I don't have one. So I asked yours. He said he didn't have time to answer because he was on the way out the door to pick up his nephew for a special evening together.
Bullshit! Getting crap code into a project is very difficult to do, and when found, gets excised ASAP. With twenty thousand projects at SourceForge, you can find some maintainer with an ego so small he will accept any and all submissions. But it's rare.
Write some crap code and try to get it accepted by linux, freebsd, apache, cvs, mozilla, konqueror, openoffice, abiword, gnome, kde, etc, and you will *fail*.
Of course, your definition of "crap" is going to be different than everyone else's, but no objective evaluation of the project is going to uphold your assertion.
The good part of OSS is that you can get a patch the same day without QA, --OR-- wait for a tested version.
No one is forcing anyone to use untested patches. But for some exploits, being able to apply an untested patch within hours is magnitudes better than waiting a week for adequate testing. Sometimes you want duct tape.
a small firm that runs linux is insufficiently l337 to take an interest in SCO's antics?
Frankly, no one outside of Slashdot takes any interest in SCO's antics. Small firms are too busy trying to stay in the black to pay attention to this cheesy soap opera.
Brandybuck's Law states "the collective intelligence of an organization is inversely proportional to its size". This is why SCO is selectively excluding the small firms from its licensing demands, because they're too smart to fall for the con.
Re:What's soo bad about games.slashdot.com?
on
ALA 3 Goes Online
·
· Score: 1
That's because the cone cells in your eyes severly mutilated five seconds after your first visit there. That's why the Games scheme looks "pretty slick", but everything else is in washed out sepia tones. I recommend a month of complete sensory deprivation treatment.
Re:Are you fsking kidding me?
on
ALA 3 Goes Online
·
· Score: 2, Funny
On the other hand, not all users are going to be apt to do this and it's a courtesy to have the default behavior be the most readable on the most screens.
Dear 12" monitor owner,
I am sorry to hear that my use of a 933 pixel wide is causing you some distress. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to correct your problem. You see, our master web designers at www.aripapart.com have told us that the minor inconveniences of 21" monitor owners far outweigh the fundamental usability needs of 12" monitor owners. May I suggest you 'get with the program' and buy the 17" PowerBook and toss out that 12" iBook?
Sincerely,
R. J. Noyed
"This site best viewed with a maximized browser window"
Perhaps you haven't considered that the water flowing through the pipes of your neighborhood and home isn't the purest and/or tastiest water available.
It depends on where you live. Where I grew up in the rural boondocks we had the best tasting water. Drinking out of bottled water was just unheard of. Now days my water is pretty good, and I still drink it from the tap. But everyone around me grew up in the city with bad water, and thinks I'm crazy for doing so.
If you take the water analogy to be accurate, then anyone growing up with free music downloads won't both buying music later on in life (if they avoid the crappy stuff P2P specializes in). But a better analogy might be soft drinks. 95% water, with added sugar and food coloring. People buy soft drinks. People will also buy music if it has that extra value added, even if they grew up with free downloads.
So music companies need to make sure what they release is of the highest quality from front to back. When they release albumns that have only one good song, mixed badly, then of course people will prefer the download. But when the entire albumn is full of well mixed good songs that people will want to listen to over and over, then they'll buy it.
To reverse the analogy, people won't buy bottled water if it tastes just as bad as tap water.
After the 2000 Florida election, all of Slashdot was clamoring for electronic voting. Or at least it sounded that way. "It's so simple even a geek could use it," they said. "We need to move into the 21st century," they said. But the latest Slashdot meme seems to be that electronic voting is bad. Go make up your minds!
I had a noisy Athlon 1.33GHz and never noticed it. Then they gave me a new Dell GX240 at work. The new Dell's are extremely quiet. Suddenly that Athlon was too noisy to endure.
So my last system was designed to be quiet. I got an Antac Sonata case, Seagate drives, p4 not Athlon, and a video card without a fan. Now I can hear my oggs! There's actually music behind the vocals!
My brother, who owns Alienware, was sincerely impressed by its lack of noise. Usually he wants to run all sorts of benchmarks to see who has the better system. But he didn't care this time, he just wanted to know why it didn't make any sound.
Bingo! For some bizarre reason, "capitalism" is used interchangably with "corporatism" in the US, yet they are very different things.
