9) He makes a point of saying hackers and crackers, but then goes on to use the two words interchangeably. If that is not an indication of cluelessness, I don't know what is.
Flame
on! I'm gone.. I'm so sweet like a nice bon bon..
Let the debunking begin!
The opensource movement doesn't have enough control to be fully recognized by the article. Aside from that, OpenSource software is STILL plagged by these problems.
First off, I don't think I said open source. I said free software.. Second off.. what is meant by "plagged"? Maybe you're trying to say "plogged" (a retarded way of saying "plagued")? I dated a girl from Wisconsin once who hated hard a's, and pronounced as many of them as she could in this incorrect fashion. "I've got the plog!" It was really scary. =P
At any rate, you're trying to say that the free software movement doesn't have enough clout.. not control.. the FSM isn't synonymous with Big Brother, you know (or.. maybe you don't know..). And yes, it certainly the fsck does. Luser.
Redhat can't go a week without having a security problem found. It rescently IPO'd. I only expect this to get worse.
This is incredibly vague. Er, I mean "vog"!
Both KDE and Gnome have some serious problems. Partially due to the small number of developers on the projects trying to do a big job.
Wow, you're so.. specific.. big boy. Yeah, right. Care to define "serious problems"?
The Linux kernel (ugh..) also has some very serious problems. Albeit not as bad as the more popular windows, not as good as it could be.
Hmm.. More ultra-specific detail.. I bet your gf (or bf, or, well, whatever.. one can't be too presumptuous these days) must know precisely what to do in bed, so good are you at making your thoughts clear!
In my conclusion, GPLing doesn't make for a better product. Just makes people feel better about themselves. As linux becomes more commercialized, these problems will only get worse.
How in the fuck did you conclude anything? All you said was "those things have problems". Hell, my life has problems, but I wouldn't consider it total lossage (not just yet, anyway). If you can't actually back up anything you say, why bother saying it? Just to try and troll? Why don't you get a real distro like Debian, smart ass? =P
GPL makes for a better license. This better license allows for a better development model. This better development model allows for better products. Will everything that is GPL'ed kick ass? No. Will the stuff that does (or could) actually be worked on, while everyone ignores the stuff that sucks? Yes.
By the way, you seem to think that anything "commercial", by definition, sucks ass. Do you think that Red Hat and the other companies that put together distros write the entire OS? Or even most of it? Or that every company in the world is a seething pit of 9 to 5 code monkeys who can only dream of the ultimate enlightenment that is hackerdom because they aren't "cool" enough by your standards? heh.
I still fully believe that the best Linux kernel & library set was around the 1.2 kernel releases. I don't see this changing for quite a while.
You apparently have a sickness. Have you gotten that checked out yet?
OS/2 was quick at fixing bugs, but it shipped with alot of them. Microsoft obviously has bugs (notice how it performs better if everything on the machine is M$ though?). Macs die too.. Don't forget that. Linux takes a little longer to kill, but just give it a load over about 25 and watch it plummit.
That's really.. exciting. Or.. ah.. not.
BeOS will be my next try... I hear its great for multimedia stuff, but not to expect much in the office suit department.
Did anyone really give a fuck what OS this nut is going to try next? Is that not totally offtopic? =P
Yes, yes... Linux is still more stable than some of the others. I just wish the hardware that was reported as being supported, was truely (stably) supported. SBLive anyone?
Again, you're so.. specific.. For all I know you're not even using Red Hat, but rather one of those really gimpy distros, like, ah, what was the name of it.. LinuxOne or whatever? =P
Personally, I think all of this person's arguments stem from the following:
User Info for rtaylor (70602) http://www.idiotswitch.org Karma 1 (mostly the sum of moderation done to users comments) User Bio FreeBSD User and Electronics student...
Naturally I don't care if FreeBSD folks don't care much for GNU/Linux, but if you're going to try to argue a point, at least back yourself up with some examples.. some kind of evidence.. So you sound a little less like a troll and more like an actual biped.;) By the way, no, I don't think all FreeBSD users are fanatics. I think this one, however, is. Of course, there are fanatics everywhere. They all scare me.;)
In short, when I read that post, the words "holy war" came to mind.;)
OO is a fairly good paradigm yes, but it has some glaring problems. Especially in the realm of this discussion....
There is a piece of code I own that was written with entirely too much OO on the brain... every thing is an object, and everything is encapsulated. A simple trace through the section for one invocation involves something like 25 instances of about 40 classes (this is when inheritance sucks) on three threads. It has taken me over a year to have even a marginal feel for this code... and I understand it at the high level, and have full design docs at my disposal. This code by the way, is well under a KLOC in total... closer to 1/2 that. It doesn't need to be this complex; I've redrawn it on paper down to as few as 8 objects in the process of understanding it.
Well, to begin with, I meant that comment as a reference to extensively huge code that you couldn't hold in your head anyway. That said..
