You know, one could conceivably ask you a similar question.;) It's not nearly as scary as asking why anyone would view comments with a -1 threshold, however.. *chuckle*
..you're a gimp. Why do I say that, you might ask? Easy:
1) I am currently inside of the borders of the country known as the United States of America and I have known that.us is the top level domain of aforementioned country for quite some time.
2) You're making a blanket statement that basically says that everyone in aforementioned country is a raving, drooling idiot.
3) Um, do you really think that the example used by Signal 11 was a real domain name? Are you really that damn stupid? Is it that hard to figure out the point he was trying to put across? Do you think net.personality is a domain name too? Did you lose your thinking cap?
I guess you can't trust everything you hear. If what you say is accurate then I was victimized by bad information a couple years ago (one year? who knows) when I was last in Canada. I feel so.. dirty.:)
Obviously I know what a seperatist is, or else I wouldn't have made the query in the first place. =P
I take it Jean Chretien [sic?] isn't the Prime Minister anymore? Yeah, like I said, I don't keep pace, but that doesn't mean I'm completely oblivious, Dana.:)
Not that I was a part of previous rounds, of course, but hey. I read a lot. Anyway..
Canadian Echelon Keywords: Soapstone, Pepper Spray, Pay Equity, Seperatist
Isn't the prime minister a member of the political party named by that last keyword? Not that I keep up with current events in Canadian politics, mind you..
Conversely, it seems odd to me to respond to such a long, drawn-out thread without having read entire said thread. During any long, drawn-out argument, one side or the other is likely to slip up with regards to examples, wording, or some other semantic error. No one is perfect. I'd personally recommend reading the entire thread next time, as it would most likely shed a little light and give you a much better perspective on the argument as whole. This particular situation would have been no different had you taken the time to do so.
I outlined precisely what he has done for free software. The guidelines for the award specifically state that the person who wins need not have written a single line of code. It says that they must have contributed to free software somehow. I certainly think enabling it to be developed in such a distributed manner counts. Somehow, I don't feel I am utterly alone in these thoughts.
Perhaps I confused with my references to free speech? Well, last I checked, not just free software may be considered free speech or free beer, unless, of course, you want to tell me that the only reason we have the word gratis is because of free software, because, you know, that would be quite an irony.
In short, I'd like to stress that I never stated he wrote free software, simply that he has contributed to free software (as a community, a development process, a movement, whatever.. the creation thereof.. etc.). Whether or not he deserves the award this time around, or ever, is up for debate. Whether or not what I'm saying here is true most certainly is not.
Sorry, but I disapprove of the insinuation that I'm clueless. =P
1) Slashdot is a single interest. Members of many communities intersect here, but your extraction from M-W does not validate your claim. Geek community, hacker community, these make sense. Geeks read this site. Hackers read this site. Other kinds of people read this site. This does not bind us all into a supercommunity any more than there is, say, an Austin-American Statesman community (local newspaper). Make sense?
2) Signal 11 was emphatically joking with regards to that quip about karma (which is to say, he brags about it in a very joking manner, because he's not real concerned).
Do we really need to draw blood over this? It's beginning to grate. Usually only lawyers split hairs with regards to semantic nonsense.
(first I just can't help but think.. mochaone responds to one of my comments and isn't flaming me? wow)
You could be right about the 1999 thing, but I don't know. I doubt it, but to be fair, I haven't looked into it. However, I might point out that Tim still is the director of the W3C as we speak (here in 1999), and as such contributes to free software and open standards (which help free software) in a very real-time sense. It's not as if he just built the Web and wandered off somewhere to live in a cave. He's probably one of the most vital assets to our community, and certainly one of the least talked about (relatively speaking in accordance with what he's done).
This is not to belittle the efforts of others, but we should probably throw some credit on over to the man who made all of this possible in a way that rivals what other key movers and shakers in the free software community have done (such as RMS).
The Web is the platform we use to voice our ideas, share information, and coordinate our efforts. Truly a Good Thing.
Apathy truly is the coldest emotion. Nothing can freeze someone as cold as ignoring them. Completely. Utterly.
