Simply because Firefox devs are some of the most complacent, or downright willfully arrogant folks out there. It took years, literally years, for them to even admit there were massive memory leaks in Firefox. Anyone who suggested it here was branded a troll by them -- but that was back in the day when people liked, believed, and trusted in Firefox, back in the days when it was on its ascendancy. Those days are well and truly over.
So while they may have fixed most of the memory leaks (it still runs like shit on a Mac), let us not allow them to get complacent again. They are already vain and arrogant about their lunatic version number race, so let's not go back to the days of them being in complete denial about other problems too. By not frequently reminding them about memory leaks, you are opening the door to yet more bloat going forward.
It's important they understand we have not forgotten how many years it took them to deal with the memory leaks they pretended did not even exist.
Why not wait until 1.0 is ready before announcing it?
I'd guess the announcement has to be now, because even with the fastest of viral marketing, the word will take longer to get out there than it takes for Mozilla to get from 0.1 to 1.0 -- which should probably be next Tuesday at the latest, knowing their preposterous update frequency.
Mozilla: moving sideways and treading water since 2005.
All these voices coming out against these Bills, yet the Congress and Senate still push as if they really have a shot.
Perhaps it will become more subtle, but it will not stop so long as those "voices" are targeting the puppets -- and not the puppet-masters.
And that's why the logical next step for anti-sopa action is to hit the puppet-masters. A day of global boycott of media companies would send them a clear message.
It is possible to completely end sopa once and for all -- all we have to do is stop buying media products until it completely goes away. Targeting government is irrelevant*, it's the pockets of the CEO's of media companies who own them and control them, that need to be targeted.
(*assuming that we cannot get lobbying recognized for what it really is -- sedition. And acting on lobbying, treason. If lobbying was the serious criminal offense that it should be, then targeting Government could work, of itself.)
Apples and oranges. The bottled water companies didn't invent water. The media companies did make the media you're pirating.
No. The media companies did not make the media. They distribute it. This is not the same thing. Continuing the water analogy, they are not the cloud, nor the rain, just merely the plumbing to the fawcet.
Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.
Tell that to the music industry. Like many, many people, I've done subcontracted work for the music industry. I've never been paid for any of it. I now know better to ever accept any contract from them. And I would urge everyone to do the same. They are thieving scumbags who promise a great deal, and rarely, if ever, pay out. This, is in addition to the many 1000s of artists who have been screwed over in contracts over the decades.
However much the public out there may "steal" from them, it's peanuts to what they steal from people every single day.
Absolutely correct. However, I wonder why Mozilla is trying to prevent the ESR version from having widespread access.
There's no commercial gain in so doing, it's built anyway -- so people may as well use it, it won't affect support particularly -- just move questions perhaps. So where is the harm in giving people freedom of choice? Is freedom of choice not intrinsic in the philosophy of open source software?
I suspect the only reason for limiting the ESR version is vanity and arrogance. FF's arrogant developers know fine well that the ESR version would quickly become the default version of FF out there. It is exactly what everyone wants, a stable version of the software without new, worthless, feature-bloat ever two weeks.
FF developers, why not just have balls to admit you fucked up? Give people a free choice between ESR or the rapid-deployment constant-flux FF versions. See which people prefer -- and then run with that, and concentrate more on that version.
Really, what is the fucking point on forcing your idiotic ideas on users who really want something else? That's why you are too cowardly to make ESR freely available. And we know it.
It will be interesting to see if people find any value in this.
People will. But... those people are advertisers, not users.
This will likely result in more successful targeting of ads: the fact that it probably skews your search results and means you don't find what you are looking for easily, is of little consequence to Google -- at least not until there's some sort of backlash. They can happily ride the extra carriage on the Gravy Train until then.
Search, despite being Google's core business, has been getting worse and worse for a decade now. That Google added it's own "Places" spam, was a significant drop in quality -- this seems like the same kind of drop again, and in addition.
The sad truth, is that in 1997 the difference between using Google and Altavista was profound in their differing search results. But in 2012, using Google is exactly the same as was using Altavista in 1997. That's how bad search is now, and for exactly the same reasons -- profiting from ads.
