Given that slashdotters are the kind of people that actually read newspapers at some point in their life it seems adecuate to use a 2 column layout. Mayme even a 4 column layout and hey! you can put advertising in between each set of columns.
On way to state it is that they started as the friendly libre desktop and then at some point decided to become the "cheaper macintoch".
It's not just the design, they, or rather Mark, gave a full u-turn to the entire philosophy of the project. Sould we go back in time, you'd find that the project was full of idealism. Ubuntu was a philantropic project, free CDs were shiped, at Canonical's expense, to those willing to help others become free.
The promise was that together, as a comunity, we could overcome the technical and political issues that held FOSS back.
That's not the way ubuntu is advertised nowadays. Now ubuntu is advertised as this wonderful OS that does some of the same things MS and Apple can do but won't run any of the software you bought for those.
Personally, I blame the iPad. Ok it's Mark's fault first, but the iPad showed that people would ignore the problem of software incompatibilty as long a the thing was easy to use, had a web browser and was shiny.
So Mark decided to give the finger to the communy, called "Ubuntu is not a democracy" and embarked in a campaing to make ubunty the desktop version of an iPad: Shiny, dumbed down and incompatible with most Windows software, but with Firefox.
Actually I'm surprised ubuntu hasn't decided on Google chrome as their default browser, but even Mark realizes that would be handling the keys of the kingdom to a potential rival.
The obviousl problem is that, most people, including most ipad owners, already have a Windows PC where they do most of their work and any matter of serious gaming.
MS is the path of least resistance, and since it comes with most computers, it's "free". Apple is the luxury vendor. Ubuntu was de idealist but has lost it's original vision. Ubuntu really has nothing going for it nowadays. Mark is trying to fix that problem techically where it was a political problem to begin with.
Personally I'm bothered that it bothers them. Obvisouly there is no rule yet that you can't use premium call services to get paid by telemarketeers because they are just people. The regulator seems to think that it's wrong that telemarketeers are compensating him for wasting his time. Why? They are a bunch of corporate sellouts thats why.
This is actually a great argument to lessen the extent of copyrights. It is supposed to serve to promote the Arts and Sciences. If the studios are not there to make good movies they are in fact, not promoting the arts.
Basically is a short, 6 episodes series about a small taskforce of old fashioned, conventional car drivers, driving non-AI cars, tasked with chasing and stoping runaways, AI cars that start running out of control due to AI malfunctions or, often enough, computer viruses.
The belief that thousands of people working for a dozen different companies all work together in secret to destroy our health. That no pharmaceutical company will try to make a fortune selling a cure because they like selling treatments.
The more vague and broad a law is the more inconvenient people we can incarcirate! We should strive to make sure the dirty peasants know that the moment they get out of line we will slam the book against them with as many vaguely defined crimes as possible!
You shouldn't chastise people for changing their opinion tough, that's exactly what you are complaining about in the next sentence when you say they refuse to be wrong.
If they said something different and then change their statement that's an acknowledgement that they were indeed wrong.
Unless you are expecting people to give a 180Â turn everytime they have imperfect knowledge:
The earth isn't warming.
Yes, look at this graph.
OMG we are goingt to burn to death by tomorrow *jumps off the window*
That's just childish, and not because you can prove someone's opinion wrong does that mean that the person will necessarily take your position immedatelly and without reserve, that's just childish too.
Me onthe other hand, I don't mind seeing ads that much and if they help the site author I'm willing to endure them. What I don't like is business tracking us down and profiling us and potentially sharing this with government agencies. That's why I use Adblock, Ghostery, Privoxy and other tools. And why I don't bother much with Do-Not-Track me ideas.
Firstly, the point of MongoDB is building a NoSQL database. And it does not query via REST, CouchDB does that. MongoDB has its own querying interfase which requires external drivers. It does return JSON. But that's meaningless, JSON is analogous to Python's dicts or Ruby hashes or even to a degree to PHP arrays.
On the other hand writing web pages in Javascript sucks, specially without multiline strings. You really want a templating language. Which will render into HTML so you are also need to understand HTML. And then you need to use CSS to style the thing, except generating CSS by hand is tedious if your design is complex so you want something more powerful like SASS or LESS.
