximize a window because I like having access to my desktop even when I'm working and I don't want to have to minimize the current window or switch to another desktop to get it. Right now, I'm working in Firefox but I have several desktop tools visible, along with roughly half of my icons and the panel down at the bottom. (Unlike many Linux users I don't bother with a top panel.) If I needed to check something in a terminal all I'd have to do is right-click on the desktop and select Terminal from the menu, no need to go to the main menu. I've been working this way, both in Linux and Windows, for over fifteen years, after I finally made the switch from a CLI only box to a GUI.
You say that you're asking me to try something different, and I am, I assure you. I'm trying XFCE.
If it helps, I'm going with XFCE. One of the things I like is the fact that one of the core developers is a regular on their help forum, giving us a window into what the devs are thinking.
I'll admit that I only skimmed the post about configuring it, but I read all of your review. The impression I got was that the things you most like about it were the things I dislike. To me, that means that you're part of the target audience for Gnome 3 and I'm not.
One thing I've not seen explained, BTW, that you refer to: why did the Gnome devs decide that the one and only place that people wanted the panel to be is at the top? Why did they decide that it shouldn't be able to move it? I'm sure they had a reason, but I honestly can't imagine what it could possibly have been. Do you know?
No, I didn't know that those things were configurable. In fact, all of the things I've been reading about it make it sound as though most (if not all) of the things I don't like are mandatory and can't be removed or changed. Thank you.
Let me ask you this: can I configure the Gnome Shell so that there's only one panel, at the bottom, not the top, and so that the activities overlay doesn't come up at all? Can I tell it to put back my desktop icons? Because that's a small part of what I want, and that I'm getting the impression that the Gnome Shell won't give you. Again, let me repeat that I'm not saying that the Gnome Shell is bad, just that almost everything I've read about it makes it sound like something I personally wouldn't want to use.
Re:How To Tweak GNOME 3
on
GNOME 3 Released
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To summarize my latter post, I love how GNOME 3 "puts me in the driver's seat".
That's not what I see in your review. What I see is a new interface that's designed with the assumption that there's One True Way to configure a desktop and that there's no reason to let mere users decide for themselves how they want things to work. As an example, that "feature" of showing the desktop when you move the mouse to the top right corner of the desktop is the first thing I got rid of when I started using Compiz because I personally find it obnoxious and repellent. If this is how you want your desktop to look and work, enjoy the new Gnome. Personally, I'm in the process of abandoning Gnome altogether and moving both my laptop and desktop to XFCE.
That, I might add, is one of the reasons I use Linux, not Windows: when Microsoft comes out with a new "look and feel" for Windows, you have no choice but to learn how to use it; with Linux, if you don't like one DE, you're free to try a different one.
FORTRAN was designed BEFORE the compiler was invented, meaning it was never meant to be used as what we would call a programming language.
Wrong. Although the draft specification for FORTRAN came out before there were any compilers, the original version for the IBM 704 wasn't finalized until the compiler was. The computer language you're probably thinking of was Pascal, which wasn't intended to be implemented. And, FORTRAN today is a much different language than it was back then, with constructs, features and statements that the original designers never dreamed of. FORTRAN is still a great language for doing math, especially if you need/want your program to be as optimized as possible, such as for real world applications, partially because of the decades of experience in optimization that have gone into the current compilers.
It could have been that the un-collapsed section is in fact filled full of derbies.
That in and of itself is a great reason to go there. Just think: one of those derbies might be the legendary Kirward Derby. If so, whoever wears it could easily figure out how to solve all the world's problems, including paying for the trip.
The problem is that if you don't respond and add them to an ignore list, they end up with free reign to say anything they like.
Well, yes, but who cares? I don't because once I've added him to my ignore list I'm not going to see his blather, am I? And, if everybody else in the channel does the same he'll just be a voice, shouting in the wilderness with nobody listening. Works for me!
TFS says that the meteorite is "rich in ammonia and contains the element nitrogen." Considering that the chemical formula for ammonia is NH3, it's hard to see how it could possibly not contain nitrogen.
They don't care how much time it wastes so long as it's MY time, not theirs.
There are two things I think you're missing here. First, it's part of your job to restore files from backup when needed, either because they got corrupted or because they got deleted when they shouldn't have. That means that any time spent restoring them is time spent doing your job, even if it's not the part of the job you wanted to be doing. Second, if those files are really that important, whoever deleted them can't get any work done with them until you've restored them, so yours isn't the only time being wasted. And really, come to think of it, once you get the restore started you can go off and do something else until it's done, so less of your time is used than that of the user, which seems fair to me.