I am annoyed, however, that Signal 11 over there used a term to describe this tool that he tried applying to me once (as seen here.. well the reply to that, to be precise). Grr.;)
As the conversation reaches critical mass surrounding Bill Gates, and how he has united hackers everywhere to write ``software that doesn't suck'', I'd like to take this time to point out to you the man whom I nominated.
Tim Berners-Lee
Why him, you may ask? Well, while he did not invent the Internet (neither did Al Gore, for that matter), he did invent the World Wide Web, which popularized the Internet (which has existed for a long time in some form or another).
Now you might be asking: who the hell cares? Easy. You know all those free software projects, where do you read about them? In the newspaper? On television? On.. the Web, maybe? The World Wide Web is the primary agitant that prompted the utter explosion of growth of the Internet. The network and the Web are what free software developers use to coordinate their efforts all across the world. Would we be able to achieve this sort of teamwork without it? Hell no.
Not only that, the Web itself is free speech. Tim is also the director of the W3C, which standardizes HTML, the Web, and lots of other neat nifty things like CSS, etc. etc. If this doesn't represent a strong and continued contribution to the world of free software in the most fundamental, earth-shattering, awe-inspiring way possible I don't know what the hell is.
In short, if they pick anyone else, they better give me a good damn reason why. Otherwise I'm going to wonder about these people. Seriously.
I can't say that I've ever really met/found any interest in women who were as obsessed with their computer (and, hence, programming, etc.) as I am, but I'll throw this out there, anyway.;)
Two things to avoid: dating someone who is precisely like you and dating someone who is nothing like you. This seems obvious, but it merits being said once or twice (or more). You need to have enough common ground to relate, and enough differences to make it interesting.
For me, finding a creative/writer type with a sense of humor that matches mine (along with being honest, direct, trustworthy, and otherwise possessed of a sweet, loving/lovable personality, but let's be brief for once) is much more important to me than finding someone who also sits in front of the computer hacking away merrily on her favorite software project.
This is not to say that a relationship wouldn't work out between two people utterly obsessed with their computers (I myself would not turn down an oppurtunity based solely on such a false misconception), but it pays to focus your attention on other aspects. What's the worse that could happen? Your SO actually drags you away from your monitor every once in a while? I, for one, rarely object (read: never).
However, dating someone who is totally computer illiterate.. maybe not the best idea in the world..
I divied this long post into various sections with bolded text.. Take advantage of this fact if you don't want to read my boring history!
..you know, just because I'm bored and such. I myself haven't had much luck with meeting women online. And at least when you meet them in person they live close, so it is fun while it lasts (that is, before you get screwed over.. this is assuming it doesn't last, of course).
The Abbreviated History:
However, the number of potential SOs I've met online pale considerably to those I've met IRL. I myself tend to get involved one of three ways: 1) someone takes an interest in me and adamantly pursues me (sometimes I'm not too crazy about the person, but most women who are -- I hate to say ``odd enough'', lest I curtail further efforts.. I don't think them odd, I just think the situation odd, because it's.. not a usual occurance -- to pursue me, but usually I'm receptive) 2) I meet them through mutual friends and get to know them fairly well before we just sort of become an item 3) I meet them online in some fashion or another. I've never been like the women described in example 1.. I just don't wander up and randomly hit on someone I think is cute at school, work, wherever (this is changing soon, I think). Well, maybe I have, but more in the fashion as described in example 2. I make friends with them, and things naturally progress..
A number of women I've met online were just total washouts. I've had a few that the first time I talked to them on the phone, I knew that it was a lost cause (due to lack of interest on my part). I've only met two such individuals IRL. One was in Canada. This actually turned out fairly well for a while. Personality conflicts eventually killed this one, and we are not on speaking terms anymore (I wager a psychosis of some kind on her end, but we won't get into that today). With the other, it was more of a casual flirtatious thing (as in example 1, except I was somewhat ``desperate'' at the time, and make any excuse to travel, even if only to meet friends, not potential SOs). This flared (very, very dimly) for only a short time before mutual disinterest in the notion set in. I still visited. Was an alright visit (I'm oversimplifying, for brevity's sake, on most of all of the above). However, again, not on speaking terms at this point (longer story which ties into the previous paragraph in obscure and frightening ways).
