You have a spiffy new utility that looks like it was written in 1994.
Why shouldn't it? There hasn't been a hell of a lot added to User Interface design since 1994. I get tired of the 'fashion' bullshit overcoming usability issues. It's like some tard ranting because the walls in a room are rectangular.
Open source will 'only survive' if they throw off the notion that they need to pander to people afraid of shell prompts.
The alternative is to fall into the world of competing with the eye-candy vendors to produce the latest glitz-ware. I've already seen a number of good basic tools fall down the toilet that way (some of them after prepending a 'k' on the front of their project name, meaning they've been assimilated by that particular borg.)
It's been bad enough that a number of us have retreated into traditional Unix ways, i.e. we've ditched Linux and use a BSD with a traditional window manager (I like fvwm2).
The people who've infested the 'Linux community' who want to use it as a weapon to bludgeon Microsoft have ruined things.
Every time I've tried to use the Linux HOWTO documents, they've either been obsolete or thickly mined with advertising distractions and mandatory click-thru stuff. And I first started perusing Linux HOWTO documents in 1993. I thought for a time that it was getting better, but now it's oldie-mouldie. Is there somebody conciously trying to screw up Linux HOWTO documents?
Furthermore, it isn't like it is with cars, where half the wrenches needed are Metric and half the wrenches are English. There is a custom-unit set of tools that you need to service each and every part of the vehicle. Putting on a new alternator? Better make sure they included the wrench in the set that fits the provided bolts to install it. Better make sure you didn't lose the wrench used to install the old one.
Raymond sticks out like a sore thumb in that presentation of 'the fifteen great hackers.' He's the only one presented who self-labels himself, and in fact the text describing him presents him as the uber-hacker. Did Raymond plant that article or something? Did he give blow jobs to the writer?
The majority of the people contributing to Linux development are volunteers. Plus the fact that Linux is basically a hobbyist venture at this point. Every 'provitable Linux distributor' at this point is only profitable because of a sideline or some 'fluke' in how they run their operation.
For ages ideologues and armchair theorists have been deciding to proclaim it's 'a new age' based on their need to justify something or promote their new theory of how other people need to act. Calling people who disagree with you 'stupid' is both arrogant and, well, stupid.
Time for a bunch of people to get outta their comfortable chair in the British Library and meet the real world.
"Is it Fred's turn to pay this month, or are you the one who is downloading this month? I have a few songs I'd like to get, if you've got time right now."
The EFF is treading on thin ice. What have they produced to qualify them as participants in the discussion?
I sometimes find it easier to search a single registry for a keyword than I do to grep config files that might be scattered over two or three different places in the directory tree. The concept of a central registry is not inherently bad, nor is Microsofts implementation all bad.
It's six of one and a half dozen of the other, of course.
How is 'buried in the registry' any better or worse than 'buried in a config file'?
I mean, I consider it liberating that I know that all the X config stuff sits in/usr/X11R6/lib/X11 but the average user isn't going to figure that out and find and edit/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit/system.xinitrc. The average user isn't even going to know to copy it to ~/.xinitrc and edit it locally.
Anyhow... Speaking as someone who keeps his unix desktop system safely bounded in ~/.xinitrc, ~/.xsession, and ~/.fvwm2rc, I don't find it worse, really to fiddle in the Windows registry editor than I do to grep through dotfiles or in/etc.
I haven't had to fiddle with a printer in Windows in years. And I've been testing and reselling a lot of hardware lately, so I've moved around a lot of parts and have reinstalled my main Windows 2000 desktop machine dozens of times recently (never can decide which box I bought at auction to keep, and which ones to sell, besides I thus get to test things out properly before putting my name behind selling them)
Maybe it's that I have a good well supported printer (Laserjet 5P), but Windows Install finds it automatically. It's just *there* and I print to it when I need to. I haven't had to install a printer in Windows in probably four or five years.