If the purpose of the jury is to ratify the decision of the judge...
Well, I guess it must be your lucky day, because that's not the jury's job. The judge is expected to make rulings on the law, but the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts of the case. And, AIUI, cases aren't appealed on the facts but on claims that there were mistakes made in applying the law, such as the judge overruling objections that should have been sustained, peremptory challenges used to create (instead of avoid) bias or other similar errors. One of the reasons why appeals rarely, if ever, deal with the facts is that the appellate court only has the written record to work on and can't watch the witnesses as they testify. That means that they have no way of judging how trustworthy they were. Of course, IANAL, so take the above with as big a grain of salt as you want.
There's a much better, easier way to deal with these insensitive fanatics, one that doesn't run foul of the law. Simply picket their church, every Sunday, during services. Make it loud, make it hard for them to hear themselves and, if possible, make it impossible for them to reach the building because of the crowds. Let them see what it's like from the other side and watch them call for the police to arrest the picketers because to people like them, Freedom of Speech only means freedom tor them to speak, not for their opponents.
Slashdot Mirror
You think that's bad? I'm a member of a mailing list doing community support for my favorite Linux distro. Within the last month, two different twits signed up for some social networking site I'd never heard of (a different one each time, naturally) and without thinking gave the site complete access to their address book. How do I know? I know because each site sent an invite to the list using said twit's email address. Now, multiply that by the number of mailing lists each twit was on and see how many people that added up to.
I spent my time doing tech support for an ISP too. Not just helldesk, senior level. In our case, if you had a LAN, you had to be willing to hook one machine up to the modem without the router and see if it could connect; if it did, it's the router and unless we supplied it we weren't responsible. Not everybody liked it, but we were up front about it and didn't make exceptions for anybody.
I, OTOH, went to XFCE. As you say, it took a little getting used to, but I've no regrets. Much faster, less of a resource hog and it lets me do things the way I like, not like some ivory-tower dev thinks I like to do things.
You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot where people routinely comment about things they know nothing about.
I know you're joking, but things like that have happened before, and I'm sure they'll happen again. As an example, back when Microsoft brought out IE 5, Earthlink's connection software jumped from Total Access 2 all the way to Total Access 5. I'm sure the marketdroids were highly impressed, but nobody else was, especially tech support.
Brain fart.
Yes, of course they are. However, there are examples of SQL injection attacks going back to November, 2005. There's no excuse for a company as big as Sony to be vulnerable to them almost five years later.
As far as "seeing it as an alternative to su," it's not that I see it that way, it's that most people use it that way and personally, I see no reason for using it that way.
Which is why I don't use it on my Fedora box. I've given out accounts on my home box to a few friends, so they can do network trouble-shooting (pings and traceroutes) over a different ISP and/or backbone segment. None of them have the root password. When I need to do something that requires escalated privileges, I use su for multiple commands or su -c for a single command. The only reason I'd ever use sudo if I had the root password is if I were working someplace that made that company policy. (Yes, I've heard of places like that.) At home, it's my box, my rules and my rules include "no using sudo."
I use Linux so I clicked on your link to see what happened. Firefox gave me an error message because it didn't have an application linked to apt. Of course, I use Fedora, which doesn't use apt-get. Just another example of how, in the Linux world, there's not One True Way to do things. (FYI, in Fedora the equivalent is yum.)
If I were still using Windows, I think that that's one of the things I'd like least about the newer versions of Windows: the One Size Fits All GUI that doesn't let you set things up the way you want them or allow you to enable the new features one-by-one as you get used to them or disable them again if you find you don't like them. Never mind all of the FOSS arguments for using Linux, the ability to customize your computer and switch from one DE to another if you don't like the way one works is the main reason I switched and each time I read about the latest version of Windows I get happier with Linux. That's not to say that everybody should switch, mind you; if you're happy with Windows and you like the way it works, by all means keep using it; just don't ask me to join you.
No I don't. Unlike some people, I almost never maximize a window because I like having access to my desktop even when I'm working and I don't want to have to minimize the current window or switch to another desktop to get it. Right now, I'm working in Firefox but I have several desktop tools visible, along with roughly half of my icons and the panel down at the bottom. (Unlike many Linux users I don't bother with a top panel.) If I needed to check something in a terminal all I'd have to do is right-click on the desktop and select Terminal from the menu, no need to go to the main menu. I've been working this way, both in Linux and Windows, for over fifteen years, after I finally made the switch from a CLI only box to a GUI.