...that, as an Australian, he'd be used to censorship on the internet.
If you are willing to go to an oppressive country. And in so doing contribute to their economy and success, then... it's just crocodile tears when you find out that that oppressive country is oppressive to you too.
What it means, no matter how good it is technically, is that it will fail through bad marketing.
Microsoft has its good points and bad points, but where it really, really always fails, is marketing. A "zune", in brown, that squirts? What complete and utter retard thought that would work?
One example of many over the past 7 or 8 years that just prove that their marketing droids are talking to the wrong people in their focus groups. Microsoft products are not cool.... at all, in any way, to anyone. Business products don't need to be cool, but tech like a phone absolutely needs to be cool to some demographic, regardless of its functionality.
It could be the best phone ever made, but unless Microsoft fires its entire marketing dept, this phone will be DOA.
The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference.
Yes. There's a number of things they should be doing in order to widen their effectiveness. They seem oblivious to the perceptions of the majority of people. People who would support them, and do agree with some of their issues.
For example: lose the dreads, cnd signs, om symbols, and rainbow crap. That shit never worked in the 60's, and it still doesn't work. Also, wash. Lose the tents.
Put on a suit. Yes, that is the uniform of "the man", but the reason "the man" wears it is to be taken seriously. Yes, it's wrong that society puts so much emphasis on how you look, but the reality is -- they do. To dress well is not selling out, it is using the tools of the enemy against itself.
Basically, stop looking extreme and anarchic. All that will do is make you easy targets for the media, and alienate you from soccer moms and blue collar workers. These people could be on your side, and do sympathize with the issues you raise. You will only bring them on board by dignified and civilized protest. A quiet protest by people in suits standing outside Wall Street, would scare the Hell out of shareholders and Government far more than a bunch of people who look like unemployed losers and precocious students. It will get media attention, and it will get the issue out there far more quickly and effectively, and it will be taken seriously by a lot more people. You can still be radical, just don't look radical.
It's astonishing that protesters are making exactly the same marketing mistakes that every protest group since the 60's has made. If you want to be ignored, dress like a bunch of hippies, sing songs, and don't wash. If you want to be heard, look like you are normal. It's really very, very simple.
This group was founded by a guy who got kicked out of Greenpeace for being too extreme.
Nice try at spin. Sure, he left/was-kicked-out at an early point in Greenpeace's history where there was disagreement about the direction of the organization.
Some people wanted to take non-violent direct action, some people wanted it to be more campaigning. Watson continued with the non-violent direct action, whereas the remainder of Greenpeace accrued significant wealth, and did very little with that money to save the whales, or indeed, anything else.
Most of the original directors of Greenpeace retired as millionaires. And even today they raise millions, but do very little with that money other than have an handful of volunteers chain themselves to something each year -- and even that is just to generate more publicity to raise more money: which they don't spend on anything related to their mission.
Watson is far from perfect. However, in the world of NGO's who simply generate FUD to raise money perpetuate their own existence, at least he is actually doing something. Unlike Greenpeace, who simply give people the illusion that they are doing something, while cashing their checks.
Someone ought to tell Mozilla this. Judging by their bizarre version numbering system and flawed gui tweaks, they appear to be trying (and completely failing) to compete with Chrome.
Google has nothing to fear from Mozilla. They innovated themselves into global success, and are now irritating their way to total failure.
They seem doomed forever to repeat the exact same failures as Netscape.
Many of the toys on this list aren't very dangerous. I'd go as far as saying that a pencil is more dangerous than every single one of them. I can't fathom why this article appeared on this website.
I can fathom it: 1. viral marketing. 2. Samzenpus
They day samzenpus posts an article that isn't "idle", or sub-idle actually, will be the day that we all have our own personal Nuclear Fusion generators.
Right! But admittedly, it's a lot more friendly than those who develop it. As their support forums prove beyond any shadow of a doubt. These are the kind of people who give open source software a bad name. The Sheldon-Cooper-types.