Indeed. UNIX was widely derided as a security joke through most of the 80's. It really wasn't until a few of the 'Commercial Workstation' vendors like HP and Sun got going that it was a serious contender.
I'm not a cultural anthropologist, nor do I know a lot of them. I do know that there's always somebody trying to find a new thing to discover, and there are probably numerous studies out there already. I won't claim to be able to cite them.
But this is not a 'new topic for study' and anybody who claims that is wrong.
Also, with a CDR based player (I have a Rio Volt) you can double the capacity of your player for a few bucks using CDRs. I can get 7 gigs of MP3s on ten CDR disks for what? Three bucks or so? And I can spend 5 or ten bucks and get a nice wallet to carry the disks in.
I remember the 'walkman' being around in 1979 or so. I remember the same kind of elite snobbery then, the 'new wave' chicks with their tiny player on their waistband.
What's so new? There were enough of us back then who saw some cultural trends. I think this guy just decided to make a name for himself with something, and came up with the idea of publishing it as if it's a 'new discipline'. That's a lot of bull, Bull.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a spiffy new utility that looks like it was written in 1994.
Why shouldn't it? There hasn't been a hell of a lot added to User Interface design since 1994. I get tired of the 'fashion' bullshit overcoming usability issues. It's like some tard ranting because the walls in a room are rectangular.
Open source will 'only survive' if they throw off the notion that they need to pander to people afraid of shell prompts.
The alternative is to fall into the world of competing with the eye-candy vendors to produce the latest glitz-ware. I've already seen a number of good basic tools fall down the toilet that way (some of them after prepending a 'k' on the front of their project name, meaning they've been assimilated by that particular borg.)
It's been bad enough that a number of us have retreated into traditional Unix ways, i.e. we've ditched Linux and use a BSD with a traditional window manager (I like fvwm2).
The people who've infested the 'Linux community' who want to use it as a weapon to bludgeon Microsoft have ruined things.
Mr. Raymond isn't the author of Emacs.
He's in charge of a feeble mail tool and has highjacked the Jargon File. Other than that he's regular folks, just noisier than most.
Every time I've tried to use the Linux HOWTO documents, they've either been obsolete or thickly mined with advertising distractions and mandatory click-thru stuff. And I first started perusing Linux HOWTO documents in 1993. I thought for a time that it was getting better, but now it's oldie-mouldie. Is there somebody conciously trying to screw up Linux HOWTO documents?
Furthermore, it isn't like it is with cars, where half the wrenches needed are Metric and half the wrenches are English. There is a custom-unit set of tools that you need to service each and every part of the vehicle. Putting on a new alternator? Better make sure they included the wrench in the set that fits the provided bolts to install it. Better make sure you didn't lose the wrench used to install the old one.
Raymond sticks out like a sore thumb in that presentation of 'the fifteen great hackers.' He's the only one presented who self-labels himself, and in fact the text describing him presents him as the uber-hacker. Did Raymond plant that article or something? Did he give blow jobs to the writer?
The majority of the people contributing to Linux development are volunteers. Plus the fact that Linux is basically a hobbyist venture at this point. Every 'provitable Linux distributor' at this point is only profitable because of a sideline or some 'fluke' in how they run their operation.
You're the one with a simplistic assertion.
For ages ideologues and armchair theorists have been deciding to proclaim it's 'a new age' based on their need to justify something or promote their new theory of how other people need to act. Calling people who disagree with you 'stupid' is both arrogant and, well, stupid.
Time for a bunch of people to get outta their comfortable chair in the British Library and meet the real world.
All music related marketing and distribution can be done on-line. The old business model is dead and not needed or wanted.
Is that a scent of the smoke from the burning dot.bombs that I smell?
You're seriously claiming the J.Jackson controversey is to detract from the lame Pepsi/iTunes commercials?
(and on the Pepsi/iTunes bit- it's delicious to see Jobs back in the business of selling sugar water. Scully must have grinned at that.)
since of course loss of control over distribution is their real problem with P2P, not the potential monetary losees.