This story goes to prove that the market is too flexible and slippery for corporations to control. They'll have to be content with ruling the sheep and potatoes, because to the thinking human, they're just another store front among thousands.
The chance of meltdown is zero in this design. "But nothing's ever a zero chance!" some argue. True, the laws of physics could change tomorrow, and then it could meltdown. But worrying about the S4 reactor melting is as silly as worrying about lightbulbs turning on in the absence of electricity.
Even if everything fails on this system, you can't get a meltdown. You may get a completely inoperable reactor, and Toshiba might get a very expensive maintenance call, but you won't get a meltdown.
I'm encouraged to know that there are libertarians that support the environment.
Big cluestick time. EVERYONE supports the environment! No one wants to live in and have their children inherit a wasteland.
I have also heard Libertarians saying that the government shouldn't own public lands, and that public parks and open spaces should be privately owned and that their use should be determined by the free market. I had assumed this was an opinion commonly held by Libertarians.
It is a commonly held opinion by libertarians. Your mistake is equating "enviromentalism" with "government ownership". The two are completely different things.
There has been little evidence to support the thesis that government management of natural resources is any better than non-government managment, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. There are two reasons for this.
First, people take care of their own property. Any landlord can tell you this. Strip logging happens on lands that are leased to the logging companies, rarely on lands that are owned by the logging companies. As another example, poor people are not more slovenly than middle class people, but it would be hard to tell comparing public housing projects to middle class apartments. Likewise, middle class apartments tend to be more run down than middle class condominiums (which the occupant owns).
The second reason is that government is inefficient. Politicians are looking to get reelected, and bureaucrats just want to hide in the system. Government workers and officials who really care are rare. But even they have a problem, in that they're spending other people's money on other people's problems.
Where libertarians and greens differ on the environment is in their "knee-jerk" reactions. The first reaction of a green to any environmental problem is to get the government involved. The first reaction of a libertarian faced with the same problem is to look for where the government is creating the problem and get it uninvolved.
Quick quiz -- what's more profitable: a public park that anyone can enter for free, or a strip mall?
The publicly accessible park, of course! If well maintained, it will raise the property values around it. People don't go to Yosemite (as an example) to go shopping, they go to Yosemite to see nature. Yosemite is becoming even more popular now that they're keeping automobiles out, because people want to see Half Dome and Bridalveil, not parking lots. But Yosemite doesn't need to be government owned to provide this benefit. Sell off Yosemite and you will NOT get a strip mall. But you might get higher entrance fees to pay for the maintenance and managment of the park, since there won't be any taxes to fall back on. Yes, you'll still have concession stands and restaurants and hotels, but you've got them now. So what's the difference?
My company recently became a Windows-only shop, and replaced the Solaris network. Last week we had to reboot our systems three times for patches. This week we've already done it once (it's only Tuesday). The master install image for a whole product line was infected with a virus.
Oh, but we're so much more productive now with Windows than with Solaris, that I guess it's okay. I can crank out ten flimsy hyperbolic presentations with PowerPoint in the time it used to take me to write up one detailed spec in FrameMaker. That's progress!
He also does not give you an idea of how large each respective group is.
It doesn't matter how large the groups are, only how noisy. Zealots are louder than priests, and pros are almost completely silent. One zealot makes up for ten priests, or one hundred pros, or a thousand normal users.
Thus, people's first impressions of Linux (or BSD or.NET or Java or whatever) are often via a shrill ranting zealot. This is not good. Firing off ten thousand obscene emails to a media columnist won't change anyone's mind, but it might permanently alienate that reporter or pundit forever.
Bullshit. Go look at the code. Windowmaker is a window manager. A very good window manager, but still a window manager. You're comparing apples with apple pies. "Who needs the KDE pie, when I've got an apple?" A GNUstep desktop environment that has the feature set of KDE or GNOME is going to be just as "bloated".
Whether desktop environments should be "big" or "small" is another topic entirely.
KDE for Linux is identical to KDE for any other platform. It's the same software! This isn't like Microsoft where MSWhatever for Mac is a completely different implementation of MSWhatever.
I want to be able to write applications for the linux desktop and release them under whatever I want, be it a BSD license or properitary, whithout to many strings attached.
Since Qt is not under the GPL, but under a GPL/QPL combination, you can release your application under any Open Source license with no strings attached.
Now proprietary will be a bit more difficult. GNU/GNOME/GTK may be a better choice for you if you want to do proprietary software development. Ironic huh?