The point is making web apps easier to write not having a "full stack" language.
I know it's easy to hate lawyers because we're very expensive and, much of the time, you're only hiring a lawyer if something has gone wrong, or you're afraid of something going wrong. So there's already a negative association. But only a tiny fraction of lawyers are ACTUALLY unscrupulous.
It's kinda hard to make this statement since, at face value, it should be apparent that lawyers are defending the wrong party more than half the time. After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong. And yes I know even criminals have rights, and if they didn't have a lawyers they'd be punished unfairly, which begs the question of why do we have a system that applies unfair punishments?
I understand your concerns but I still think the justice system is broken.
Microsoft submitted C# and the core libraries to ECMA and ISO for standardization. In doing so Microsoft committed to offer license for any patents essential to implementation under RAND terms (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory).
But your FUD is a strawman anyway, since you have not explained how Microsoft could escape the patent grant they have given to anyone who implement C# and core libraries. Such grants cannot be revoked by a buyer of a patent.
Make up your mind, are "C# and the core libraries" offered free or under a RAND? Also "C# and the core libraries" is only a part of what the Mono project needs to subsist independently.
I'm unconvinced. I'm not a layer but the FSF has lawyers that understand this much better and they recommend against it. I'd rather take advise from the lawyers of the FSF than some random guy in slashdot.
I find it especially ironic in a discussion about comparison between Java and C#, where only one of the vendors have actually tried to sue. And it is not Microsoft.
He asked about Mono. The situation with Java is similar I know.
Mono is like a parallel world's.NET. It compiles and runs C# but it won't run arbitrary.NET because it lacks what you could call.NET's standard library. It has reverse engineered versions of some of it but not anywhere near capable of running the usual Windows application.
However run C# at your own risk, MS owns everything related to it and it has specifically licensing it to the public and has the capacity to shutdown Mono at any time.
*sigh* unfortunately this comment is going to attract a lot of MS chills repeating ad nauseam phrases like "community promise" and "estoppel".
The gist of it is that rather than an actual license MS published a statement, a (quote) "promise not to sue". This, and the fact that MS has cooperated with Mono before creates "estoppel" which is legalese to mean that MS can't back down from it's promise.
THE PROBLEM The problem is that the promise specifically states that MS "won't sue for properties they control" related to.NET. They didn't promise to hold onto the property, and a third party acquiring it is not bound by the promise. So MS can sell 1 or more patents related to.NET, C# and other CLI languages to a third party from which they can then obtain a use license, for a price.
And now get ready for the flurry of comments defending.NET most of which will fall in one of the following 4 categories.
1. Completely ignoring the above and pretend that the promise is exactly the same as a license in every way. In other words, lie. 2. Dramatic displays of indignation at how we dare ask for a license instead of merrily infringing on patents for which we have been promised not to be sued over (by MS). 3. Confident declarations that Mono can code around any possible legal threat that could possibly arise. 4. Vehement assertions that MS will never ever ever ever ever ever exercise this option that they prepared for themselves by not actually issuing a license....aaaand combinations of the above along with random insults as usual.
Well, explain, "you don't get it" is not an argument. But the phrase "you just don't get it" is feminist code for THE PATRIARCHY!!! So I can guess what you mean by that.
I don't like how these post suggest the inviability of desktop Linux D:
Look guys, the days when Linux was hard to install and use where a decade ago, I've been running Linux as my desktop for nearly 11 years. Never had a problem with it (well, not more than I've had with Windows, nothing is perfect). It usually runs in my best hardware, only about 4 years ago in my last hardware upgrade did I started to dual boot often, for games.
And I've never been treated badly in a LInux forum (well except when ubuntu went crazy). The Year of Desktop Linux was in 2003.
Slashdot Mirror
That other people have shitty Bosses doesn't mean he can't complain about his you miserably twat.
Sometimes i wish there was a sue for defamation button on slashdot. Please stop posting things pulled out of your ass. It's dirty in there.
Given that slashdotters are the kind of people that actually read newspapers at some point in their life it seems adecuate to use a 2 column layout. Mayme even a 4 column layout and hey! you can put advertising in between each set of columns.
What is a better data structure for command parsing?