Ummm, if you lose control over distribution of your IP, you lose the ability to make money with it.
The RIAA is an umbrulla organization, not a big octopus that controls everything.
However, this isn't the place for common sense or reasoning. Carry on.
So what do you propose? That artists not be allowed to sell the rights to their music?
"Is it Fred's turn to pay this month, or are you the one who is downloading this month? I have a few songs I'd like to get, if you've got time right now."
The EFF is treading on thin ice. What have they produced to qualify them as participants in the discussion?
I sometimes find it easier to search a single registry for a keyword than I do to grep config files that might be scattered over two or three different places in the directory tree. The concept of a central registry is not inherently bad, nor is Microsofts implementation all bad.
It's six of one and a half dozen of the other, of course.
How is 'buried in the registry' any better or worse than 'buried in a config file'?
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11 but the average user isn't going to figure that out and find and edit /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit/system.xinitrc. The average user isn't even going to know to copy it to ~/.xinitrc and edit it locally.
/etc.
I mean, I consider it liberating that I know that all the X config stuff sits in
Anyhow... Speaking as someone who keeps his unix desktop system safely bounded in ~/.xinitrc, ~/.xsession, and ~/.fvwm2rc, I don't find it worse, really to fiddle in the Windows registry editor than I do to grep through dotfiles or in
I haven't had to fiddle with a printer in Windows in years. And I've been testing and reselling a lot of hardware lately, so I've moved around a lot of parts and have reinstalled my main Windows 2000 desktop machine dozens of times recently (never can decide which box I bought at auction to keep, and which ones to sell, besides I thus get to test things out properly before putting my name behind selling them)
Maybe it's that I have a good well supported printer (Laserjet 5P), but Windows Install finds it automatically. It's just *there* and I print to it when I need to. I haven't had to install a printer in Windows in probably four or five years.
Indeed. UNIX was widely derided as a security joke through most of the 80's. It really wasn't until a few of the 'Commercial Workstation' vendors like HP and Sun got going that it was a serious contender.
Except, there wasn't UNIX in the beginning, and in the beginning of UNIX, it definitely was NOT the best, or even 'good' for all meanings of the term.
Hope you get the idea.
Careful, now. Don't get all tangled up in that back-page Mad Magazine fold-in.
I'm not a cultural anthropologist, nor do I know a lot of them. I do know that there's always somebody trying to find a new thing to discover, and there are probably numerous studies out there already. I won't claim to be able to cite them.
But this is not a 'new topic for study' and anybody who claims that is wrong.
Just a correction I think is worth making:
A really HUGE music fan doesn't sit there and dote over a little thing the size of a cigarette pack that plays back recordings of music.
A HUGE music fan is out in the streets, at concert venues, clubs, perhaps even picking up an instrument and playing some him/herself.
Also, with a CDR based player (I have a Rio Volt) you can double the capacity of your player for a few bucks using CDRs. I can get 7 gigs of MP3s on ten CDR disks for what? Three bucks or so? And I can spend 5 or ten bucks and get a nice wallet to carry the disks in.
Size is an issue for some uses, but not for me.
Yeah, but you're comparing new-in-the-box prices.
Some of us get our 'deals' by paying 10 cents on a dollar and settling for gear that's 2 or so years old.
I saved like $6000 that way by buying my Beige G3 and Powerbook at an auction for under $20 each.
I remember the 'walkman' being around in 1979 or so. I remember the same kind of elite snobbery then, the 'new wave' chicks with their tiny player on their waistband.
What's so new? There were enough of us back then who saw some cultural trends. I think this guy just decided to make a name for himself with something, and came up with the idea of publishing it as if it's a 'new discipline'. That's a lot of bull, Bull.
So your advice is for the on-campus IT staff to aid and abet people in downloading said copyrighted movie?
That's gonna go over really well with the Legal department.
Think the Gutenburg project, of music.
When I think of that, all I can visualize is that it would consist of home-brew MIDI files, and only of music copyrighted before about 1925.