Every December, Jimbo goes on the scrounge; sticks his hand out for money. And every single December there's some controversial headline about Wikipedia -- this is not a coincidence.
Honest-Jimbo isn't going to be restricting, nor shutting down, the site this side of Hell freezing over. He's making far, far too much money from it. This is just a stunt, like so many before it -- designed to make sure his source of free money keeps rolling in.
And while there's a great deal wrong with copyright laws, and it is good that it is highlighted, I dare say the main reason for Wikipedia being interested in that, is that there's huge tracts of stolen, and plagiarized, text all over that site.
Not quite. Both Netscape and Firefox* committed suicide. Both had every opportunity to be the best browser out there, and the one with the biggest user base. Both systemically blew it, for exactly the same reasons, in pretty much exactly the same way.
To make that mistake once is understandable, to do it twice -- especially considering they are essentially the same organization -- is utterly retarded.
*Ok, I know Firefox isn't technically dead yet, but we all know it's coming. You only have to compare the joy and positivity from a/. article on Firefox from 2003 with one from 2011 to see its death is imminent. If its loyal diehard fans have completely turned on it (and was one of them too), then it has nothing left to live for. Completely avoidable, and still fixable -- but they never fucking listen, and that's their whole problem.
Greenpeace has confirmed time and time again that their activists are insane. Who keeps giving these people money anyway?
The more interesting question... is "where does the money go?"
Their activists are volunteers for the most part. Their campaigns pretty much result in a publicity stunt just like this where a couple of idiots break into something, climb something or chain themselves to something -- for free. And of course the publicity is really about money, free publicity with no PR people and advertisers needed. (no coincidence they do this around Christmastime when people tend to give money). Alternatively they send out a scaremongering press release that is mostly built around lies and pseudoscience (see Brent Spar, as one example of many).
Get name in paper, make it look like they are doing something (when in reality they aren't doing one single damn thing for the Earth, nor the environment), and Profit!!!!
Yes, there's some publishing costs, and the ship, and a few other things -- but they are raking in millions every year. So again -- "where does the money go?"
Greenpeace is a very, very, very profitable business.
And this is one of their first major mistakes -- although not their only one.
Marketing a movie (especially without studio backing) is extremely difficult and expensive. It costs more than production in most cases. Thus, why would you name your movie something that is near impossible to search for on the internet? That's just making your life infinitely harder.
It is also remarkably short-sighted to try to plan production without a script. The VFX vs SFX argument is moot with no script to work from.
It's unlikely that this movie will gain much leverage. Mainly because these filmmakers seem to have made the same fundamental mistake that most unfunded indie filmmakers make: they do NOT understand demographics. There are two audiences for movies. 1. Children. (Specifically, either the under12's and the 12-25's. You can further split the latter into teen girls and teen boys.) And 2. Movie critics and film students.
There is practically no other paying cinema-going audience worth bothering about. Even targeting the second group will not make you any money from a theater-release, but you might get some DVD sales, some awards, an agent and the chance to work on a studio movie from it.
Yes, there are many of us who would love to see a great sci-fi movie based on realistic dialogue, great acting and adult storylines. A realistic original drama and low on the VFX. However, there is no realistic market for that movie, unless you are very lucky, or related to someone famous. And that market is ever-decreasing too. Even god-awful kids crap like the latest Twilight movie, is 5% down on its last movie.
In fact there's pretty much no market for adult movies of any genre any more. Unless you can get HBO involved maybe. Many of us long for movies like 2001, but there's no way that movie would get made today unless it starred Shia Ladouche and Mila Kunis, and had a lot of whizz-bang VFX.
The first law of filmmaking: Understand demographics. Find out what your audience wants to see, NOT what you think would be cool to make. (assuming you want to be successful, and make some money)
And if you want to make something intelligent for adults, forget movies -- aim for cable TV. Because that's where your only audience will be.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Let's not.
Simply because Firefox devs are some of the most complacent, or downright willfully arrogant folks out there. It took years, literally years, for them to even admit there were massive memory leaks in Firefox. Anyone who suggested it here was branded a troll by them -- but that was back in the day when people liked, believed, and trusted in Firefox, back in the days when it was on its ascendancy. Those days are well and truly over.