Now we come to the second female I've met online that seemed worth my time in a very real and productive way (which includes this paragraph, and the paragraph before the one previous.. that is, the previous paragraph doesn't count in this tally). However, this seems to have panned out badly. (that is, current status unknown, though outlook appears dim) Again, this is due to personality conflict.
General Thoughts:
All in all, even the best prospect can turn sour. My most recent interest seems to have panned out despite being virtually perfect with regards to interests, personality, intelligence, even physical attractiveness (though this is emphatically not a major factor).. due to little things. Some personality quirks simply do not appeal to others. For me, one is presumptuous. I choose my words carefully, and when people divine implied meanings that simply aren't there and act upon them without consulting me in a reasonable fashion.. I'm going to tell them to fuck off.
To ``Summarize'' My Thoughts:
My closing thoughts: It doesn't matter where you meet your SO. Always keep your options and eyes open, lest you miss out on an oppurtunity. Actively hunting for a date just for the sake of dating isn't likely to net you a real find (unless you're simply not interested in the long term). Being honest and direct is a Good Thing. Most females I've met who had romantic potential lied to me or decieved me in some way. They were dispensed with with exceptional expedience.
Honesty and trust forms the foundation for all healthy, stable, worthwhile relationships. If you have to lie to someone for them to be with you, if you're not worth trusting.. there is nothing there but a lie if you're together. It's meaningless. True love is the only real fulfilment, and it can not be won through deception.
You should also never lower your standards. Some compromise is good, because you'll never meet ``the perfect man/woman'', though you may meet the perfect one for you. If your personalities clash, don't force it. If you were meant to be together, some conflict will arise, as with all relationships, but it shouldn't be too much of a headache, or else you might want to wonder why you're together if you argue more than anything else. If you lower your standards, however, you're going to end up with someone you don't really want, simply because you're lonely. Obviously, this is not going to work out. Don't waste your time.
..and I know.. I work the graveyard shift, myself. 10 pm to 6 am, and I'm always too wired to sleep when I first get home, so guess when I sleep? Right before work. Guess when that is? The time the rest of humanity is awake! (at least in my time zone)
As a previous poster suggested, however, looking for dates at work might not be so bad, especially in this case, because at least you'll be on the same fscked phase.;)
Speaking of which, I should force myself to sleep now..
I can certainly attest to that (not the marrying part)! However, I am not an HNG myself, though I do happen to inhabit the UF list. I wonder how long until they give me a title.. (probably something incorporating the word ``Loser'' if Signal 11 gets his wish)
..precisely makes you think that ``open source'' as a term did not have a set definition before ESR and others decided upon using it to describe free software? The word free was already overloaded, and is the only correct term for describing the kind of software RMS promotes. ESR and others consciously overloaded the term open source, which already had a set definition. So, how, then, is open source a better term, precisely?
Free software could of course be taken to mean gratis, but you know what? Once you make the leap of free speech vs. free beer, you've got a good handle of what the hell is going on. However, with open source, a term so wildly corrupted by Big Business (which is who the term was catered to to begin with), and already overloaded (now wildly so).. you're basically screwed.
K&R is a reference to the highly acclaimed book, The C Programming Language. It is also known as the Old Testament. The second edition of the book, which covers the ANSI standard, is known as the New Testament (or K&R 2).
..this has a damn thing to do with the Matrix, but..
The next movie will start with him as a god. Uhm, where to next?
Actually, I wondered something along these lines after reading the third book in the Vampire Chronicles, the Queen of the Damned. Surprisingly enough, the Tale of the Body Thief did a good job of not succumbing to the ``it's gotten bigger and badder every book, just like when you eventually meet a god in every D&D episode (and then have their kids), and now it's just lame because it can't get any bigger and badder'' approach. Of course, it takes some swift and sure thinking to avoid this common pitfall.;)
Then again, there were other damn good sequels out there.. Aliens comes to mind. [I don't consider the 4th movie part of the series.. it was blatant marketing and vomit-inducing trash.]