One problem I've noticed with a lot of C++ programmers (and hopefully they are still novices when they outgrow this mentality) has to do with the following.. C was a hammer, and C++ is a sledge. We have C++ because there were a few railroad spikes that C just couldn't nail down as elegantly as we would like. Unfortunately, now some people always bust out the heavy ammunition.. But to be honest, not every problem is a railroad spike.;) C++ is deep and complex compared to C, and how complexly you program something should be directly affected by how complex the program needs to be. Not only that, but even if using C++ is deemed appropriate, you don't have to overkill just for the sake of overkill. =P
In the end, a program is only as good as the programmer. Better tools often make for better work, but even a sledgehammer won't help a stumbling buffoon nail down a railroad spike if he's too drunk to even stand still..
Anyway, enough of that.. I'll now simply comment on the post as a whole: I agree. Excellent points, all.
I have absolutely no problem with the government discouraging crime committed via your favorite computer. A crime is a crime. I'm just bothered by the thought of an even more widespread usage of incorrect terminology. The slugs out in the "real world" still think that Linus Torvalds wrote the entire base GNU/Linux system, rather than simply the kernel (please don't even bother trying to argue about this damn thing again, anyone: you know what the truth is, and this is yet another excellent example of how misinformation warps the minds of the masses.. for the record I don't give a fuck if you call the entire system Linux.. I do too =P). It becomes more difficult for the truth to shine through the more you cloud the landscape with lies and misinformation.. Of course, from what I've seen, few people here or elsewhere seem to care about such misinformation unless it affects them directly (point in case, this guy once wrote an article on a BSD-related news site talking about the misconceptions about FreeBSD introduced here on Slashdot.. during the course of which he misinformed and lied about GNU/Linux.. cute, eh?).
In short, hackers are proud to be hackers, and don't really like having to explain themselves every time they refer to themselves as a hacker. It's kind of disheartening for a term you like so much to be applied to yourself twisted around to become synonymous with some of the worst lower network life around..
If hackers gave up on everything that was dear to them because someone else tried to twist it around, where do you think we'd be right now? Even though there are hordes of BSD lovers who slam the GPL on a daily basis, you think the BSD licensing would change the way the software industry percieves things? Not a chance in hell. Sure, Richard M. Stallman could have said, "Fuck it." and the world would be an even more dismal place for it. People lose things that are dear to them because they give up and don't even try. Might as well not have anything to begin with, if such is the case. There will never be another term like "hacker". It is steeped in history. The general public will eventually come to know the true meanings of the terms "hacker" and "cracker", even if it takes a while. The rise of free software can only help such enlightenment be reached, even if Joe Public has plugs in his ears. Eventually they will listen. Not that I'm saying this will happen any time soon.. But I imagine it shall. Especially since some media outlets are just now catching on somewhat to this terminology.
I had this idea, though.. I thought it might be cool if someone did a show where they interviewed all of the biggest names in the free software community (well, except ESR, maybe.. I don't even agree with much that Linus has to say, but.. ESR just goes too far for my tastes =P), and talked about stuff like "What does hacker really mean?" among the usual mumbo jumbo, and then aired the damn thing on public television (cable is just too obscure if you want to make this kind of point;). I'm sure more than a few people would watch, thanks to all the hype about GNU/Linux and such.
This is a classic example of why I have a hard threshold of 1. It does have relavence, it was a quote from the fscking article, you twit. And secondly, if you were smart, you'd realize that it didn't get moderated up. Once you have so much karma, your posts start off with more points (you can choose not to invoke these karmic powers, but I'm often lazy). I thought some AC might have answered my question. Instead, I'm once again reminded at why these people are too stupid to think up a user name and a password, then log in.;)
If you honestly thought that I meant that the entire bulk of Windows was compiled from a single source file, I don't think you have any right whatsoever to call anyone ignorant.. except, perhaps, for yourself.
Anyway, I'd say something more useful, but you're obviously trying to craft a troll. I kind of got the feeling right off the bat, but I thought this post was a complete riot. Sorry, you'll have to do better than that to sucker me in.;)
The grand majority of your project time should be spent in the design phases. The less time you spend on design, the more likely you're going to fuck up during implementation, and thus the more time you're going to spend doing testing. Design should consume about 50% to 70% of a project's time (or at least closer to those figures than 33%). After you have a full, working design down on paper, implementation shouldn't be all that hard to nail down quick unless your programmers really are quite clueless. The reason you should spend so much time on design is so that before you even write a single line of code, you know everything that the program is supposed to do. You figure out the best way to implement each feature, and whoosh! You're off. A lot of bugs are solved this way before you even go to your favorite text editor. Moral of this story? If you don't implement something incorrectly in the first place, you won't have to fix it later. It's a Good Thing. And most of your bugs will be typos and other assorted weirdness rather than critical design flaws. A change in design during implementation is much harder, and quite time consuming. You'll be much better off if you have an extremely clear view of the design beforehand. How much testing you do shouldn't really be set down as any predesignated percentage, AFAIC.. You test it until it's done being tested. Besides, how much time that will require depends entirely on your licensing and how you plan to test it.;)
I'm going to kill whoever thought it was a good idea to have the ads reload every 10-15 seconds on the site that article is on. Grr.