So while they may have fixed most of the memory leaks (it still runs like shit on a Mac), let us not allow them to get complacent again. They are already vain and arrogant about their lunatic version number race, so let's not go back to the days of them being in complete denial about other problems too. By not frequently reminding them about memory leaks, you are opening the door to yet more bloat going forward.
It's important they understand we have not forgotten how many years it took them to deal with the memory leaks they pretended did not even exist.
Indeed, well actually.... it shouldn't even be in Idle.
/. to the front page. I hope you are proud of yourself.
I was expecting to see samzenpus's name as editor on this, but to be fair to him, this is way below some of the crap that he posts in Idle.
Unknown Lamer: hang your head in shame. What will you post tomorrow? What sign of the zodiac is best for getting a job at Google?
Congratulations though, you may have just posted the single worst article in the history of
I'd guess the announcement has to be now, because even with the fastest of viral marketing, the word will take longer to get out there than it takes for Mozilla to get from 0.1 to 1.0 -- which should probably be next Tuesday at the latest, knowing their preposterous update frequency.
Mozilla: moving sideways and treading water since 2005.
Perhaps it will become more subtle, but it will not stop so long as those "voices" are targeting the puppets -- and not the puppet-masters.
And that's why the logical next step for anti-sopa action is to hit the puppet-masters. A day of global boycott of media companies would send them a clear message.
It is possible to completely end sopa once and for all -- all we have to do is stop buying media products until it completely goes away. Targeting government is irrelevant*, it's the pockets of the CEO's of media companies who own them and control them, that need to be targeted.
(*assuming that we cannot get lobbying recognized for what it really is -- sedition. And acting on lobbying, treason. If lobbying was the serious criminal offense that it should be, then targeting Government could work, of itself.)
No. The media companies did not make the media. They distribute it. This is not the same thing. Continuing the water analogy, they are not the cloud, nor the rain, just merely the plumbing to the fawcet.
Tell that to the music industry. Like many, many people, I've done subcontracted work for the music industry. I've never been paid for any of it. I now know better to ever accept any contract from them. And I would urge everyone to do the same. They are thieving scumbags who promise a great deal, and rarely, if ever, pay out. This, is in addition to the many 1000s of artists who have been screwed over in contracts over the decades.
However much the public out there may "steal" from them, it's peanuts to what they steal from people every single day.
Oh, so that's what the "C" in CES stands for... here's me thinking it was for "Crapware".
Based on most articles on products there over the years, it seemed like the only logical conclusion.
I think the article must mean Intranet. I'd guess the Chinese Internet population is roughly about 1,000, and are all intelligence agents.
Robots get all the shitty jobs!
Absolutely correct. However, I wonder why Mozilla is trying to prevent the ESR version from having widespread access.
There's no commercial gain in so doing, it's built anyway -- so people may as well use it, it won't affect support particularly -- just move questions perhaps. So where is the harm in giving people freedom of choice? Is freedom of choice not intrinsic in the philosophy of open source software?
I suspect the only reason for limiting the ESR version is vanity and arrogance. FF's arrogant developers know fine well that the ESR version would quickly become the default version of FF out there. It is exactly what everyone wants, a stable version of the software without new, worthless, feature-bloat ever two weeks.
FF developers, why not just have balls to admit you fucked up? Give people a free choice between ESR or the rapid-deployment constant-flux FF versions. See which people prefer -- and then run with that, and concentrate more on that version.
Really, what is the fucking point on forcing your idiotic ideas on users who really want something else? That's why you are too cowardly to make ESR freely available. And we know it.
People will. But... those people are advertisers, not users.
This will likely result in more successful targeting of ads: the fact that it probably skews your search results and means you don't find what you are looking for easily, is of little consequence to Google -- at least not until there's some sort of backlash. They can happily ride the extra carriage on the Gravy Train until then.
Search, despite being Google's core business, has been getting worse and worse for a decade now. That Google added it's own "Places" spam, was a significant drop in quality -- this seems like the same kind of drop again, and in addition.
