Moderators: This is not "interesting" or "insightful." It's off topic. I didn't click the article for this. The jokes were funny and fine but this Boy Scouts are evil discussion goes way to far off topic for a positive moderation. Please spend your points more constructively.
What's the controversy? The [defective] hardware only works one way. It's just doing it the only one way that it works. You can't fault someone for going down the only path available.
Start making movies about coal dust mutating lizards (Godzilla) and researchers (The Incredible Hulk), maybe a few spiders, etc. Oh and and come up with a coal bomb and use it in a world war.
Face it. Coal just isn't as photogenic as nuclear technologies.
STFU you fucking troll! They're green. Can't moderators do something about this blatant disregard for fact! There has never been any scientific data to suggest that they have ever been pink. It's a Hollywood fantasy. It's why leprechauns ride unicorns: for their stealth (green camo), speed, and their cunning ability to kill with their horn. Next you'll be trying to tell me that leprechauns aren't bad ass warriors.
Ok look at what popular media is spouting:
Teddy Bears are warm and fluffy right? Are bears warm and fluffy? Hell fuck no, they are cold killing machines.
Santa Clause: We all know that fat fuck doesn't exist. If he did you'd be lining up at McDonalds to see him not the fucking mall.
Do you really think Hollywood has a clue about leprechauns and their blood thirsty steeds if they can't even get Santa and teddies right? Wake up and smell the corporate America.
I honestly don't care about version numbers. They really do not matter at all. I don't understand why everyone is so OCD about them. Do you actually chose products by how they number their releases? Why is it such a big deal that every single mention of Mozilla someone has to complain about the version numbering? I honestly wish they'd correct a spelling error in a/* comment */ and release it as version 2371 just to piss you silly ass clowns off.
You have more to say about the version number than about how the product works. It's like writing a negative review for a product on consumer reports based solely on the model or part number (except that Slashdot doesn't really have the effect you think it does). "This is a horrible product because the part number is 38271. If it were shorter like 123 I could remember the number and save $$$hundreds of man hours$$$ when filling out requisition forms." Are you for real? Version numbers the down fall of Mozilla?
TBH, I'd rather have more frequent smaller releases than a jumbo release once or twice a year. It's loads better than having 50 features that they've been sitting on for half a year (or longer) in various states completion all rolled out at one time so that it takes another 6 months of testing just to see if it all works together. It's got to be simpler to just pick a few features that you feel are ready, iron them out, and release. There's no pressure to roll that half baked feature. You don't have to worry about the feature being delayed for half a year just because it didn't get picked up. Instead you might have to wait a few weeks. When it's right: it goes. It's got to be better than: when it's crunch time it gets jammed in just so it doesn't have to wait a year.
Good riddance gargantuan releases. Hello sane incremental releases with a few ironed out features (even if it pisses off the version number nazis).
Why is it so hard to believe that an organization [sic] with no structure would behave that way? Is there a leader? A board? Do they take a vote on their next move? Or is it just anarchy. And you're trying to find some sense of order in it?
I have 6 and 7 year old kids and know a granny and grandpa that use that use the so called complicated Linux desktop just fine. In fact, I have yet to witness this illusive demographic that has trouble using the Linux desktop. Mostly it's just regurgitated internet blather about what was once true years ago.
The truth is Windows is pre-installed on virtually every desktop out there. The truth is Windows is marketed on every medium imaginable from stickers on boxes to the fucking idiot in the blue shirt at best buy to the laptop ads on TV. They practically advertise having a Windows OS louder than their own brand name. Don't pretend that that kind of product placement has nothing to do with Linux on the desktop's adoption.
Now you can blather about and say something stupid like "id too complixcated" because you saw it modded insightful some years ago but is it really still true? I've heard it regurgitated so many times now that it has got to be true? Even though most of the "insightful" can't actually say what users are getting stuck on?
No, not what you think they're going to get stuck on, but what you actually saw them get stuck on. Seriously what did you see them get stuck on and why didn't you submit a bug report for it? (Don't even say that it would fall on death ears or other such FUD. There's a whole damned company which you mentioned who has a hard-on for such things).
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not one of those peace loving Linux hippies that try to push it on everyone as if they were saving the world from the horrible Microsoft Man. I just don't buy the whole "Linux is crippled by a complex desktop experience" argument. I've had total computer newbs over to my house ask if they could use my computer for one thing or another and they did without much trouble at all. They all were able to find a web browser, a word processor, or whatever just fine. One user even found her self through all the complexities of the Linux desktop to a game Mahjongg game when she'd finished checking her web mail. Really is Mahjongg much different on Linux? I guess not. I didn't have to show anyone what to click on I just told them they should be able to find it and set them lose while I pretended to be busy doing something else.