I'm sure commercial companies don't want to pay Microsoft, Borland, RogueWave, etc, either. But they do.
Although I have a few problems with the Qt licensing, I've always found your particular argument to be ludicrous. Is it fair that proprietary commercial companies have to pay for proprietary commercial software? Of course! If you want to argue about the price of Qt, please do so. But don't argue that the Trolltech is wrong for selling their software to people who sell software for a living. Next thing you know you'll be bitching about grocers selling produce to restaurants.
Solaris on Intel should convince people to make a switch to "real" Solaris on "proper" hardware
They are, and always have been. As one example, currently you can download Solaris/Sparc for free, but to get Solaris/x86 you have to pay $99.
If Apple ever seriously considers releasing an OSX/x86, they need to take a long hard look at Sun. By releasing Solaris/x86 they instantly commoditized their software while changing their hardware's perception to "expensive". Not a good thing.
I am baffled at how anyone could still be falling for that outmoded [??? profit!] model after the way it tanked our economy!
There were two models that tanked the economy, neither one of which were UNIX or Open Source.
The first model was "money for nothing." If you had an idea for producing a product and making a profit, you got no funding. If you didn't have a product and didn't plan to make a profit, you got funded. Weird, but that's the way it was. At the company I worked, when we announced the highest profitably quarter in ten years, the stock tanked. When we announced the shipment of a new product line, the stock tanked. But when we announced we were working on an "eSolution", the stock went up three dollars.
The only reason UNIX got involved was because SUN and SGI tried to cash in on the style-over-substance craze. The only reason Open Source was connected was because it made an appearance during this period.
The second model is subtler, but more real. It's the fiat monetary policy of the US. It creates a cyclic business economy that booms and tanks on a irregular basis. It made the dot.boom worse because it pumped cheap money into hands of investors. And it's going to get worse, because we're monetizing the cost of the Iraqi war.
Slashdot Mirror
call your gay uncle and ask him
I don't have one. So I asked yours. He said he didn't have time to answer because he was on the way out the door to pick up his nephew for a special evening together.
there's nobody who refuses code from crap coders
Bullshit! Getting crap code into a project is very difficult to do, and when found, gets excised ASAP. With twenty thousand projects at SourceForge, you can find some maintainer with an ego so small he will accept any and all submissions. But it's rare.
Write some crap code and try to get it accepted by linux, freebsd, apache, cvs, mozilla, konqueror, openoffice, abiword, gnome, kde, etc, and you will *fail*.
Of course, your definition of "crap" is going to be different than everyone else's, but no objective evaluation of the project is going to uphold your assertion.
The good part of OSS is that you can get a patch the same day without QA, --OR-- wait for a tested version.
No one is forcing anyone to use untested patches. But for some exploits, being able to apply an untested patch within hours is magnitudes better than waiting a week for adequate testing. Sometimes you want duct tape.
a small firm that runs linux is insufficiently l337 to take an interest in SCO's antics?
Frankly, no one outside of Slashdot takes any interest in SCO's antics. Small firms are too busy trying to stay in the black to pay attention to this cheesy soap opera.
Brandybuck's Law states "the collective intelligence of an organization is inversely proportional to its size". This is why SCO is selectively excluding the small firms from its licensing demands, because they're too smart to fall for the con.
That's because the cone cells in your eyes severly mutilated five seconds after your first visit there. That's why the Games scheme looks "pretty slick", but everything else is in washed out sepia tones. I recommend a month of complete sensory deprivation treatment.
On the other hand, not all users are going to be apt to do this and it's a courtesy to have the default behavior be the most readable on the most screens.
Dear 12" monitor owner,
I am sorry to hear that my use of a 933 pixel wide is causing you some distress. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to correct your problem. You see, our master web designers at www.aripapart.com have told us that the minor inconveniences of 21" monitor owners far outweigh the fundamental usability needs of 12" monitor owners. May I suggest you 'get with the program' and buy the 17" PowerBook and toss out that 12" iBook?
Sincerely,
R. J. Noyed
"This site best viewed with a maximized browser window"
Perhaps you haven't considered that the water flowing through the pipes of your neighborhood and home isn't the purest and/or tastiest water available.
It depends on where you live. Where I grew up in the rural boondocks we had the best tasting water. Drinking out of bottled water was just unheard of. Now days my water is pretty good, and I still drink it from the tap. But everyone around me grew up in the city with bad water, and thinks I'm crazy for doing so.