On way to state it is that they started as the friendly libre desktop and then at some point decided to become the "cheaper macintoch".
It's not just the design, they, or rather Mark, gave a full u-turn to the entire philosophy of the project. Sould we go back in time, you'd find that the project was full of idealism. Ubuntu was a philantropic project, free CDs were shiped, at Canonical's expense, to those willing to help others become free.
The promise was that together, as a comunity, we could overcome the technical and political issues that held FOSS back.
That's not the way ubuntu is advertised nowadays. Now ubuntu is advertised as this wonderful OS that does some of the same things MS and Apple can do but won't run any of the software you bought for those.
Personally, I blame the iPad. Ok it's Mark's fault first, but the iPad showed that people would ignore the problem of software incompatibilty as long a the thing was easy to use, had a web browser and was shiny.
So Mark decided to give the finger to the communy, called "Ubuntu is not a democracy" and embarked in a campaing to make ubunty the desktop version of an iPad: Shiny, dumbed down and incompatible with most Windows software, but with Firefox.
Actually I'm surprised ubuntu hasn't decided on Google chrome as their default browser, but even Mark realizes that would be handling the keys of the kingdom to a potential rival.
The obviousl problem is that, most people, including most ipad owners, already have a Windows PC where they do most of their work and any matter of serious gaming.
MS is the path of least resistance, and since it comes with most computers, it's "free". Apple is the luxury vendor. Ubuntu was de idealist but has lost it's original vision. Ubuntu really has nothing going for it nowadays. Mark is trying to fix that problem techically where it was a political problem to begin with.
Personally I'm bothered that it bothers them. Obvisouly there is no rule yet that you can't use premium call services to get paid by telemarketeers because they are just people. The regulator seems to think that it's wrong that telemarketeers are compensating him for wasting his time. Why? They are a bunch of corporate sellouts thats why.
This is actually a great argument to lessen the extent of copyrights. It is supposed to serve to promote the Arts and Sciences. If the studios are not there to make good movies they are in fact, not promoting the arts.
Anime did it first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89X-Driver
Basically is a short, 6 episodes series about a small taskforce of old fashioned, conventional car drivers, driving non-AI cars, tasked with chasing and stoping runaways, AI cars that start running out of control due to AI malfunctions or, often enough, computer viruses.
The belief that thousands of people working for a dozen different companies all work together in secret to destroy our health. That no pharmaceutical company will try to make a fortune selling a cure because they like selling treatments.
You know I'll just drop this https://xkcd.com/808
Oh I see the obligatory xkcd comic http://xkcd.com/1022/
The more vague and broad a law is the more inconvenient people we can incarcirate! We should strive to make sure the dirty peasants know that the moment they get out of line we will slam the book against them with as many vaguely defined crimes as possible!
Rather, TPB is not a sustainable model. What peopel really want is to be able to buy episodes from websites using micro payments.
You shouldn't chastise people for changing their opinion tough, that's exactly what you are complaining about in the next sentence when you say they refuse to be wrong.
If they said something different and then change their statement that's an acknowledgement that they were indeed wrong.
Unless you are expecting people to give a 180Â turn everytime they have imperfect knowledge:
That's just childish, and not because you can prove someone's opinion wrong does that mean that the person will necessarily take your position immedatelly and without reserve, that's just childish too.
Me onthe other hand, I don't mind seeing ads that much and if they help the site author I'm willing to endure them. What I don't like is business tracking us down and profiling us and potentially sharing this with government agencies. That's why I use Adblock, Ghostery, Privoxy and other tools. And why I don't bother much with Do-Not-Track me ideas.
That's how I read it at first, getting a scan using laser blood? AWESOME!
Wrong and, wrong.
Firstly, the point of MongoDB is building a NoSQL database. And it does not query via REST, CouchDB does that. MongoDB has its own querying interfase which requires external drivers. It does return JSON. But that's meaningless, JSON is analogous to Python's dicts or Ruby hashes or even to a degree to PHP arrays.
On the other hand writing web pages in Javascript sucks, specially without multiline strings. You really want a templating language. Which will render into HTML so you are also need to understand HTML. And then you need to use CSS to style the thing, except generating CSS by hand is tedious if your design is complex so you want something more powerful like SASS or LESS.