The sad truth, is that in 1997 the difference between using Google and Altavista was profound in their differing search results. But in 2012, using Google is exactly the same as was using Altavista in 1997. That's how bad search is now, and for exactly the same reasons -- profiting from ads.
...that, as an Australian, he'd be used to censorship on the internet.
If you are willing to go to an oppressive country. And in so doing contribute to their economy and success, then... it's just crocodile tears when you find out that that oppressive country is oppressive to you too.
What it means, no matter how good it is technically, is that it will fail through bad marketing.
Microsoft has its good points and bad points, but where it really, really always fails, is marketing. A "zune", in brown, that squirts? What complete and utter retard thought that would work?
One example of many over the past 7 or 8 years that just prove that their marketing droids are talking to the wrong people in their focus groups. Microsoft products are not cool.... at all, in any way, to anyone. Business products don't need to be cool, but tech like a phone absolutely needs to be cool to some demographic, regardless of its functionality.
It could be the best phone ever made, but unless Microsoft fires its entire marketing dept, this phone will be DOA.
Yes. There's a number of things they should be doing in order to widen their effectiveness. They seem oblivious to the perceptions of the majority of people. People who would support them, and do agree with some of their issues.
For example: lose the dreads, cnd signs, om symbols, and rainbow crap. That shit never worked in the 60's, and it still doesn't work. Also, wash. Lose the tents.
Put on a suit. Yes, that is the uniform of "the man", but the reason "the man" wears it is to be taken seriously. Yes, it's wrong that society puts so much emphasis on how you look, but the reality is -- they do. To dress well is not selling out, it is using the tools of the enemy against itself.
Basically, stop looking extreme and anarchic. All that will do is make you easy targets for the media, and alienate you from soccer moms and blue collar workers. These people could be on your side, and do sympathize with the issues you raise. You will only bring them on board by dignified and civilized protest. A quiet protest by people in suits standing outside Wall Street, would scare the Hell out of shareholders and Government far more than a bunch of people who look like unemployed losers and precocious students. It will get media attention, and it will get the issue out there far more quickly and effectively, and it will be taken seriously by a lot more people. You can still be radical, just don't look radical.
It's astonishing that protesters are making exactly the same marketing mistakes that every protest group since the 60's has made. If you want to be ignored, dress like a bunch of hippies, sing songs, and don't wash. If you want to be heard, look like you are normal. It's really very, very simple.
Nice try at spin. Sure, he left/was-kicked-out at an early point in Greenpeace's history where there was disagreement about the direction of the organization.
Some people wanted to take non-violent direct action, some people wanted it to be more campaigning. Watson continued with the non-violent direct action, whereas the remainder of Greenpeace accrued significant wealth, and did very little with that money to save the whales, or indeed, anything else.
Most of the original directors of Greenpeace retired as millionaires. And even today they raise millions, but do very little with that money other than have an handful of volunteers chain themselves to something each year -- and even that is just to generate more publicity to raise more money: which they don't spend on anything related to their mission.
Watson is far from perfect. However, in the world of NGO's who simply generate FUD to raise money perpetuate their own existence, at least he is actually doing something. Unlike Greenpeace, who simply give people the illusion that they are doing something, while cashing their checks.
"The unused spectrum now assigned to television broadcast" .... NBC ???
Someone ought to tell Mozilla this. Judging by their bizarre version numbering system and flawed gui tweaks, they appear to be trying (and completely failing) to compete with Chrome.
Google has nothing to fear from Mozilla. They innovated themselves into global success, and are now irritating their way to total failure.
They seem doomed forever to repeat the exact same failures as Netscape.
I can fathom it: 1. viral marketing. 2. Samzenpus
They day samzenpus posts an article that isn't "idle", or sub-idle actually, will be the day that we all have our own personal Nuclear Fusion generators.
Right! But admittedly, it's a lot more friendly than those who develop it. As their support forums prove beyond any shadow of a doubt. These are the kind of people who give open source software a bad name. The Sheldon-Cooper-types.