If you take the water analogy to be accurate, then anyone growing up with free music downloads won't both buying music later on in life (if they avoid the crappy stuff P2P specializes in). But a better analogy might be soft drinks. 95% water, with added sugar and food coloring. People buy soft drinks. People will also buy music if it has that extra value added, even if they grew up with free downloads.
So music companies need to make sure what they release is of the highest quality from front to back. When they release albumns that have only one good song, mixed badly, then of course people will prefer the download. But when the entire albumn is full of well mixed good songs that people will want to listen to over and over, then they'll buy it.
To reverse the analogy, people won't buy bottled water if it tastes just as bad as tap water.
After the 2000 Florida election, all of Slashdot was clamoring for electronic voting. Or at least it sounded that way. "It's so simple even a geek could use it," they said. "We need to move into the 21st century," they said. But the latest Slashdot meme seems to be that electronic voting is bad. Go make up your minds!
I had a noisy Athlon 1.33GHz and never noticed it. Then they gave me a new Dell GX240 at work. The new Dell's are extremely quiet. Suddenly that Athlon was too noisy to endure.
So my last system was designed to be quiet. I got an Antac Sonata case, Seagate drives, p4 not Athlon, and a video card without a fan. Now I can hear my oggs! There's actually music behind the vocals!
My brother, who owns Alienware, was sincerely impressed by its lack of noise. Usually he wants to run all sorts of benchmarks to see who has the better system. But he didn't care this time, he just wanted to know why it didn't make any sound.
I've got two Barracudas in my system. Extremely quiet. I can still hear them seek, but I have to pay attention to do it.
"Das Capital" is still the root of much modern economic theory.
And "Das Capital" was just a warmed over restatement of "The Wealth of Nations", with some political diatribe thrown in to keep the reader's interest.
Bingo! For some bizarre reason, "capitalism" is used interchangably with "corporatism" in the US, yet they are very different things.
This story goes to prove that the market is too flexible and slippery for corporations to control. They'll have to be content with ruling the sheep and potatoes, because to the thinking human, they're just another store front among thousands.
The chance of meltdown is zero in this design. "But nothing's ever a zero chance!" some argue. True, the laws of physics could change tomorrow, and then it could meltdown. But worrying about the S4 reactor melting is as silly as worrying about lightbulbs turning on in the absence of electricity.
Even if everything fails on this system, you can't get a meltdown. You may get a completely inoperable reactor, and Toshiba might get a very expensive maintenance call, but you won't get a meltdown.
I'm encouraged to know that there are libertarians that support the environment.
Big cluestick time. EVERYONE supports the environment! No one wants to live in and have their children inherit a wasteland.
I have also heard Libertarians saying that the government shouldn't own public lands, and that public parks and open spaces should be privately owned and that their use should be determined by the free market. I had assumed this was an opinion commonly held by Libertarians.
It is a commonly held opinion by libertarians. Your mistake is equating "enviromentalism" with "government ownership". The two are completely different things.
There has been little evidence to support the thesis that government management of natural resources is any better than non-government managment, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. There are two reasons for this.
First, people take care of their own property. Any landlord can tell you this. Strip logging happens on lands that are leased to the logging companies, rarely on lands that are owned by the logging companies. As another example, poor people are not more slovenly than middle class people, but it would be hard to tell comparing public housing projects to middle class apartments. Likewise, middle class apartments tend to be more run down than middle class condominiums (which the occupant owns).
The second reason is that government is inefficient. Politicians are looking to get reelected, and bureaucrats just want to hide in the system. Government workers and officials who really care are rare. But even they have a problem, in that they're spending other people's money on other people's problems.
Where libertarians and greens differ on the environment is in their "knee-jerk" reactions. The first reaction of a green to any environmental problem is to get the government involved. The first reaction of a libertarian faced with the same problem is to look for where the government is creating the problem and get it uninvolved.
Quick quiz -- what's more profitable: a public park that anyone can enter for free, or a strip mall?
The publicly accessible park, of course! If well maintained, it will raise the property values around it. People don't go to Yosemite (as an example) to go shopping, they go to Yosemite to see nature. Yosemite is becoming even more popular now that they're keeping automobiles out, because people want to see Half Dome and Bridalveil, not parking lots. But Yosemite doesn't need to be government owned to provide this benefit. Sell off Yosemite and you will NOT get a strip mall. But you might get higher entrance fees to pay for the maintenance and managment of the park, since there won't be any taxes to fall back on. Yes, you'll still have concession stands and restaurants and hotels, but you've got them now. So what's the difference?
