His solution? Having a foundation create a common desktop for all Linux distros, so the Linux world could finally reap the benefits of standardization.
That's why i have a number of more or less obscure browser installed next to my favorite which is firefox.
Edge using chromium actually might make it useful. Even if the price is to send telemetry to MS instead of mozilla or google. I wonder if they will release Edge for Linux and the BSD's.
Here's a crazy solution approach: Any OS feature that isn't used by a LARGE majority of the users should be REMOVED from the OS. Maybe that isn't strong enough. Maybe the OS should be strictly limited to what absolutely needs to be there. Guard those eggs carefully!
While this looks to make sense at first sight, it is flawed.
Suppose there are a 100 functions that less than 5% of the users use. Removing each of them will only affect 5% of the users. Removing all of them might affect nearly 100% of them users, as each of them needs another feature to work.
I do agree on MS' bad reputation when it comes to security, but even that was not the root cause here. Their driver approval process needs might need more attention.
Or maybe something absurd as, say, open-source drivers? Ideally the whole kernel and driver stack would be OS. Maybe in the future law will require such, for safety and accountability. They can keep their other junk like office closed afaic.
Linux could be the best OS on the planet but without full functioning and high quality applications it is meaningless. And the applications that do exist are usually just poorly made clones of applications that you actually pay for.
Get real. At work i use OS software for about anything i do. It's on par, if not better, than commercial offerings. Besides, i don't have to worry about crippled-down features. Or future portability of projects, just in case the vendor decides i need a dongle just to view a file. For example, recently we needed the schematics of an old PCB design. We had to boot a 15-year old box to get access to some files. The software also required a parallel-port dongle. To our luck, the box actually booted and we could do what we wanted. However, any backup of it was totally useless because well, thank you closed-source-with-dongle-company. The only thing i work with that is closed source is actually the OS itself, because our ICT department and pretty much the rest of the world for standardized on Windows for the desktop. So i need to produce windows-10 compatible software. Which i do using OS tools. The only closed source application i use is the windows calculator because i did not bother to install anything else.
There's examples where you are right. But it's also a matter of mindset. Some people just believe it cannot be good unless they pay for it. They believe they need recurring fees in order to use software. They believe being dependent on a 3rd party to run your business is not a bad thing. They believe continuity is not an issue as long you pay up.
As far i know, sending unsolicited bills for unsolicited services to businesses is totally legal, at least in my part of the world. I hope I don't live in your part of the word.
As far i know, sending unsolicited bills for unsolicited services to businesses is totally legal, at least in my part of the world.
What is illegal is the use of fraudulent addresses, like the address or company name for someone else.
But if i send to a $1000 bill for listing your name in my service which i call an 'online business index', and you choose to pay me, i'm legally all fine. By paying you actually just sealed the contract.
So, it totally depends on what this dude was doing. Surely, i agree it was a scam. But is it legally a scam? Cause a lot of companies get away with such practices and make a good coin already. Morals have very limited legal value.
The teams focused on pruning entire potential paths for CNNs to use, evaluating each in turn. Lower probability paths are successively pruned away, leaving the final, best-case path.
Now, i don't know about AI that much, so in this scenario it may be totally different.
With chess engines, early pruning is a recipe for disaster. You might fool beginner players, you won't fool GM's. Pruning in general is already questionable, as you are deleting possibilities based on assumptions that are in turn based on a limited subset of your data. Early pruning leads to big performance gains but may also easily overlook possibilities because certain paths are assumed wrong. Just because sometimes something that appears to be wrong is actually good.
As said, it may or may not apply to AI, but it looks it does as they use similar words to describe a similar process. If it sounds too good to be true. Performance gains by a factor of 200 smells like red flags.
This is totally true. However, sometimes it's better than nothing. It will stop certain websites from gathering 'personal' info.And iIt might stop certain private parties from collecting your data, for example when sharing linux distro torrents.
Norway is a European country. However, it is not part of the EU (European Union). Hence you'd have to investigate the Norwegian law to determinate what they are required to log by law and under what conditions this data can be requested by (foreign) law enforcement authorities.
If it was a EU based company it certainly would raise some red flags. As EU demands both 'privacy' and extensive logging at the same time from it's companies. Being Norwegian it certainly would put up an extra threshold at least for us EU citizens.