You mean the third one wasn't? It tried to recapture the essence of the first movie (widely acclaimed as the ``best'', although I liked Aliens as much as I did Alien), but it really just sucked. It might have been more entertaining if they had capitalized more on the idea that aliens could mature into different types according to their host like the toys did. Unfortunately, it fails at its intended approach, and actually should have gone with the ``bigger and badder'' approach instead. It still had more life in it (more than the writers did, apparently =P).
..have taken my comments any further out of context? I thought not.
I have never been, nor will I ever be, a proponent of ``mainstream Linux''. Obviously if developers want to target the mainstream as their audience, PnP support will have to be improved. I was simply stating the (lazy) hacker solution to the problem. This is because most hackers would want an external modem, anyway. It makes it much easier to get at your modem to have it sitting right in front of you than to have to rip open your casing if something goes wrong.
Therefore, I don't have a ``mentality'' problem, and you may want to do your homework before you go off mindlessly insulting people like you just did me. It's not very polite.
I will concur, however, that most Linux distros install a lot of (useless) software and fire up a lot of (useless and insecure) processes by default upon setup. This would have to be cleaned up in order to market to the mainstream as well (and to save experienced users the annoyance of another extra 5 minutes to select what they want to install..). As an aside, Windows machines come with a lot more (useless) software than any Linux distro I've ever seen.
Obviously all of these things should be cleaned up, anyway, mainstream or not, but for those of us outside the mainstream, it's not quite as pressing an issue.
By the way.. I never told anyone to do or use anything. Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth that I never uttered? Perhaps you should learn to be less deceitful. Or to stop trying to read between the lines when everything that was stated was plain as day, with no hidden implications. Amazing concept, that.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, one could conceivably ask you a similar question. ;) It's not nearly as scary as asking why anyone would view comments with a -1 threshold, however.. *chuckle*
..you're a gimp. Why do I say that, you might ask? Easy:
1) I am currently inside of the borders of the country known as the United States of America and I have known that .us is the top level domain of aforementioned country for quite some time.
2) You're making a blanket statement that basically says that everyone in aforementioned country is a raving, drooling idiot.
3) Um, do you really think that the example used by Signal 11 was a real domain name? Are you really that damn stupid? Is it that hard to figure out the point he was trying to put across? Do you think net.personality is a domain name too? Did you lose your thinking cap?
Goddamn.
I guess you can't trust everything you hear. If what you say is accurate then I was victimized by bad information a couple years ago (one year? who knows) when I was last in Canada. I feel so.. dirty. :)
Obviously I know what a seperatist is, or else I wouldn't have made the query in the first place. =P
I take it Jean Chretien [sic?] isn't the Prime Minister anymore? Yeah, like I said, I don't keep pace, but that doesn't mean I'm completely oblivious, Dana. :)
Not that I was a part of previous rounds, of course, but hey. I read a lot. Anyway..
Isn't the prime minister a member of the political party named by that last keyword? Not that I keep up with current events in Canadian politics, mind you..
Conversely, it seems odd to me to respond to such a long, drawn-out thread without having read entire said thread. During any long, drawn-out argument, one side or the other is likely to slip up with regards to examples, wording, or some other semantic error. No one is perfect. I'd personally recommend reading the entire thread next time, as it would most likely shed a little light and give you a much better perspective on the argument as whole. This particular situation would have been no different had you taken the time to do so.
I outlined precisely what he has done for free software. The guidelines for the award specifically state that the person who wins need not have written a single line of code. It says that they must have contributed to free software somehow. I certainly think enabling it to be developed in such a distributed manner counts. Somehow, I don't feel I am utterly alone in these thoughts.
Perhaps I confused with my references to free speech? Well, last I checked, not just free software may be considered free speech or free beer, unless, of course, you want to tell me that the only reason we have the word gratis is because of free software, because, you know, that would be quite an irony.
In short, I'd like to stress that I never stated he wrote free software, simply that he has contributed to free software (as a community, a development process, a movement, whatever.. the creation thereof.. etc.). Whether or not he deserves the award this time around, or ever, is up for debate. Whether or not what I'm saying here is true most certainly is not.