Talk to any programmer, tester or honest manager and they'll tell you a very different story about software. It is the unspoken scandal of digital culture, and it goes like this:
Software is badly made. More than that, it is often horribly made. It is developed with the sort of irresponsible abandon that would be unconscionable if it were applied to bridge-building, car-making and possibly even plumbing. And the internet has only made matters worse by encouraging dot-com companies to rush products out ever faster, despite the fact that software is now more complex than ever. Desperate to ride stock-market hysteria and the sea of investment dollars for dubious projects and websites, software companies cram their wares through on shorter and shorter timelines, with no latitude for serious planning, testing or concern for quality. "It's ship first and ask questions later," says one weary programmer, a survivor of a database company.
Hmm. Well, most glaringly, this kind of assumes that all programmers are found in the commercial sector. In simpler times, I would not have found this incorrect assumption to be all that surprising. In light of the recent thrust of GNU/Linux into the spotlight, it appears to be more of a gross oversight.
On the other hand, does anyone here really think that every proprietary software product is a horrible piece of.. whatever? And no, Microsoft does not make all known proprietary software products, contrary to the belief of many conspiracy theorists who have spent too much time on board alien space ships..;) I would imagine that a greal deal of commercial stuff is actually good and relatively bug free. Not all of it, but just because all of it doesn't kick ass doesn't mean that all of it sucks, either.
In this context, perhaps it's no wonder we face the stinging paradox of the computer age-that even though we have ever more way-kewl digital tools, our productivity has not budged an inch.
Oh wait.. No wonder. The writer has obviously spent too much time around script kiddies and other lower network life.;)
"The average American would never buy an electric razor... as buggy and unreliable as a PC," says Bruce Brown, founder of BugNet, a Sumas, Washington-based firm that reports on bugs and provides fixes.
Actually, I know a lot of idiots with electric razors that don't shave a person's face (or elsewhere) very well. I consider that to be "unreliable".
Perhaps the most astonishing fact is that we, the customers, let software companies get away with products of such atrocious quality. We take every frozen screen as part of the package. We don't complain. And we sit back while, unregulated by government and cheered on by the stock market, software makers embark on a race to the bottom. They're almost all the way down.
"We, the suckers who don't know any better.." But seriously, who doesn't complain? I'd like to meet the person who isn't at least mildly ticked upon being visited by a BSOD.
Once a program goes over a few million lines of code, no one person can hold the structure neatly in their head.
Encapsulation and modularization are your friends..
This is particularly true with operating systems, which have skyrocketed in size and developed thousands of byzantine byways. Windows 95 had eleven million lines of code; Windows 2000 is slated to have a mind-blowing twenty-nine million.
..too bad the people from Redmond don't make nice to these two potential buddies..
On top of the software issues, there's the challenge of hardware. The explosion of cheap PCs has created thousands of different machines built in completely different ways. This one has a nVidia graphics chip; that one has a Turtle Beach soundcard; yet another has some memory sold out of the back of a van in Mexico. Such variability makes it hard for software to run smoothly on each box.
GPL your drivers!!
I don't know.. After reading this entire article, I was first surprised that the writer even knows the correct term for a BSOD, and also I just have to ask: Can anyone come up with any reason why free software would not be considered a Very Good Thing to inject into the software industry, as far as the average end-user is concerned? Obviously it's not quite so helpful to big business.;)
The Internet Tax Freedom Act sailed through the Senate on a nearly unanimous vote of ninety-six to two.
Is that the bill recently proposed by Senator McCain, or the older thing? Yeah, I know, I'm clueless on this point, but hey, whatever. =P I don't keep up with U.S. law anymore.. heh.
Several people have tried to coin terms that are deragatory to white people in an effort to "get even", but none of them have really stuck. I think it's pointless, really. I mean, "You acted like a little child and called me a bad name, so I'm going to act like a little child and think of a new bad name to call you! Nyah nyah!" Not that I advocate the use of the word "nigger" or any other deragatory gesture, but rather do I condemn all such prejudiced insults. However, I find it rather laughable that anyone would be offended by the terms "cracker" or "white-bread". I could count the number of times I've been called either on a single hand. Chances are, white people who are subjected to terms like this on a regularly basis are either real prejudiced pricks, or have a bad habit of wandering around in the more dangerous parts of town. =P
In short, the press is stupid. Media people will always be mostly a bunch of clueless idiots, mainstream or not. Many tend to prove this point repeatedly whenever a "new and exciting" article about the OS holy wars comes out (and other related topics, I'm sure) by slowly dissecting all the drivel. They simply have no idea of what the hell they are talking about. And probably never will.