Personally, I might use such service as it's convenient and better than nothing. But i'd also recommend anyone to have one- or more- payed VPN subscriptions with contractual guarantees if you're about to do something that's possibly not 100% legal in your or the hosts' area of the world, or is perfectly legal but in case you'd still like to protect your privacy. Obviously, i use my VPN only for legal purposes.
What's so special about making hardware? Musicians make software. Spotify maintains servers that hosts files and streams them. Everyone in this scheme has a role. Without software, the hardware is useless. Without music, less people would want to buy a phone. Without musicians, there's no music at all. There's also the carrier or internet in general. There's the various taxes and radio frequency licenses. There's so many parties involved, that i really wonder why you think Apple is so special and Spotify is not.
Disclaimer: i cancelled my Spotify account long ago and am back to old school cd's, vinyl, tapes and radio. My smartphone is next on the won't-replace list.
Hello there. Pepsi here! If you scratch off the 'Slashdot' sticker that's permanently attached to your monitor, you will find a code underneath. Fill in this code on our website and win a year long Pepsi Max! You can participate as often as you want. Winners are randomly selected from the top-1000 of most popular websites.
P.S. Thanks facebook, google, twitter and linkedin for your identifiable data, we will forward it to the pimple removal and weight loss pharmacies as we have some interesting statistical facts for you!
Firefox was never about being small and light weight, it was about being able to render websites faster and in a standard compliant way.
I hate to correct you, cause on other points you are right, but no. Firefox came as spin-off from the Mozilla suite. Mozilla targeted compliant browsing.
Firefox was from day one meant as a light weight browser with only one feature: browsing websites. No composer, no e-mail, no fancies and initially not even plugins. Low on memory. Low on megabytes of code. Fast.
From there it went it's own way exactly as parent poster described.
Question is. Are we talking early 90's or late 90's. For early 90's you are totally right and a 68xxx would run circles around Intel's offerings.
However, in late 90's, around this magic 1996 year you mentioned, stuff started to change. Intel would double it's CPU speed at a tremendous rate. A single mobo could see 3 CPU generations, going from a 66MHz model all the way to 233. At the end of the decade we hit the magic 1GHz benchmark. In 5 year time, CPU's went from maybe 133MHz around 1995 to 1GHz in 1999.
Meanwhile, the Motorola series lagged behind. IBM, baking them Motorola's, tried to make improvements but eventually Intel's production process proved to provide better results. That's why Apple eventually switched to Intel anyways, a few years and model or two late.
They almost died back in the 90's because of the Mac clones.
Reason being their late switch to the better performing Intel (compatible) cpu's.
You cannot target professional power users if your hardware does not offer the power those professionals were after. A lot of users choose an alternative platform aka Windows because those workstations were having much better performance and could be replaced more frequent with the latest hardware. After all, the 90's were the time when some users replaced their hardware every 1 1/2 year or even more often because of the fast improvement rate of both CPU speed and storage space. Apple just could not keep up and deliver, despite being the platform of choice for certain audio, video and graphics processing tools.
I suggest not to listen to strangers on the internet ranting about something from their boycave, and just use what fits your needs best.
Yes i dislike WP too. And drupal too. Any CMS really. But when i have to make a website for the boss, i just pull one of them of the shelve and get the job done. Preferably one that's still supported in 5 year, depending on the site. Anything mission-critical is not made with such CMS anyways, it serves another purpose and another market and pretty much any of them does what it needs to do. Just like your smartphone - when was the last time you seriously cared about the brand of phone as long it worked?
Why don't we read the next blurbs of the article that come immediately after the part cited in the summary:
"Microsoft has published a timeline for migrating these operating systems to SHA-2, with support for the algorithm coming in standalone updates. On March 12, Microsoft is planning a standalone update with SHA-2 code sign support for Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1. It also will deliver to WSUS 3.0 SP2 the required support for delivering SHA-2 updates.
Microsoft will make available a standalone update with SHA-2 code sign support for Windows Server 2008 SP2 on April 9, 2019. "
tldr; nothing will change for these users
What will change is the pile of 2nd hand computers that will not be able to (automatically) receive updates because they were powered off during this critical period between March and July.