The point is making web apps easier to write not having a "full stack" language.
Because people have never found out that relying in a proprietary web app has shortcomings...
It's like they are not even trying to hide it anymore.
I know it's easy to hate lawyers because we're very expensive and, much of the time, you're only hiring a lawyer if something has gone wrong, or you're afraid of something going wrong. So there's already a negative association. But only a tiny fraction of lawyers are ACTUALLY unscrupulous.
It's kinda hard to make this statement since, at face value, it should be apparent that lawyers are defending the wrong party more than half the time. After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong. And yes I know even criminals have rights, and if they didn't have a lawyers they'd be punished unfairly, which begs the question of why do we have a system that applies unfair punishments?
I understand your concerns but I still think the justice system is broken.
Microsoft submitted C# and the core libraries to ECMA and ISO for standardization. In doing so Microsoft committed to offer license for any patents essential to implementation under RAND terms (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory).
But your FUD is a strawman anyway, since you have not explained how Microsoft could escape the patent grant they have given to anyone who implement C# and core libraries. Such grants cannot be revoked by a buyer of a patent.
Make up your mind, are "C# and the core libraries" offered free or under a RAND? Also "C# and the core libraries" is only a part of what the Mono project needs to subsist independently.
I'm unconvinced. I'm not a layer but the FSF has lawyers that understand this much better and they recommend against it. I'd rather take advise from the lawyers of the FSF than some random guy in slashdot.
I find it especially ironic in a discussion about comparison between Java and C#, where only one of the vendors have actually tried to sue. And it is not Microsoft.
He asked about Mono. The situation with Java is similar I know.
He has to download a reason for it first.
Mono is like a parallel world's .NET. It compiles and runs C# but it won't run arbitrary .NET because it lacks what you could call .NET's standard library. It has reverse engineered versions of some of it but not anywhere near capable of running the usual Windows application.
However run C# at your own risk, MS owns everything related to it and it has specifically licensing it to the public and has the capacity to shutdown Mono at any time.
*sigh* unfortunately this comment is going to attract a lot of MS chills repeating ad nauseam phrases like "community promise" and "estoppel".
The gist of it is that rather than an actual license MS published a statement, a (quote) "promise not to sue". This, and the fact that MS has cooperated with Mono before creates "estoppel" which is legalese to mean that MS can't back down from it's promise.
THE PROBLEM .NET. .NET, C# and other CLI languages to a third party from which they can then obtain a use license, for a price.
The problem is that the promise specifically states that MS "won't sue for properties they control" related to
They didn't promise to hold onto the property, and a third party acquiring it is not bound by the promise. So MS can sell 1 or more patents related to
And the stinger is that MS has been caught marketing Linux patents to patent trolls before. Mind you, those were Linux, not .NET patents, but the intention is obvious.
And now get ready for the flurry of comments defending .NET most of which will fall in one of the following 4 categories.
1. Completely ignoring the above and pretend that the promise is exactly the same as a license in every way. In other words, lie. ...aaaand combinations of the above along with random insults as usual.
2. Dramatic displays of indignation at how we dare ask for a license instead of merrily infringing on patents for which we have been promised not to be sued over (by MS).
3. Confident declarations that Mono can code around any possible legal threat that could possibly arise.
4. Vehement assertions that MS will never ever ever ever ever ever exercise this option that they prepared for themselves by not actually issuing a license.
Well, explain, "you don't get it" is not an argument. But the phrase "you just don't get it" is feminist code for THE PATRIARCHY!!! So I can guess what you mean by that.
I've never found someone that uses the term "sausage fest" and doesn't harbor misandristic feelings and a veiled superiority/inferiority complex.
I don't like how these post suggest the inviability of desktop Linux D:
Look guys, the days when Linux was hard to install and use where a decade ago, I've been running Linux as my desktop for nearly 11 years. Never had a problem with it (well, not more than I've had with Windows, nothing is perfect). It usually runs in my best hardware, only about 4 years ago in my last hardware upgrade did I started to dual boot often, for games.
And I've never been treated badly in a LInux forum (well except when ubuntu went crazy). The Year of Desktop Linux was in 2003.