That's utterly pointless. If we went by those standards (and by the way, we are not exactly talking about opinions here, but accepted definitions of words as defined by those/who originated them/.. i.e., the, gasp, hacking community), then what would be the point of jargon? You think Joe Public knows what even 1% of the words in the Jargon File mean to hackers? Would you not get pissed off if, say, your name was "Joe" and everyone called you "Bitch"? Or would that be ok, because/everyone/ thinks your name is "Bitch"?
Cracker/is/ an offensive term to hackers. I can't help but wonder why I would have to explain why.
Pardon my rather over-the-edge example, but you know, people who spread their own ignorance and stupidity around because they believe they're above the truth, or rather that they are the One Truth, and that everyone else should just shut the fuck up and believe whatever Joe Idiot believes even though he's an ignorant twit who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.. Hopefully you won't think what I'm about to say is my actual opinion. It isn't.
Yeah, I agree completely. I'm also not old enough to remember the Holocaust. It never really happened, anyway, because I didn't experience it. I'm sick of people bitching about the Jews. I say, fuck them. They need to get over it. Stupid idiots.
Ugh.. At any rate. Calling a "hacker" a "cracker", or vice versa, is about as intelligent as calling an "apple" and "orange", or vice versa. They are two completely different things. Hacker is the original fscking definition, and likely, no one gives a damn if you are fed up with the truth. If you want to live in a world of lies, fine. But keep them to yourself. Or go into politics. Your choice, really.
I would like to reassert my wish for filters that allow me to/not/ view comments from certain users. Like this "bright" individual here. Many people refer to themselves as hackers. The term is commonplace on Slashdot. Richard M. Stallman is a hacker. So is, well, everyone in the free software or open source movement that actually contributes decent code, I'd imagine.
If you are good with computers are were ever stupid enough to call yourself a "hacker" instead of just saying that you were good with computers, you pretty much just suck anyway.
I quote this sentence only to illustrate why ignorance and utter stupidity are self-perpetuating. This sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. Not exactly structurally sound. Obviously this person has a few self-esteem problems, as well. Oh, I mean.. what an intelligent message you have, there, sir.. We'll kindly relay that message to RMS, ESR, Linus Torvalds, and others. They really do suck. Real badly. What a bunch of posers. Grr.
However, what/really/ concerns me is the number of idiots who post on Slashdot who/still/ don't appear to know the difference between "hackers" and "crackers". Talk about losing the nomenclature battle.. =P I mean, how clueless can one be on a site where links to the Jargon File are posted semi-regularly during everyday discussions?
I would like to know exactly WHEN this idea of cracking v. hacking started? For as long as I can remember, until quite recently, somebody who maliciously breaks into a computer system has been referred to as a hacker. Hacking should be what it always has been. Most of the people in the world view hacking as a form of terrorism.
"Should be what it always has been"? The original definition of the term was the one that you would find in the Jargon File. It is a rather ancient term (sorry, RMS, not to say that you or anyone else from "back then" are ancient;). I really can't explain the correct usage of the term beyond that. However.. when computing became mildly less difficult to learn, a number of people who didn't have the intelligence or creativity of hackers to learn how to do anything/useful/ with a computer decided it might be a good idea to crack into other people's computers, ostensibly to "prove their worth". To compound this ethical violation, they referred to themselves as "hackers" (which began a long tradition carried on by crackers, warez d00dz, and script kiddies today to refer to themselves in a glorified manner they clearly do/not/ deserve). It shouldn't be too hard to see how this quickly escalated..
The way I see it, people that want to be called hackers usually want other people to be afraid of or impressed by them. The way that this happens is that most people make the "computer terrorism" link in their mind when they hear "hacker". If you want to be called a hacker, you should be willing to be associated with people that really are hackers! The word hacker should always keep the meaning and negative context that it originally had before it was transformed into cracking."
You're blatantly trolling and obviously/quite/ clueless. Hacker as "programming enthusiast" not "computer terrorist" is the/old school definition/. Just because Joe Public is a fscking idiot doesn't mean we are going to trash our entire culture. Grr.
This could be low signal/noise.. I just woke up and am now in a rather unhappy mood thanks to this latest idiocy.. You've been warned.:)
But an ITAA official said that, upon investigation, a surprising number of cases involve child hackers.
Ok, how many of us actually know/children/ who qualify for the term hacker? Or even cracker? I think the grand majority of these would be termed "script kiddies". And if these idiots can't even figure out the correct terminology, it's really no wonder they're so defenseless. =P
The campaign, which debuts in January, will initially target children 12 and under, aiming to teach them proper online behavior and to instill a healthy disdain for hacking.
Ok, so.. Not only do they have to impose their flawed definition of the term "hacker" upon the public at large, now they have to twist it in the mind of small children? Shouldn't there be some kind of law that prohibits the government from/lying/ to small children on a massive scale? Argh.. I can't even think properly on this.. It's too fscking stupid.. Grr.
I mean, there are already enough clueless idiots out in the world who, upon being asked for the definition of the word hacker, get it.. enh!! dead wrong! But now whenever a person who went through the educational system during a time when this brainwashing campaign was in effect is exposed to the term "hacker", they might denounce the "offender" who brought it up as some kind of "drug dealer", and refuse to listen to their "subversive" or (religious children may choose to insert any religious word that attaches a strong stigma to the "subversive" or "hell-bound" individual) explanation of what the word really means? Or something equally ludicrous? Talk about.. stupid..