To me this sounds like a well-thought scheme to increase PC sales. I'd not be surprised if OEM's handed MS some money if they can fix the 2nd hand problem, because people can buy a perfectly functional PC for less than $50.
In this topic only Samsung and Sony are mentioned receiving regular updates. From own experience i can assure you most phones from less respected brands don't receive updates at all, or at most one or two updates right after the release to fix some vendor bugs - and typically introduce new ones. Like how i had a phone receiving an update to fix a battery charging issue. It broke the front camera functionality. No way to uninstall the update either. It makes me seriously consider my next phone to be a Samsung, Sony or Pixel, despite the price tag. But that seems to be the price to protect data.
Now if i was an insurance company, i would call the insurance void for any car with rooted software.
Not because this particular software is so dangerous, but other software maybe is. That, and the manufacturer can no longer be held liable and/or the vehicle is not on the road as when in tested conditions that approved it. Rooting your car's software might have all kind of unexpected side effects. Even if it's only the entertainment system, in a Tesla that's still highly integrated with the rest of the car.
Now of course i'm not an insurance company, and i would prefer cars to have a full stack of open-source software, that the user could upgrade or change at will. But i do think there are legal issues that have to be dealt with, in case of an error, being it user or software or company's fault.
As one user i find 10 euro a month way too much. If i were listening to it for hours a day, maybe. Netflix already costs me over 10 euro a month, and it's at a constant struggle for monthly renewal. Spotify is just too expensive. 10 euro or dollar sounds like a bargain, but it's not.
I went back to the traditional way. I use cd's -thrift stores sell them for $1 each-, i use youtube when i want to check out something new, or have a playlist and don't care for audio quality. And spotify can *** because their free service nags all the time with stupid promo's and an occasional read ad, and the paid service is too expensive for the infrequent times i use it.
1. It wasn't waterproof and i dropped it in something wet. Touch no longer works. 2. It was waterproof but i dropped it and the glass broke. Touch no longer works. 3. It had it in the pocket of my jacket under very wet weather conditions. Touch no longer works. 4. It's 6+ year old and still working and going strong. It's almost my oldest phone. Since all the others don't work i'm using it right now. I ordered a new one because it's slow, the 3G a bit buggy and slow, and mostly because it's incompatible with my banking apps.
In short: they are made to fail, with this stupid glass screens with no or almost no bevel. The touch screen in particular is sensitive to wet conditions. By the way, with 'touch no longer works' i mean: random touches or unresponsive in certain screen areas, or a combination of both.
I read the article, and still don't understand a thing. I think it is not because i am so stupid, but because the article has been so dumbed down that it no longer contains any useful information. So, if someone please can explain what this is about, without using a cat or car analogy, please feel free to do so.
"the daytime sky is blue because there are millions of blue fairies flying around during the day, and they sleep at night."
I found your explanation very plausible:)
Thing is. Do we really want sites like 'facebook' to judge for us if something is true or not. Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's indeed plain misinformation. Sometimes it's a joke. Next time it's for commercial reasons to cripple the competition. Next time it's politics.
While i don't mind fact-checking sites, why do people on facebook not just link to articles on such sites. And yes, facebook may have good intentions, but, the big but is, i don't trust facebook either.
For same reasons i don't want google - or any search engine - to judge if something is true or not. And excuses like 'people are misinformed' are bull. Cause who are they to say someone else is misinformed, because half of that fact-checking is the same propaganda they claim to oppose. Wikipedia is for general-consensus-information. Google is for searching the internet. Facebook is for sharing posts and pictures. Let people decide for their own.
I like Firefox, but i wish Mozilla would stay away from politics.
Same applies to other organizations and companies by the way. Just focus what you do, and don't waste effort on lobbying or playing the public. Even despite other actors do. Just don't. Stay cool. Stay pro.
Slashdot Mirror
His solution? Having a foundation create a common desktop for all Linux distros, so the Linux world could finally reap the benefits of standardization.
https://xkcd.com/927/
To have another user or cookie session.
That's why i have a number of more or less obscure browser installed next to my favorite which is firefox.