You say that you're asking me to try something different, and I am, I assure you. I'm trying XFCE.
If it helps, I'm going with XFCE. One of the things I like is the fact that one of the core developers is a regular on their help forum, giving us a window into what the devs are thinking.
One thing I've not seen explained, BTW, that you refer to: why did the Gnome devs decide that the one and only place that people wanted the panel to be is at the top? Why did they decide that it shouldn't be able to move it? I'm sure they had a reason, but I honestly can't imagine what it could possibly have been. Do you know?
Let me ask you this: can I configure the Gnome Shell so that there's only one panel, at the bottom, not the top, and so that the activities overlay doesn't come up at all? Can I tell it to put back my desktop icons? Because that's a small part of what I want, and that I'm getting the impression that the Gnome Shell won't give you. Again, let me repeat that I'm not saying that the Gnome Shell is bad, just that almost everything I've read about it makes it sound like something I personally wouldn't want to use.
That's not what I see in your review. What I see is a new interface that's designed with the assumption that there's One True Way to configure a desktop and that there's no reason to let mere users decide for themselves how they want things to work. As an example, that "feature" of showing the desktop when you move the mouse to the top right corner of the desktop is the first thing I got rid of when I started using Compiz because I personally find it obnoxious and repellent. If this is how you want your desktop to look and work, enjoy the new Gnome. Personally, I'm in the process of abandoning Gnome altogether and moving both my laptop and desktop to XFCE.
That, I might add, is one of the reasons I use Linux, not Windows: when Microsoft comes out with a new "look and feel" for Windows, you have no choice but to learn how to use it; with Linux, if you don't like one DE, you're free to try a different one.
Wrong. Although the draft specification for FORTRAN came out before there were any compilers, the original version for the IBM 704 wasn't finalized until the compiler was. The computer language you're probably thinking of was Pascal, which wasn't intended to be implemented. And, FORTRAN today is a much different language than it was back then, with constructs, features and statements that the original designers never dreamed of. FORTRAN is still a great language for doing math, especially if you need/want your program to be as optimized as possible, such as for real world applications, partially because of the decades of experience in optimization that have gone into the current compilers.
If you're so unimportant, why does Google come up with so many pages of results for your name?
That in and of itself is a great reason to go there. Just think: one of those derbies might be the legendary Kirward Derby. If so, whoever wears it could easily figure out how to solve all the world's problems, including paying for the trip.
Well, yes, but who cares? I don't because once I've added him to my ignore list I'm not going to see his blather, am I? And, if everybody else in the channel does the same he'll just be a voice, shouting in the wilderness with nobody listening. Works for me!
TFS says that the meteorite is "rich in ammonia and contains the element nitrogen." Considering that the chemical formula for ammonia is NH3, it's hard to see how it could possibly not contain nitrogen.
There are two things I think you're missing here. First, it's part of your job to restore files from backup when needed, either because they got corrupted or because they got deleted when they shouldn't have. That means that any time spent restoring them is time spent doing your job, even if it's not the part of the job you wanted to be doing. Second, if those files are really that important, whoever deleted them can't get any work done with them until you've restored them, so yours isn't the only time being wasted. And really, come to think of it, once you get the restore started you can go off and do something else until it's done, so less of your time is used than that of the user, which seems fair to me.
Well, I guess it must be your lucky day, because that's not the jury's job. The judge is expected to make rulings on the law, but the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts of the case. And, AIUI, cases aren't appealed on the facts but on claims that there were mistakes made in applying the law, such as the judge overruling objections that should have been sustained, peremptory challenges used to create (instead of avoid) bias or other similar errors. One of the reasons why appeals rarely, if ever, deal with the facts is that the appellate court only has the written record to work on and can't watch the witnesses as they testify. That means that they have no way of judging how trustworthy they were. Of course, IANAL, so take the above with as big a grain of salt as you want.
There's a much better, easier way to deal with these insensitive fanatics, one that doesn't run foul of the law. Simply picket their church, every Sunday, during services. Make it loud, make it hard for them to hear themselves and, if possible, make it impossible for them to reach the building because of the crowds. Let them see what it's like from the other side and watch them call for the police to arrest the picketers because to people like them, Freedom of Speech only means freedom tor them to speak, not for their opponents.
Correction: everybody else wins.