The association wants to "help weed out some of the less meaningful system violations by curious children so that law enforcement can focus on the true criminals," says ITAA President Harris Miller.
Sorry, but if some random script kiddies can bust into your system, you probably/deserved/ it. Perhaps someone more competent should be hired to replace you if you work the government or a company and find yourself in this situation? =P
Miller says the campaign could be expanded to educate kids about other aspects of proper Internet etiquette, such as warning them against sending spam - for kids, the modern-day equivalent of prank telephone calls - or visiting Web sites with adult content. The main focus of the campaign, however, will be to "send the message that hacking isn't cute, clever or funny."
No, hacking is clever and/sexy/.. And everything about that paragraph would be funny if it wasn't so sad.. And so.. stupid..
In addition to the funding from Justice, the ITAA also plans to pass the hat among its own membership, a who's-who list of the high-tech industry that includes Microsoft (MSFT), America Online (AOL) and IBM (IBM). The association will also seek funds from foundations and possibly from private individuals.
Oh joy.. another way for MS and AOL to spread evil across the land..
The first sentence was just awful.. "The Justice Department wants to save children before they turn into hackers." Um.. sure. The world could always use a few less programmers that actually have a passion for what they're doing.. Or not. Oh wait, they already discourage the production of more good programmers in school.. By teaching them Pascal. Better than Basic, I suppose, but not by a whole lot. You know, until I learned about C, I always thought programming sucked. Whoever had the bright idea to teach Pascal in recent years instead of C in high school needs to.. Well, nevermind. Let's just say something not very pretty..
I'm sticking with Mandrake, you fscking lusers! Er..
Joke!
One good thing does arise from all of the bitching, whining, first posting, and other offtopic idiocies.. These morons make it quite clear who is and is not worth listening to, as they all lump themselves quite neatly into.. that's right.. the latter.
I want some filters that make it to where I can't read posts from certain users. Blocking out articles isn't very exciting. Filtering out those with very, very low signal/noise ratios would be a Good Thing, especially since more and more people who you'd think would stick to AC trolling are actually getting accounts. At least those without accounts are easily filtered (and yeah, hard thresholds of 1 are highly recommended.. every once in a while I look to see what the ACs have to say about my comments.. talk about unfounded, uncreative, unintelligent deragotory flames that could only be unleashed from the mind of an impotent psychopath with so low self-esteem as to validate the notion of pressing various baseless insults, biggotry, and other "high-minded" prejudices upon a person solely for the purpose of cracking their self-confidence and/or ego.. it's kind of sad, really, especially because these "brave" souls can't even log in to say those kinds of things.. they have to snipe from the sidelines like good little cowards..;).
I can't believe no one pointed out my misleading comment. Argh.. You're breaking the GPL if you distribute GPL'ed code without source (i.e., just binaries). Whether or not you charge for the service is not of any consequence under any condition. =P
Y'know, FSM used to stand for Free Speech Movement (yes, I go to UC Berkeley). Now there are those who use it for free software? Sure, there are some -- okay, many -- similarities in the two campaigns, but using "FSM" might confuse people.
Pardon, but do you happen to know how many different definitions of SPARC there are? Scalable Processor Architecture isn't the only one. Fire up a Google search if you don't believe me. I counted three different meanings, and I didn't look very hard. However, if someone on here says SPARC, I'm going to think we are going to all know what is being discussed (unless it is pointed out otherwise by the speaker).
Use of the term "Linux" can be rather ambiguous. And nothing is more ambiguous than "open source" these days. Even free software is ambiguous. However, we must consider the medium here. And the context in which things are said. Were I speaking to a member of the media, I would be far more concise (not to mention which, I wouldn't parade my opinions as the opinions of the entire community at large =P). And AFAIK, I speak more precisely than far over half the people who bother to post something on this site (sorry, all, no offense intended:). Unfortunately, you can't always be ultra precise without sounding like a lawyer. And even then, who the hell would understand you?
Ah, but you might say, that isn't self-restraint, it's a passion for precision. My point exactly; the passion for precision in language makes us say what we mean, which is, inevitably, our version of the truth, undistorted by the irrelevancies.
Even the most eloquent of us slip into the more vulgar modes of speech at times. While it is normally admirable to remain civil, precise, and to the point, it's not always going to happen. People are creatures of high emotion (myself more than many), and I believe strongly in the idea that everyone should voice what they feel necessary for them to say.
Those who have but to say, "Fuck you, you fucking loser." are likely to be ignored. Well, good. As they should. A lot of more insightful arguments are made through similar modes of speech. Such is life. I usually try to remain as eloquent as possible, but sometimes a person just needs a good flaming. In the case of someone in a high position in our community causing something to proceed in a way which could affect the community adversely, flaming the fuck out of him/her (quite openly:) is a very good way to let everyone know that that is not something the community is so excited about after all, despite what our "leader" has to say.