Edge using chromium actually might make it useful. Even if the price is to send telemetry to MS instead of mozilla or google. I wonder if they will release Edge for Linux and the BSD's.
Here's a crazy solution approach: Any OS feature that isn't used by a LARGE majority of the users should be REMOVED from the OS. Maybe that isn't strong enough. Maybe the OS should be strictly limited to what absolutely needs to be there. Guard those eggs carefully!
While this looks to make sense at first sight, it is flawed.
Suppose there are a 100 functions that less than 5% of the users use. Removing each of them will only affect 5% of the users. Removing all of them might affect nearly 100% of them users, as each of them needs another feature to work.
I do agree on MS' bad reputation when it comes to security, but even that was not the root cause here. Their driver approval process needs might need more attention.
Or maybe something absurd as, say, open-source drivers? Ideally the whole kernel and driver stack would be OS. Maybe in the future law will require such, for safety and accountability. They can keep their other junk like office closed afaic.
Linux could be the best OS on the planet but without full functioning and high quality applications it is meaningless. And the applications that do exist are usually just poorly made clones of applications that you actually pay for.
Get real. At work i use OS software for about anything i do. It's on par, if not better, than commercial offerings. Besides, i don't have to worry about crippled-down features. Or future portability of projects, just in case the vendor decides i need a dongle just to view a file.
For example, recently we needed the schematics of an old PCB design. We had to boot a 15-year old box to get access to some files. The software also required a parallel-port dongle. To our luck, the box actually booted and we could do what we wanted. However, any backup of it was totally useless because well, thank you closed-source-with-dongle-company.
The only thing i work with that is closed source is actually the OS itself, because our ICT department and pretty much the rest of the world for standardized on Windows for the desktop. So i need to produce windows-10 compatible software. Which i do using OS tools.
The only closed source application i use is the windows calculator because i did not bother to install anything else.
There's examples where you are right. But it's also a matter of mindset. Some people just believe it cannot be good unless they pay for it. They believe they need recurring fees in order to use software. They believe being dependent on a 3rd party to run your business is not a bad thing. They believe continuity is not an issue as long you pay up.
As far i know, sending unsolicited bills for unsolicited services to businesses is totally legal, at least in my part of the world.
I hope I don't live in your part of the word.
The Netherlands, EU.
As far i know, sending unsolicited bills for unsolicited services to businesses is totally legal, at least in my part of the world.
What is illegal is the use of fraudulent addresses, like the address or company name for someone else.
But if i send to a $1000 bill for listing your name in my service which i call an 'online business index', and you choose to pay me, i'm legally all fine. By paying you actually just sealed the contract.
So, it totally depends on what this dude was doing. Surely, i agree it was a scam. But is it legally a scam? Cause a lot of companies get away with such practices and make a good coin already. Morals have very limited legal value.
The teams focused on pruning entire potential paths for CNNs to use, evaluating each in turn. Lower probability paths are successively pruned away, leaving the final, best-case path.
Now, i don't know about AI that much, so in this scenario it may be totally different.
With chess engines, early pruning is a recipe for disaster. You might fool beginner players, you won't fool GM's. Pruning in general is already questionable, as you are deleting possibilities based on assumptions that are in turn based on a limited subset of your data. Early pruning leads to big performance gains but may also easily overlook possibilities because certain paths are assumed wrong. Just because sometimes something that appears to be wrong is actually good.
As said, it may or may not apply to AI, but it looks it does as they use similar words to describe a similar process. If it sounds too good to be true. Performance gains by a factor of 200 smells like red flags.
This is totally true. However, sometimes it's better than nothing. It will stop certain websites from gathering 'personal' info.And iIt might stop certain private parties from collecting your data, for example when sharing linux distro torrents.
Norway is a European country. However, it is not part of the EU (European Union). Hence you'd have to investigate the Norwegian law to determinate what they are required to log by law and under what conditions this data can be requested by (foreign) law enforcement authorities.
If it was a EU based company it certainly would raise some red flags. As EU demands both 'privacy' and extensive logging at the same time from it's companies. Being Norwegian it certainly would put up an extra threshold at least for us EU citizens.