Sorry, but I disapprove of the insinuation that I'm clueless. =P
1) Slashdot is a single interest. Members of many communities intersect here, but your extraction from M-W does not validate your claim. Geek community, hacker community, these make sense. Geeks read this site. Hackers read this site. Other kinds of people read this site. This does not bind us all into a supercommunity any more than there is, say, an Austin-American Statesman community (local newspaper). Make sense?
2) Signal 11 was emphatically joking with regards to that quip about karma (which is to say, he brags about it in a very joking manner, because he's not real concerned).
Do we really need to draw blood over this? It's beginning to grate. Usually only lawyers split hairs with regards to semantic nonsense.
Are you paying attention, Bruce? I sure hope so! ;)
Of course, I just have to wonder if anyone besides me nominated the guy..
(first I just can't help but think.. mochaone responds to one of my comments and isn't flaming me? wow)
You could be right about the 1999 thing, but I don't know. I doubt it, but to be fair, I haven't looked into it. However, I might point out that Tim still is the director of the W3C as we speak (here in 1999), and as such contributes to free software and open standards (which help free software) in a very real-time sense. It's not as if he just built the Web and wandered off somewhere to live in a cave. He's probably one of the most vital assets to our community, and certainly one of the least talked about (relatively speaking in accordance with what he's done).
This is not to belittle the efforts of others, but we should probably throw some credit on over to the man who made all of this possible in a way that rivals what other key movers and shakers in the free software community have done (such as RMS).
The Web is the platform we use to voice our ideas, share information, and coordinate our efforts. Truly a Good Thing.
Apathy truly is the coldest emotion. Nothing can freeze someone as cold as ignoring them. Completely. Utterly.
I am annoyed, however, that Signal 11 over there used a term to describe this tool that he tried applying to me once (as seen here.. well the reply to that, to be precise). Grr. ;)
As the conversation reaches critical mass surrounding Bill Gates, and how he has united hackers everywhere to write ``software that doesn't suck'', I'd like to take this time to point out to you the man whom I nominated.
Tim Berners-Lee
Why him, you may ask? Well, while he did not invent the Internet (neither did Al Gore, for that matter), he did invent the World Wide Web, which popularized the Internet (which has existed for a long time in some form or another).
Now you might be asking: who the hell cares? Easy. You know all those free software projects, where do you read about them? In the newspaper? On television? On.. the Web, maybe? The World Wide Web is the primary agitant that prompted the utter explosion of growth of the Internet. The network and the Web are what free software developers use to coordinate their efforts all across the world. Would we be able to achieve this sort of teamwork without it? Hell no.
Not only that, the Web itself is free speech. Tim is also the director of the W3C, which standardizes HTML, the Web, and lots of other neat nifty things like CSS, etc. etc. If this doesn't represent a strong and continued contribution to the world of free software in the most fundamental, earth-shattering, awe-inspiring way possible I don't know what the hell is.
In short, if they pick anyone else, they better give me a good damn reason why. Otherwise I'm going to wonder about these people. Seriously.
I can't say that I've ever really met/found any interest in women who were as obsessed with their computer (and, hence, programming, etc.) as I am, but I'll throw this out there, anyway. ;)
Two things to avoid: dating someone who is precisely like you and dating someone who is nothing like you. This seems obvious, but it merits being said once or twice (or more). You need to have enough common ground to relate, and enough differences to make it interesting.
For me, finding a creative/writer type with a sense of humor that matches mine (along with being honest, direct, trustworthy, and otherwise possessed of a sweet, loving/lovable personality, but let's be brief for once) is much more important to me than finding someone who also sits in front of the computer hacking away merrily on her favorite software project.
This is not to say that a relationship wouldn't work out between two people utterly obsessed with their computers (I myself would not turn down an oppurtunity based solely on such a false misconception), but it pays to focus your attention on other aspects. What's the worse that could happen? Your SO actually drags you away from your monitor every once in a while? I, for one, rarely object (read: never).