All modes of speech have their place. If an opinion is worth being made known, it will hopefully serve its purpose. Not everything is going to be sweet roses. Arguments are necessary. So is civilized conversation. As I said, they all have their place. When introduced into the conversation when it is not their place, they're usually ignored or flamed anyway. So, what's the big deal?
No, I'm not saying we should all just have great big flame wars. I'm saying we should just get over it. It's not that big a deal.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you missed a point..
9) He makes a point of saying hackers and crackers, but then goes on to use the two words interchangeably. If that is not an indication of cluelessness, I don't know what is.
Let the debunking begin!
First off, I don't think I said open source. I said free software .. Second off.. what is meant by "plagged"? Maybe you're trying to say "plogged" (a retarded way of saying "plagued")? I dated a girl from Wisconsin once who hated hard a's, and pronounced as many of them as she could in this incorrect fashion. "I've got the plog!" It was really scary. =P
At any rate, you're trying to say that the free software movement doesn't have enough clout.. not control.. the FSM isn't synonymous with Big Brother, you know (or.. maybe you don't know..). And yes, it certainly the fsck does. Luser.
This is incredibly vague. Er, I mean "vog"!
Wow, you're so.. specific.. big boy. Yeah, right. Care to define "serious problems"?
Hmm.. More ultra-specific detail.. I bet your gf (or bf, or, well, whatever.. one can't be too presumptuous these days) must know precisely what to do in bed, so good are you at making your thoughts clear!
How in the fuck did you conclude anything? All you said was "those things have problems". Hell, my life has problems, but I wouldn't consider it total lossage (not just yet, anyway). If you can't actually back up anything you say, why bother saying it? Just to try and troll? Why don't you get a real distro like Debian, smart ass? =P
GPL makes for a better license. This better license allows for a better development model. This better development model allows for better products. Will everything that is GPL'ed kick ass? No. Will the stuff that does (or could) actually be worked on, while everyone ignores the stuff that sucks? Yes.
By the way, you seem to think that anything "commercial", by definition, sucks ass. Do you think that Red Hat and the other companies that put together distros write the entire OS? Or even most of it? Or that every company in the world is a seething pit of 9 to 5 code monkeys who can only dream of the ultimate enlightenment that is hackerdom because they aren't "cool" enough by your standards? heh.
You apparently have a sickness. Have you gotten that checked out yet?
That's really.. exciting. Or.. ah.. not.
Did anyone really give a fuck what OS this nut is going to try next? Is that not totally offtopic? =P
Again, you're so.. specific.. For all I know you're not even using Red Hat, but rather one of those really gimpy distros, like, ah, what was the name of it.. LinuxOne or whatever? =P
Personally, I think all of this person's arguments stem from the following:
Naturally I don't care if FreeBSD folks don't care much for GNU/Linux, but if you're going to try to argue a point, at least back yourself up with some examples.. some kind of evidence.. So you sound a little less like a troll and more like an actual biped. ;) By the way, no, I don't think all FreeBSD users are fanatics. I think this one, however, is. Of course, there are fanatics everywhere. They all scare me. ;)
In short, when I read that post, the words "holy war" came to mind. ;)
Well, to begin with, I meant that comment as a reference to extensively huge code that you couldn't hold in your head anyway. That said..
One problem I've noticed with a lot of C++ programmers (and hopefully they are still novices when they outgrow this mentality) has to do with the following.. C was a hammer, and C++ is a sledge. We have C++ because there were a few railroad spikes that C just couldn't nail down as elegantly as we would like. Unfortunately, now some people always bust out the heavy ammunition.. But to be honest, not every problem is a railroad spike. ;) C++ is deep and complex compared to C, and how complexly you program something should be directly affected by how complex the program needs to be. Not only that, but even if using C++ is deemed appropriate, you don't have to overkill just for the sake of overkill. =P
In the end, a program is only as good as the programmer. Better tools often make for better work, but even a sledgehammer won't help a stumbling buffoon nail down a railroad spike if he's too drunk to even stand still..
Anyway, enough of that.. I'll now simply comment on the post as a whole: I agree. Excellent points, all.
I have absolutely no problem with the government discouraging crime committed via your favorite computer. A crime is a crime. I'm just bothered by the thought of an even more widespread usage of incorrect terminology. The slugs out in the "real world" still think that Linus Torvalds wrote the entire base GNU/Linux system, rather than simply the kernel (please don't even bother trying to argue about this damn thing again, anyone: you know what the truth is, and this is yet another excellent example of how misinformation warps the minds of the masses.. for the record I don't give a fuck if you call the entire system Linux.. I do too =P). It becomes more difficult for the truth to shine through the more you cloud the landscape with lies and misinformation.. Of course, from what I've seen, few people here or elsewhere seem to care about such misinformation unless it affects them directly (point in case, this guy once wrote an article on a BSD-related news site talking about the misconceptions about FreeBSD introduced here on Slashdot.. during the course of which he misinformed and lied about GNU/Linux.. cute, eh?).