Personally, I might use such service as it's convenient and better than nothing. But i'd also recommend anyone to have one- or more- payed VPN subscriptions with contractual guarantees if you're about to do something that's possibly not 100% legal in your or the hosts' area of the world, or is perfectly legal but in case you'd still like to protect your privacy. Obviously, i use my VPN only for legal purposes.
It's waiting for the copyright lawyers from Hollywood to make a claim.
After all, the binary data from every move that was ever made and ever will be made is already in the number pi.
Actually, if you would describe the whole universe in binary format -or decimal if you wish-, it's already in the number pi. Somewhere.
Musicians make software.
Obviously i ment: Musicians make music. Well, some make software too. Or hardware. Or all of them *shrugs*
What's so special about making hardware? Musicians make software. Spotify maintains servers that hosts files and streams them. Everyone in this scheme has a role. Without software, the hardware is useless. Without music, less people would want to buy a phone. Without musicians, there's no music at all.
There's also the carrier or internet in general. There's the various taxes and radio frequency licenses. There's so many parties involved, that i really wonder why you think Apple is so special and Spotify is not.
Disclaimer: i cancelled my Spotify account long ago and am back to old school cd's, vinyl, tapes and radio. My smartphone is next on the won't-replace list.
Hello there. Pepsi here!
If you scratch off the 'Slashdot' sticker that's permanently attached to your monitor, you will find a code underneath. Fill in this code on our website and win a year long Pepsi Max!
You can participate as often as you want. Winners are randomly selected from the top-1000 of most popular websites.
P.S. Thanks facebook, google, twitter and linkedin for your identifiable data, we will forward it to the pimple removal and weight loss pharmacies as we have some interesting statistical facts for you!
Firefox was never about being small and light weight, it was about being able to render websites faster and in a standard compliant way.
I hate to correct you, cause on other points you are right, but no.
Firefox came as spin-off from the Mozilla suite. Mozilla targeted compliant browsing.
Firefox was from day one meant as a light weight browser with only one feature: browsing websites. No composer, no e-mail, no fancies and initially not even plugins. Low on memory. Low on megabytes of code. Fast.
From there it went it's own way exactly as parent poster described.
Question is. Are we talking early 90's or late 90's. For early 90's you are totally right and a 68xxx would run circles around Intel's offerings.
However, in late 90's, around this magic 1996 year you mentioned, stuff started to change. Intel would double it's CPU speed at a tremendous rate. A single mobo could see 3 CPU generations, going from a 66MHz model all the way to 233. At the end of the decade we hit the magic 1GHz benchmark. In 5 year time, CPU's went from maybe 133MHz around 1995 to 1GHz in 1999.
Meanwhile, the Motorola series lagged behind. IBM, baking them Motorola's, tried to make improvements but eventually Intel's production process proved to provide better results. That's why Apple eventually switched to Intel anyways, a few years and model or two late.
They almost died back in the 90's because of the Mac clones.
Reason being their late switch to the better performing Intel (compatible) cpu's.
You cannot target professional power users if your hardware does not offer the power those professionals were after. A lot of users choose an alternative platform aka Windows because those workstations were having much better performance and could be replaced more frequent with the latest hardware. After all, the 90's were the time when some users replaced their hardware every 1 1/2 year or even more often because of the fast improvement rate of both CPU speed and storage space. Apple just could not keep up and deliver, despite being the platform of choice for certain audio, video and graphics processing tools.
Usually i write 'including me' when i make that statement but you figured it out. Sorry bout your head though.
I suggest not to listen to strangers on the internet ranting about something from their boycave, and just use what fits your needs best.
Yes i dislike WP too. And drupal too. Any CMS really. But when i have to make a website for the boss, i just pull one of them of the shelve and get the job done. Preferably one that's still supported in 5 year, depending on the site. Anything mission-critical is not made with such CMS anyways, it serves another purpose and another market and pretty much any of them does what it needs to do. Just like your smartphone - when was the last time you seriously cared about the brand of phone as long it worked?
Why don't we read the next blurbs of the article that come immediately after the part cited in the summary:
"Microsoft has published a timeline for migrating these operating systems to SHA-2, with support for the algorithm coming in standalone updates. On March 12, Microsoft is planning a standalone update with SHA-2 code sign support for Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1. It also will deliver to WSUS 3.0 SP2 the required support for delivering SHA-2 updates.