People are a lot more resilient to differences in UIs than geeks and nerds give them credit for (Every cellphone or toaster oven out there has a different UI... and people change their phones frequently). Geeks feel more like the expert (ego boost) if they can assume something they use is too complex for that average idiot. Also geeks tend to go out of their way see all the complexities that a system has to offer. Yes you can do some amazingly complex things with a Linux OS. That doesn't mean everyone has to.
Laugh it up, but once they succeed in opening up a wormhole your definition of portable will be obsolete. And it's not like the occasional accidental black hole doesn't show promise for moving large masses.
Despite having a freedom hating binary only driver, Nvidia's track record for keeping up to date is really good. It certainly keeps ahead of the three most popular distributions without problem. Even Arch Linux, a bleeding edge rolling release distribution, has remarkably little breakage with the binary drivers.
Also we will have a larger focus on quality, we are now requiring unit testing for changes to our core libraries.
About damned time. Maybe the Nepomuk file indexer will stop crashing every time I start a large compile. I turn it on every point release to see if it has gotten any better. I let it go for a few days before I become fed up with its constant disk access... the damned thing never stops, ever. I'm not sure what it does really... it pisses me off that Dolphin uses it for its search. If you want reliable search you still have to use grep, find, or something not built on the KDE indexer. WTF man?
It's funny that now they have this huge file indexer thing they finally (in a recent release) removed the the indexer/search feature from their "Help Center" that hadn't worked since the end of 2.x. Now that they have a brand new indexer... ??? !!! Chuckles. It's OK though no one used it anyway. *cough*Google*cough*.
I love KDE and wouldn't use anything else but sometimes I gotta wonder what's going on in the QA dept. Some of the stuff really is half baked while most of it is great. It's that 10% making the rest look bad.
Is CNET (or any content provider) really that surprised that turning a blind eye to what their advertisers have been doing results in ads being blocked?
I'm sorry but content providers should have put a stop to it many years ago when adblock first showed up. The justifications for blocking ads are real and content providers are in a position to throttle ad providers' bad behavior.
If your ad provider doesn't have a problem pushing scams, find a different one. There is no excuse for intentionally misleading ads.
If your ad provider insists on decreasing the usability of your page, find a different one. If I can't move my mouse cursor to the scrollbar without triggering a full screen advertisement then there's a real problem.
If your ad provider can't provide ads without slowing page load/render times significantly and without consuming significant resources, find a different one.
These are not unreasonable things to ask for. Be a part of the solution or continue to be the victim. If ad revenue is a significant part of your business you should sit up and pay attention when they get so far out of control that people go to great lengths to avoid them. Don't just throw your hands up and tell us there's nothing you can do about the fucking bouncing box flashing high contrast colors and lying about how my computer is infected.
The sad truth is that content providers sit on their laurels and do nothing while a significant part of their business is drying up because ads are that badly out of control. Seriously. As a content provider you know that ads are a significant part of your revenue. You know why people block ads (who can't spot a bad ad in a half second? Really.). Yet you do nothing to improve the quality of ads. Not a thing even though it is your bottom line. How do you ignore something that is that critical to your business?
Content providers should stop the QQ and start taking action by giving strong feed back to their ad providers. Form alliances with other content providers to increase your strength and take action.
Wrong. It is up to the developers. If you don't like it then become a developer and exercise your freedom.
I do not understand how you feel so strongly entitled to have software developed to YOUR expectations. Especially when it is something you DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO IN ANY WAY. Do you pay for it? Do you beta test in a meaningful way? Do you do anything but bitch about it on Slashdot? Why are you entitled to have it your way? Who made you god of Mozilla?
Justify your entitlement.
I said in a previous Fx story
And as you will continue to say EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an article about Firefox. Even if it has nothing to do with the article. For this you'll be moderated "Insightful" rather than "Troll." I don't even have to scroll down... I know there's another "Insightful" posting about how bad Firefox leaks memory. Bringing every defect, be it real or perceived, every time someone says ANYTHING about Firefox is "Insightful" not "Redundant", "Troll", or "Off topic."