However, dating someone who is totally computer illiterate.. maybe not the best idea in the world..
I divied this long post into various sections with bolded text.. Take advantage of this fact if you don't want to read my boring history!
..you know, just because I'm bored and such. I myself haven't had much luck with meeting women online. And at least when you meet them in person they live close, so it is fun while it lasts (that is, before you get screwed over.. this is assuming it doesn't last, of course).
The Abbreviated History:
However, the number of potential SOs I've met online pale considerably to those I've met IRL. I myself tend to get involved one of three ways: 1) someone takes an interest in me and adamantly pursues me (sometimes I'm not too crazy about the person, but most women who are -- I hate to say ``odd enough'', lest I curtail further efforts.. I don't think them odd, I just think the situation odd, because it's.. not a usual occurance -- to pursue me, but usually I'm receptive) 2) I meet them through mutual friends and get to know them fairly well before we just sort of become an item 3) I meet them online in some fashion or another. I've never been like the women described in example 1.. I just don't wander up and randomly hit on someone I think is cute at school, work, wherever (this is changing soon, I think). Well, maybe I have, but more in the fashion as described in example 2. I make friends with them, and things naturally progress..
A number of women I've met online were just total washouts. I've had a few that the first time I talked to them on the phone, I knew that it was a lost cause (due to lack of interest on my part). I've only met two such individuals IRL. One was in Canada. This actually turned out fairly well for a while. Personality conflicts eventually killed this one, and we are not on speaking terms anymore (I wager a psychosis of some kind on her end, but we won't get into that today). With the other, it was more of a casual flirtatious thing (as in example 1, except I was somewhat ``desperate'' at the time, and make any excuse to travel, even if only to meet friends, not potential SOs). This flared (very, very dimly) for only a short time before mutual disinterest in the notion set in. I still visited. Was an alright visit (I'm oversimplifying, for brevity's sake, on most of all of the above). However, again, not on speaking terms at this point (longer story which ties into the previous paragraph in obscure and frightening ways).
Now we come to the second female I've met online that seemed worth my time in a very real and productive way (which includes this paragraph, and the paragraph before the one previous.. that is, the previous paragraph doesn't count in this tally). However, this seems to have panned out badly. (that is, current status unknown, though outlook appears dim) Again, this is due to personality conflict.
General Thoughts:
All in all, even the best prospect can turn sour. My most recent interest seems to have panned out despite being virtually perfect with regards to interests, personality, intelligence, even physical attractiveness (though this is emphatically not a major factor).. due to little things. Some personality quirks simply do not appeal to others. For me, one is presumptuous. I choose my words carefully, and when people divine implied meanings that simply aren't there and act upon them without consulting me in a reasonable fashion.. I'm going to tell them to fuck off.
To ``Summarize'' My Thoughts:
My closing thoughts: It doesn't matter where you meet your SO. Always keep your options and eyes open, lest you miss out on an oppurtunity. Actively hunting for a date just for the sake of dating isn't likely to net you a real find (unless you're simply not interested in the long term). Being honest and direct is a Good Thing. Most females I've met who had romantic potential lied to me or decieved me in some way. They were dispensed with with exceptional expedience.
Honesty and trust forms the foundation for all healthy, stable, worthwhile relationships. If you have to lie to someone for them to be with you, if you're not worth trusting.. there is nothing there but a lie if you're together. It's meaningless. True love is the only real fulfilment, and it can not be won through deception.
You should also never lower your standards. Some compromise is good, because you'll never meet ``the perfect man/woman'', though you may meet the perfect one for you. If your personalities clash, don't force it. If you were meant to be together, some conflict will arise, as with all relationships, but it shouldn't be too much of a headache, or else you might want to wonder why you're together if you argue more than anything else. If you lower your standards, however, you're going to end up with someone you don't really want, simply because you're lonely. Obviously, this is not going to work out. Don't waste your time.
..and I know.. I work the graveyard shift, myself. 10 pm to 6 am, and I'm always too wired to sleep when I first get home, so guess when I sleep? Right before work. Guess when that is? The time the rest of humanity is awake! (at least in my time zone)
As a previous poster suggested, however, looking for dates at work might not be so bad, especially in this case, because at least you'll be on the same fscked phase. ;)
Speaking of which, I should force myself to sleep now..