Microsoft will make available a standalone update with SHA-2 code sign support for Windows Server 2008 SP2 on April 9, 2019. "
tldr; nothing will change for these users
What will change is the pile of 2nd hand computers that will not be able to (automatically) receive updates because they were powered off during this critical period between March and July.
To me this sounds like a well-thought scheme to increase PC sales. I'd not be surprised if OEM's handed MS some money if they can fix the 2nd hand problem, because people can buy a perfectly functional PC for less than $50.
In this topic only Samsung and Sony are mentioned receiving regular updates.
From own experience i can assure you most phones from less respected brands don't receive updates at all, or at most one or two updates right after the release to fix some vendor bugs - and typically introduce new ones. Like how i had a phone receiving an update to fix a battery charging issue. It broke the front camera functionality. No way to uninstall the update either.
It makes me seriously consider my next phone to be a Samsung, Sony or Pixel, despite the price tag. But that seems to be the price to protect data.
Now if i was an insurance company, i would call the insurance void for any car with rooted software.
Not because this particular software is so dangerous, but other software maybe is. That, and the manufacturer can no longer be held liable and/or the vehicle is not on the road as when in tested conditions that approved it. Rooting your car's software might have all kind of unexpected side effects. Even if it's only the entertainment system, in a Tesla that's still highly integrated with the rest of the car.
Now of course i'm not an insurance company, and i would prefer cars to have a full stack of open-source software, that the user could upgrade or change at will. But i do think there are legal issues that have to be dealt with, in case of an error, being it user or software or company's fault.
As one user i find 10 euro a month way too much. If i were listening to it for hours a day, maybe. Netflix already costs me over 10 euro a month, and it's at a constant struggle for monthly renewal. Spotify is just too expensive. 10 euro or dollar sounds like a bargain, but it's not.
I went back to the traditional way. I use cd's -thrift stores sell them for $1 each-, i use youtube when i want to check out something new, or have a playlist and don't care for audio quality. And spotify can *** because their free service nags all the time with stupid promo's and an occasional read ad, and the paid service is too expensive for the infrequent times i use it.
Indeed. My recent reasons to replace my phone:
1. It wasn't waterproof and i dropped it in something wet. Touch no longer works.
2. It was waterproof but i dropped it and the glass broke. Touch no longer works.
3. It had it in the pocket of my jacket under very wet weather conditions. Touch no longer works.
4. It's 6+ year old and still working and going strong. It's almost my oldest phone. Since all the others don't work i'm using it right now. I ordered a new one because it's slow, the 3G a bit buggy and slow, and mostly because it's incompatible with my banking apps.
In short: they are made to fail, with this stupid glass screens with no or almost no bevel. The touch screen in particular is sensitive to wet conditions. By the way, with 'touch no longer works' i mean: random touches or unresponsive in certain screen areas, or a combination of both.
I read the article, and still don't understand a thing. I think it is not because i am so stupid, but because the article has been so dumbed down that it no longer contains any useful information. So, if someone please can explain what this is about, without using a cat or car analogy, please feel free to do so.
"the daytime sky is blue because there are millions of blue fairies flying around during the day, and they sleep at night."
I found your explanation very plausible :)
Thing is. Do we really want sites like 'facebook' to judge for us if something is true or not. Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's indeed plain misinformation. Sometimes it's a joke. Next time it's for commercial reasons to cripple the competition. Next time it's politics.
While i don't mind fact-checking sites, why do people on facebook not just link to articles on such sites. And yes, facebook may have good intentions, but, the big but is, i don't trust facebook either.
For same reasons i don't want google - or any search engine - to judge if something is true or not. And excuses like 'people are misinformed' are bull. Cause who are they to say someone else is misinformed, because half of that fact-checking is the same propaganda they claim to oppose. Wikipedia is for general-consensus-information. Google is for searching the internet. Facebook is for sharing posts and pictures. Let people decide for their own.
I like Firefox, but i wish Mozilla would stay away from politics.
Same applies to other organizations and companies by the way. Just focus what you do, and don't waste effort on lobbying or playing the public. Even despite other actors do. Just don't. Stay cool. Stay pro.