Well, we could switch to Microsoft's Bing but Google has corrupted those results too. It's too bad because Microsoft is such a big player in the open source world.
On one hand we have Slashdot saying "SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE BAD [because copying is good]" and the other "COPYING IDEAS IS BAD [if it's from a major competitor]."
This fear of taking good ideas from your competitors is a bit silly. I really hate it when developers prioritize being different from their competitors above everything else. They go to great lengths to be different than previous versions or their competitors and then justify it after the fact claiming it's somehow better for the user. If you have to spend a lot of time justifying your UI changes (especially if you actually have to explain now it makes things easier... !!! WTF???) then you've got it wrong.
Users and developers need to learn to evaluate ideas by some other criteria than weather or not someone else did it. If an idea is good, use it. Don't worry about weather someone else is doing it.
Beyond the DRM bullshit (there really is no other word), the gaming industry is suffering from the Disney movie effect. They just keep making sequels or remaking the same. Newer Unreals were the same game as previous ones just with better graphics. It was no more exciting than Aladdin 23 or Parent Trap 9 (or what ever Disney is up to now). When the games differed in more than new graphics they added extra complexity to the game that just didn't add anything to the game play. Many argue that the playability of earlier Unreals was better. Yes the first Aladdin was great, but you can over do a thing. That's what the gaming industry has been doing for the past decade.
Again parallel with the movie industry... if you've seen a few popular 80's horror movies, you'll never need to see another. Same tricks with the music, lighting, creepy camera follows just with higher definition (Despite all the technological advances they still manage to somehow make it less realistic than the movies that were made 30 years ago. WTF?). The movies with an interesting story line have much more replay value.
You can incorporate every feature known to mankind in a game, but is it fun? No? Then those features don't mean anything. Classic side scrolling Nintendo games with a small fraction the bells and whistles can be just as much fun. Simple graphics, simple mechanics, but so much fun. It's not the nostalgia talking either. I think they worked harder on game play when equipment was much more limited in capabilities.
Maniadrive can be funner than the most advanced racing games with all the physics and graphics that cause the wimpy systems to bleed.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderators: This is not "interesting" or "insightful." It's off topic. I didn't click the article for this. The jokes were funny and fine but this Boy Scouts are evil discussion goes way to far off topic for a positive moderation. Please spend your points more constructively.
What's the controversy? The [defective] hardware only works one way. It's just doing it the only one way that it works. You can't fault someone for going down the only path available.
The broken hardware is broken. It only works the Windows way.
Still... Big Hollywood title or it didn't happen. ;)
Start making movies about coal dust mutating lizards (Godzilla) and researchers (The Incredible Hulk), maybe a few spiders, etc. Oh and and come up with a coal bomb and use it in a world war.
Face it. Coal just isn't as photogenic as nuclear technologies.
STFU you fucking troll! They're green. Can't moderators do something about this blatant disregard for fact! There has never been any scientific data to suggest that they have ever been pink. It's a Hollywood fantasy. It's why leprechauns ride unicorns: for their stealth (green camo), speed, and their cunning ability to kill with their horn. Next you'll be trying to tell me that leprechauns aren't bad ass warriors.
Ok look at what popular media is spouting:
Do you really think Hollywood has a clue about leprechauns and their blood thirsty steeds if they can't even get Santa and teddies right? Wake up and smell the corporate America.
I honestly don't care about version numbers. They really do not matter at all. I don't understand why everyone is so OCD about them. Do you actually chose products by how they number their releases? Why is it such a big deal that every single mention of Mozilla someone has to complain about the version numbering? I honestly wish they'd correct a spelling error in a /* comment */ and release it as version 2371 just to piss you silly ass clowns off.
You have more to say about the version number than about how the product works. It's like writing a negative review for a product on consumer reports based solely on the model or part number (except that Slashdot doesn't really have the effect you think it does). "This is a horrible product because the part number is 38271. If it were shorter like 123 I could remember the number and save $$$hundreds of man hours$$$ when filling out requisition forms." Are you for real? Version numbers the down fall of Mozilla?
TBH, I'd rather have more frequent smaller releases than a jumbo release once or twice a year. It's loads better than having 50 features that they've been sitting on for half a year (or longer) in various states completion all rolled out at one time so that it takes another 6 months of testing just to see if it all works together. It's got to be simpler to just pick a few features that you feel are ready, iron them out, and release. There's no pressure to roll that half baked feature. You don't have to worry about the feature being delayed for half a year just because it didn't get picked up. Instead you might have to wait a few weeks. When it's right: it goes. It's got to be better than: when it's crunch time it gets jammed in just so it doesn't have to wait a year.