It's always interesting to note a presence on Slashdot you have previously encountered elsewhere, such as the BBR. HA!
Hey, admin-types? Want to generate some action on this site? Want a few more people looking at all those nifty Web ads?
The above idea.. is fabulous! Can you /possibly/ think of a better way to attract more network life of the geek variety?
(I, for one, am all for it)
I can certainly attest to that (not the marrying part)! However, I am not an HNG myself, though I do happen to inhabit the UF list. I wonder how long until they give me a title.. (probably something incorporating the word ``Loser'' if Signal 11 gets his wish)
It is a nice, relaxed atmosphere, however. ;)
RMS, the atheist Saint of Emacs and leader of the FSF a god?
Who says the public media isn't changing people's perceptions?
..how can you actually write and compile a program without a language standard?
The point being..?
(insert vacuous remarks concerning the chicken and the egg here)
..precisely makes you think that ``open source'' as a term did not have a set definition before ESR and others decided upon using it to describe free software? The word free was already overloaded, and is the only correct term for describing the kind of software RMS promotes. ESR and others consciously overloaded the term open source, which already had a set definition. So, how, then, is open source a better term, precisely?
Free software could of course be taken to mean gratis, but you know what? Once you make the leap of free speech vs. free beer, you've got a good handle of what the hell is going on. However, with open source, a term so wildly corrupted by Big Business (which is who the term was catered to to begin with), and already overloaded (now wildly so).. you're basically screwed.
..that probably means: they're screwed. ;)
..I'm confused. What are you talking about?
K&R is a reference to the highly acclaimed book, The C Programming Language. It is also known as the Old Testament. The second edition of the book, which covers the ANSI standard, is known as the New Testament (or K&R 2).
Hope this clears up any confusion.
..this has a damn thing to do with the Matrix, but..
Actually, I wondered something along these lines after reading the third book in the Vampire Chronicles, the Queen of the Damned. Surprisingly enough, the Tale of the Body Thief did a good job of not succumbing to the ``it's gotten bigger and badder every book, just like when you eventually meet a god in every D&D episode (and then have their kids), and now it's just lame because it can't get any bigger and badder'' approach. Of course, it takes some swift and sure thinking to avoid this common pitfall. ;)
You mean the third one wasn't? It tried to recapture the essence of the first movie (widely acclaimed as the ``best'', although I liked Aliens as much as I did Alien), but it really just sucked. It might have been more entertaining if they had capitalized more on the idea that aliens could mature into different types according to their host like the toys did. Unfortunately, it fails at its intended approach, and actually should have gone with the ``bigger and badder'' approach instead. It still had more life in it (more than the writers did, apparently =P).
..have taken my comments any further out of context? I thought not.
I have never been, nor will I ever be, a proponent of ``mainstream Linux''. Obviously if developers want to target the mainstream as their audience, PnP support will have to be improved. I was simply stating the (lazy) hacker solution to the problem. This is because most hackers would want an external modem, anyway. It makes it much easier to get at your modem to have it sitting right in front of you than to have to rip open your casing if something goes wrong.
Therefore, I don't have a ``mentality'' problem, and you may want to do your homework before you go off mindlessly insulting people like you just did me. It's not very polite.
I will concur, however, that most Linux distros install a lot of (useless) software and fire up a lot of (useless and insecure) processes by default upon setup. This would have to be cleaned up in order to market to the mainstream as well (and to save experienced users the annoyance of another extra 5 minutes to select what they want to install..). As an aside, Windows machines come with a lot more (useless) software than any Linux distro I've ever seen.
Obviously all of these things should be cleaned up, anyway, mainstream or not, but for those of us outside the mainstream, it's not quite as pressing an issue.
By the way.. I never told anyone to do or use anything. Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth that I never uttered? Perhaps you should learn to be less deceitful. Or to stop trying to read between the lines when everything that was stated was plain as day, with no hidden implications. Amazing concept, that.