My company recently became a Windows-only shop, and replaced the Solaris network. Last week we had to reboot our systems three times for patches. This week we've already done it once (it's only Tuesday). The master install image for a whole product line was infected with a virus.
Oh, but we're so much more productive now with Windows than with Solaris, that I guess it's okay. I can crank out ten flimsy hyperbolic presentations with PowerPoint in the time it used to take me to write up one detailed spec in FrameMaker. That's progress!
When was the last time a terrorist helped a little old lady cross the road?
And you think Linux zealots do? Hah! They're too busy telling your grandma to RTFM to have time to bother with normal social courtesies.
He also does not give you an idea of how large each respective group is.
.NET or Java or whatever) are often via a shrill ranting zealot. This is not good. Firing off ten thousand obscene emails to a media columnist won't change anyone's mind, but it might permanently alienate that reporter or pundit forever.
It doesn't matter how large the groups are, only how noisy. Zealots are louder than priests, and pros are almost completely silent. One zealot makes up for ten priests, or one hundred pros, or a thousand normal users.
Thus, people's first impressions of Linux (or BSD or
Obviously, Slashdot is being inundated with twelve-year-olds!
Took you a while to figure it out, didn't it.
WindowMaker uses GNUStep libs
Bullshit. Go look at the code. Windowmaker is a window manager. A very good window manager, but still a window manager. You're comparing apples with apple pies. "Who needs the KDE pie, when I've got an apple?" A GNUstep desktop environment that has the feature set of KDE or GNOME is going to be just as "bloated".
Whether desktop environments should be "big" or "small" is another topic entirely.
KDE for Linux is identical to KDE for any other platform. It's the same software! This isn't like Microsoft where MSWhatever for Mac is a completely different implementation of MSWhatever.
I want to be able to write applications for the linux desktop and release them under whatever I want, be it a BSD license or properitary, whithout to many strings attached.
Since Qt is not under the GPL, but under a GPL/QPL combination, you can release your application under any Open Source license with no strings attached.
Now proprietary will be a bit more difficult. GNU/GNOME/GTK may be a better choice for you if you want to do proprietary software development. Ironic huh?
I'm sure commercial companies don't want to pay Microsoft, Borland, RogueWave, etc, either. But they do.
Although I have a few problems with the Qt licensing, I've always found your particular argument to be ludicrous. Is it fair that proprietary commercial companies have to pay for proprietary commercial software? Of course! If you want to argue about the price of Qt, please do so. But don't argue that the Trolltech is wrong for selling their software to people who sell software for a living. Next thing you know you'll be bitching about grocers selling produce to restaurants.
Solaris on Intel should convince people to make a switch to "real" Solaris on "proper" hardware
They are, and always have been. As one example, currently you can download Solaris/Sparc for free, but to get Solaris/x86 you have to pay $99.
If Apple ever seriously considers releasing an OSX/x86, they need to take a long hard look at Sun. By releasing Solaris/x86 they instantly commoditized their software while changing their hardware's perception to "expensive". Not a good thing.
Just use a two button mouse like all the l33t w1nd0W5 d00d5.
I am baffled at how anyone could still be falling for that outmoded [??? profit!] model after the way it tanked our economy!
There were two models that tanked the economy, neither one of which were UNIX or Open Source.
The first model was "money for nothing." If you had an idea for producing a product and making a profit, you got no funding. If you didn't have a product and didn't plan to make a profit, you got funded. Weird, but that's the way it was. At the company I worked, when we announced the highest profitably quarter in ten years, the stock tanked. When we announced the shipment of a new product line, the stock tanked. But when we announced we were working on an "eSolution", the stock went up three dollars.
The only reason UNIX got involved was because SUN and SGI tried to cash in on the style-over-substance craze. The only reason Open Source was connected was because it made an appearance during this period.
The second model is subtler, but more real. It's the fiat monetary policy of the US. It creates a cyclic business economy that booms and tanks on a irregular basis. It made the dot.boom worse because it pumped cheap money into hands of investors. And it's going to get worse, because we're monetizing the cost of the Iraqi war.