Good riddance gargantuan releases. Hello sane incremental releases with a few ironed out features (even if it pisses off the version number nazis).
Why is it so hard to believe that an organization [sic] with no structure would behave that way? Is there a leader? A board? Do they take a vote on their next move? Or is it just anarchy. And you're trying to find some sense of order in it?
I have 6 and 7 year old kids and know a granny and grandpa that use that use the so called complicated Linux desktop just fine. In fact, I have yet to witness this illusive demographic that has trouble using the Linux desktop. Mostly it's just regurgitated internet blather about what was once true years ago.
The truth is Windows is pre-installed on virtually every desktop out there. The truth is Windows is marketed on every medium imaginable from stickers on boxes to the fucking idiot in the blue shirt at best buy to the laptop ads on TV. They practically advertise having a Windows OS louder than their own brand name. Don't pretend that that kind of product placement has nothing to do with Linux on the desktop's adoption.
Now you can blather about and say something stupid like "id too complixcated" because you saw it modded insightful some years ago but is it really still true? I've heard it regurgitated so many times now that it has got to be true? Even though most of the "insightful" can't actually say what users are getting stuck on?
No, not what you think they're going to get stuck on, but what you actually saw them get stuck on. Seriously what did you see them get stuck on and why didn't you submit a bug report for it? (Don't even say that it would fall on death ears or other such FUD. There's a whole damned company which you mentioned who has a hard-on for such things).
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not one of those peace loving Linux hippies that try to push it on everyone as if they were saving the world from the horrible Microsoft Man. I just don't buy the whole "Linux is crippled by a complex desktop experience" argument. I've had total computer newbs over to my house ask if they could use my computer for one thing or another and they did without much trouble at all. They all were able to find a web browser, a word processor, or whatever just fine. One user even found her self through all the complexities of the Linux desktop to a game Mahjongg game when she'd finished checking her web mail. Really is Mahjongg much different on Linux? I guess not. I didn't have to show anyone what to click on I just told them they should be able to find it and set them lose while I pretended to be busy doing something else.
People are a lot more resilient to differences in UIs than geeks and nerds give them credit for (Every cellphone or toaster oven out there has a different UI... and people change their phones frequently). Geeks feel more like the expert (ego boost) if they can assume something they use is too complex for that average idiot. Also geeks tend to go out of their way see all the complexities that a system has to offer. Yes you can do some amazingly complex things with a Linux OS. That doesn't mean everyone has to.
Laugh it up, but once they succeed in opening up a wormhole your definition of portable will be obsolete. And it's not like the occasional accidental black hole doesn't show promise for moving large masses.
I agree. Linux is way beyond that silly wannabe OS. One can hardly call it a competition at this point.
Despite having a freedom hating binary only driver, Nvidia's track record for keeping up to date is really good. It certainly keeps ahead of the three most popular distributions without problem. Even Arch Linux, a bleeding edge rolling release distribution, has remarkably little breakage with the binary drivers.
Roll on the FUD, troll.
About damned time. Maybe the Nepomuk file indexer will stop crashing every time I start a large compile. I turn it on every point release to see if it has gotten any better. I let it go for a few days before I become fed up with its constant disk access... the damned thing never stops, ever. I'm not sure what it does really... it pisses me off that Dolphin uses it for its search. If you want reliable search you still have to use grep, find, or something not built on the KDE indexer. WTF man?
It's funny that now they have this huge file indexer thing they finally (in a recent release) removed the the indexer/search feature from their "Help Center" that hadn't worked since the end of 2.x. Now that they have a brand new indexer... ??? !!! Chuckles. It's OK though no one used it anyway. *cough*Google*cough*.
I love KDE and wouldn't use anything else but sometimes I gotta wonder what's going on in the QA dept. Some of the stuff really is half baked while most of it is great. It's that 10% making the rest look bad.
Steve Ballmer disagrees.
Thats why the summary links to an article. You must be new here.... oh wait... You'll fit in great here. Carry on.
Is CNET (or any content provider) really that surprised that turning a blind eye to what their advertisers have been doing results in ads being blocked?
I'm sorry but content providers should have put a stop to it many years ago when adblock first showed up. The justifications for blocking ads are real and content providers are in a position to throttle ad providers' bad behavior.