In short, hackers are proud to be hackers, and don't really like having to explain themselves every time they refer to themselves as a hacker. It's kind of disheartening for a term you like so much to be applied to yourself twisted around to become synonymous with some of the worst lower network life around..
If hackers gave up on everything that was dear to them because someone else tried to twist it around, where do you think we'd be right now? Even though there are hordes of BSD lovers who slam the GPL on a daily basis, you think the BSD licensing would change the way the software industry percieves things? Not a chance in hell. Sure, Richard M. Stallman could have said, "Fuck it." and the world would be an even more dismal place for it. People lose things that are dear to them because they give up and don't even try. Might as well not have anything to begin with, if such is the case. There will never be another term like "hacker". It is steeped in history. The general public will eventually come to know the true meanings of the terms "hacker" and "cracker", even if it takes a while. The rise of free software can only help such enlightenment be reached, even if Joe Public has plugs in his ears. Eventually they will listen. Not that I'm saying this will happen any time soon.. But I imagine it shall. Especially since some media outlets are just now catching on somewhat to this terminology.
I had this idea, though.. I thought it might be cool if someone did a show where they interviewed all of the biggest names in the free software community (well, except ESR, maybe.. I don't even agree with much that Linus has to say, but.. ESR just goes too far for my tastes =P), and talked about stuff like "What does hacker really mean?" among the usual mumbo jumbo, and then aired the damn thing on public television (cable is just too obscure if you want to make this kind of point ;). I'm sure more than a few people would watch, thanks to all the hype about GNU/Linux and such.
The words "buffer overflow" come to mind.. Try firing that huge bastard up in your favorite text editor! =P
..you are clueless, and have no idea of what I meant. Go waste time playing in the sand somewhere else. ;)
This is a classic example of why I have a hard threshold of 1. It does have relavence, it was a quote from the fscking article, you twit. And secondly, if you were smart, you'd realize that it didn't get moderated up. Once you have so much karma, your posts start off with more points (you can choose not to invoke these karmic powers, but I'm often lazy). I thought some AC might have answered my question. Instead, I'm once again reminded at why these people are too stupid to think up a user name and a password, then log in. ;)
And I owe it all to you!
If you honestly thought that I meant that the entire bulk of Windows was compiled from a single source file, I don't think you have any right whatsoever to call anyone ignorant.. except, perhaps, for yourself.
Anyway, I'd say something more useful, but you're obviously trying to craft a troll. I kind of got the feeling right off the bat, but I thought this post was a complete riot. Sorry, you'll have to do better than that to sucker me in. ;)
The grand majority of your project time should be spent in the design phases. The less time you spend on design, the more likely you're going to fuck up during implementation, and thus the more time you're going to spend doing testing. Design should consume about 50% to 70% of a project's time (or at least closer to those figures than 33%). After you have a full, working design down on paper, implementation shouldn't be all that hard to nail down quick unless your programmers really are quite clueless. The reason you should spend so much time on design is so that before you even write a single line of code, you know everything that the program is supposed to do. You figure out the best way to implement each feature, and whoosh! You're off. A lot of bugs are solved this way before you even go to your favorite text editor. Moral of this story? If you don't implement something incorrectly in the first place, you won't have to fix it later. It's a Good Thing. And most of your bugs will be typos and other assorted weirdness rather than critical design flaws. A change in design during implementation is much harder, and quite time consuming. You'll be much better off if you have an extremely clear view of the design beforehand. How much testing you do shouldn't really be set down as any predesignated percentage, AFAIC.. You test it until it's done being tested. Besides, how much time that will require depends entirely on your licensing and how you plan to test it. ;)
I'm going to kill whoever thought it was a good idea to have the ads reload every 10-15 seconds on the site that article is on. Grr.
Hmm. Well, most glaringly, this kind of assumes that all programmers are found in the commercial sector. In simpler times, I would not have found this incorrect assumption to be all that surprising. In light of the recent thrust of GNU/Linux into the spotlight, it appears to be more of a gross oversight.
On the other hand, does anyone here really think that every proprietary software product is a horrible piece of.. whatever? And no, Microsoft does not make all known proprietary software products, contrary to the belief of many conspiracy theorists who have spent too much time on board alien space ships.. ;) I would imagine that a greal deal of commercial stuff is actually good and relatively bug free. Not all of it, but just because all of it doesn't kick ass doesn't mean that all of it sucks, either.
Oh wait.. No wonder. The writer has obviously spent too much time around script kiddies and other lower network life. ;)
Actually, I know a lot of idiots with electric razors that don't shave a person's face (or elsewhere) very well. I consider that to be "unreliable".
"We, the suckers who don't know any better.." But seriously, who doesn't complain? I'd like to meet the person who isn't at least mildly ticked upon being visited by a BSOD.
Encapsulation and modularization are your friends ..