Every December, Jimbo goes on the scrounge; sticks his hand out for money. And every single December there's some controversial headline about Wikipedia -- this is not a coincidence.
Honest-Jimbo isn't going to be restricting, nor shutting down, the site this side of Hell freezing over. He's making far, far too much money from it. This is just a stunt, like so many before it -- designed to make sure his source of free money keeps rolling in.
And while there's a great deal wrong with copyright laws, and it is good that it is highlighted, I dare say the main reason for Wikipedia being interested in that, is that there's huge tracts of stolen, and plagiarized, text all over that site.
Actually... it's Fraud. Definitely evil, definitely illegal.
By legal definition: "an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual"
It never ceases to amaze me how desensitized and amoral so many geeks (and anyone under 30) are these days. It's definitely evil.
I suspect this is all just a polar bear plot, to get one step nearer the penguins.
How much space will this take up?
Not quite. Both Netscape and Firefox* committed suicide. Both had every opportunity to be the best browser out there, and the one with the biggest user base. Both systemically blew it, for exactly the same reasons, in pretty much exactly the same way.
/. article on Firefox from 2003 with one from 2011 to see its death is imminent. If its loyal diehard fans have completely turned on it (and was one of them too), then it has nothing left to live for. Completely avoidable, and still fixable -- but they never fucking listen, and that's their whole problem.
To make that mistake once is understandable, to do it twice -- especially considering they are essentially the same organization -- is utterly retarded.
*Ok, I know Firefox isn't technically dead yet, but we all know it's coming. You only have to compare the joy and positivity from a
The more interesting question... is "where does the money go?"
Their activists are volunteers for the most part. Their campaigns pretty much result in a publicity stunt just like this where a couple of idiots break into something, climb something or chain themselves to something -- for free. And of course the publicity is really about money, free publicity with no PR people and advertisers needed. (no coincidence they do this around Christmastime when people tend to give money). Alternatively they send out a scaremongering press release that is mostly built around lies and pseudoscience (see Brent Spar, as one example of many).
Get name in paper, make it look like they are doing something (when in reality they aren't doing one single damn thing for the Earth, nor the environment), and Profit!!!!
Yes, there's some publishing costs, and the ship, and a few other things -- but they are raking in millions every year. So again -- "where does the money go?"
Greenpeace is a very, very, very profitable business.
And this is one of their first major mistakes -- although not their only one.
Marketing a movie (especially without studio backing) is extremely difficult and expensive. It costs more than production in most cases. Thus, why would you name your movie something that is near impossible to search for on the internet? That's just making your life infinitely harder.
It is also remarkably short-sighted to try to plan production without a script. The VFX vs SFX argument is moot with no script to work from.
It's unlikely that this movie will gain much leverage. Mainly because these filmmakers seem to have made the same fundamental mistake that most unfunded indie filmmakers make: they do NOT understand demographics. There are two audiences for movies. 1. Children. (Specifically, either the under12's and the 12-25's. You can further split the latter into teen girls and teen boys.) And 2. Movie critics and film students.
There is practically no other paying cinema-going audience worth bothering about. Even targeting the second group will not make you any money from a theater-release, but you might get some DVD sales, some awards, an agent and the chance to work on a studio movie from it.
Yes, there are many of us who would love to see a great sci-fi movie based on realistic dialogue, great acting and adult storylines. A realistic original drama and low on the VFX. However, there is no realistic market for that movie, unless you are very lucky, or related to someone famous. And that market is ever-decreasing too. Even god-awful kids crap like the latest Twilight movie, is 5% down on its last movie.
In fact there's pretty much no market for adult movies of any genre any more. Unless you can get HBO involved maybe. Many of us long for movies like 2001, but there's no way that movie would get made today unless it starred Shia Ladouche and Mila Kunis, and had a lot of whizz-bang VFX.
The first law of filmmaking: Understand demographics. Find out what your audience wants to see, NOT what you think would be cool to make. (assuming you want to be successful, and make some money)
And if you want to make something intelligent for adults, forget movies -- aim for cable TV. Because that's where your only audience will be.