If your ad provider doesn't have a problem pushing scams, find a different one. There is no excuse for intentionally misleading ads.
If your ad provider insists on decreasing the usability of your page, find a different one. If I can't move my mouse cursor to the scrollbar without triggering a full screen advertisement then there's a real problem.
If your ad provider can't provide ads without slowing page load/render times significantly and without consuming significant resources, find a different one.
These are not unreasonable things to ask for. Be a part of the solution or continue to be the victim. If ad revenue is a significant part of your business you should sit up and pay attention when they get so far out of control that people go to great lengths to avoid them. Don't just throw your hands up and tell us there's nothing you can do about the fucking bouncing box flashing high contrast colors and lying about how my computer is infected.
The sad truth is that content providers sit on their laurels and do nothing while a significant part of their business is drying up because ads are that badly out of control. Seriously. As a content provider you know that ads are a significant part of your revenue. You know why people block ads (who can't spot a bad ad in a half second? Really.). Yet you do nothing to improve the quality of ads. Not a thing even though it is your bottom line. How do you ignore something that is that critical to your business?
Content providers should stop the QQ and start taking action by giving strong feed back to their ad providers. Form alliances with other content providers to increase your strength and take action.
Wrong. It is up to the developers. If you don't like it then become a developer and exercise your freedom.
I do not understand how you feel so strongly entitled to have software developed to YOUR expectations. Especially when it is something you DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO IN ANY WAY. Do you pay for it? Do you beta test in a meaningful way? Do you do anything but bitch about it on Slashdot? Why are you entitled to have it your way? Who made you god of Mozilla?
Justify your entitlement.
And as you will continue to say EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an article about Firefox. Even if it has nothing to do with the article. For this you'll be moderated "Insightful" rather than "Troll." I don't even have to scroll down... I know there's another "Insightful" posting about how bad Firefox leaks memory. Bringing every defect, be it real or perceived, every time someone says ANYTHING about Firefox is "Insightful" not "Redundant", "Troll", or "Off topic."
Well, we could switch to Microsoft's Bing but Google has corrupted those results too. It's too bad because Microsoft is such a big player in the open source world.
On one hand we have Slashdot saying "SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE BAD [because copying is good]" and the other "COPYING IDEAS IS BAD [if it's from a major competitor]."
This fear of taking good ideas from your competitors is a bit silly. I really hate it when developers prioritize being different from their competitors above everything else. They go to great lengths to be different than previous versions or their competitors and then justify it after the fact claiming it's somehow better for the user. If you have to spend a lot of time justifying your UI changes (especially if you actually have to explain now it makes things easier... !!! WTF???) then you've got it wrong.
Users and developers need to learn to evaluate ideas by some other criteria than weather or not someone else did it. If an idea is good, use it. Don't worry about weather someone else is doing it.
Where do I get in line again?
That's only half the story. Now pick some memorable quotes from Microsoft leaders and tell us it's all is rosy.
I'm indifferent to the audibility of an elevator release. A loud one might make it obvious who did it but you certainly won't escape it.
No. The topic is actually just Linux. Also, it's not uncommon for Linus to hold off on a release if things aren't "quiet" enough.
Beyond the DRM bullshit (there really is no other word), the gaming industry is suffering from the Disney movie effect. They just keep making sequels or remaking the same. Newer Unreals were the same game as previous ones just with better graphics. It was no more exciting than Aladdin 23 or Parent Trap 9 (or what ever Disney is up to now). When the games differed in more than new graphics they added extra complexity to the game that just didn't add anything to the game play. Many argue that the playability of earlier Unreals was better. Yes the first Aladdin was great, but you can over do a thing. That's what the gaming industry has been doing for the past decade.
Again parallel with the movie industry... if you've seen a few popular 80's horror movies, you'll never need to see another. Same tricks with the music, lighting, creepy camera follows just with higher definition (Despite all the technological advances they still manage to somehow make it less realistic than the movies that were made 30 years ago. WTF?). The movies with an interesting story line have much more replay value.
You can incorporate every feature known to mankind in a game, but is it fun? No? Then those features don't mean anything. Classic side scrolling Nintendo games with a small fraction the bells and whistles can be just as much fun. Simple graphics, simple mechanics, but so much fun. It's not the nostalgia talking either. I think they worked harder on game play when equipment was much more limited in capabilities.
Maniadrive can be funner than the most advanced racing games with all the physics and graphics that cause the wimpy systems to bleed.