..too bad the people from Redmond don't make nice to these two potential buddies..
GPL your drivers!!
I don't know.. After reading this entire article, I was first surprised that the writer even knows the correct term for a BSOD, and also I just have to ask: Can anyone come up with any reason why free software would not be considered a Very Good Thing to inject into the software industry, as far as the average end-user is concerned? Obviously it's not quite so helpful to big business. ;)
Is that the bill recently proposed by Senator McCain, or the older thing? Yeah, I know, I'm clueless on this point, but hey, whatever. =P I don't keep up with U.S. law anymore.. heh.
Several people have tried to coin terms that are deragatory to white people in an effort to "get even", but none of them have really stuck. I think it's pointless, really. I mean, "You acted like a little child and called me a bad name, so I'm going to act like a little child and think of a new bad name to call you! Nyah nyah!" Not that I advocate the use of the word "nigger" or any other deragatory gesture, but rather do I condemn all such prejudiced insults. However, I find it rather laughable that anyone would be offended by the terms "cracker" or "white-bread". I could count the number of times I've been called either on a single hand. Chances are, white people who are subjected to terms like this on a regularly basis are either real prejudiced pricks, or have a bad habit of wandering around in the more dangerous parts of town. =P
In short, the press is stupid. Media people will always be mostly a bunch of clueless idiots, mainstream or not. Many tend to prove this point repeatedly whenever a "new and exciting" article about the OS holy wars comes out (and other related topics, I'm sure) by slowly dissecting all the drivel. They simply have no idea of what the hell they are talking about. And probably never will.
That's utterly pointless. If we went by those standards (and by the way, we are not exactly talking about opinions here, but accepted definitions of words as defined by those /who originated them/.. i.e., the, gasp, hacking community), then what would be the point of jargon? You think Joe Public knows what even 1% of the words in the Jargon File mean to hackers? Would you not get pissed off if, say, your name was "Joe" and everyone called you "Bitch"? Or would that be ok, because /everyone/ thinks your name is "Bitch"?
Cracker /is/ an offensive term to hackers. I can't help but wonder why I would have to explain why.
Pardon my rather over-the-edge example, but you know, people who spread their own ignorance and stupidity around because they believe they're above the truth, or rather that they are the One Truth, and that everyone else should just shut the fuck up and believe whatever Joe Idiot believes even though he's an ignorant twit who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.. Hopefully you won't think what I'm about to say is my actual opinion. It isn't.
Yeah, I agree completely. I'm also not old enough to remember the Holocaust. It never really happened, anyway, because I didn't experience it. I'm sick of people bitching about the Jews. I say, fuck them. They need to get over it. Stupid idiots.
Ugh.. At any rate. Calling a "hacker" a "cracker", or vice versa, is about as intelligent as calling an "apple" and "orange", or vice versa. They are two completely different things. Hacker is the original fscking definition, and likely, no one gives a damn if you are fed up with the truth . If you want to live in a world of lies, fine. But keep them to yourself. Or go into politics. Your choice, really.
I would like to reassert my wish for filters that allow me to /not/ view comments from certain users. Like this "bright" individual here. Many people refer to themselves as hackers. The term is commonplace on Slashdot. Richard M. Stallman is a hacker. So is, well, everyone in the free software or open source movement that actually contributes decent code, I'd imagine.
I quote this sentence only to illustrate why ignorance and utter stupidity are self-perpetuating. This sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. Not exactly structurally sound. Obviously this person has a few self-esteem problems, as well. Oh, I mean.. what an intelligent message you have, there, sir.. We'll kindly relay that message to RMS, ESR, Linus Torvalds, and others. They really do suck. Real badly. What a bunch of posers. Grr.
However, what /really/ concerns me is the number of idiots who post on Slashdot who /still/ don't appear to know the difference between "hackers" and "crackers". Talk about losing the nomenclature battle.. =P I mean, how clueless can one be on a site where links to the Jargon File are posted semi-regularly during everyday discussions?
"Should be what it always has been"? The original definition of the term was the one that you would find in the Jargon File. It is a rather ancient term (sorry, RMS, not to say that you or anyone else from "back then" are ancient ;). I really can't explain the correct usage of the term beyond that. However.. when computing became mildly less difficult to learn, a number of people who didn't have the intelligence or creativity of hackers to learn how to do anything /useful/ with a computer decided it might be a good idea to crack into other people's computers, ostensibly to "prove their worth". To compound this ethical violation, they referred to themselves as "hackers" (which began a long tradition carried on by crackers, warez d00dz, and script kiddies today to refer to themselves in a glorified manner they clearly do /not/ deserve). It shouldn't be too hard to see how this quickly escalated..
You're blatantly trolling and obviously /quite/ clueless. Hacker as "programming enthusiast" not "computer terrorist" is the /old school definition/. Just because Joe Public is a fscking idiot doesn't mean we are going to trash our entire culture. Grr.
This could be low signal/noise.. I just woke up and am now in a rather unhappy mood thanks to this latest idiocy.. You've been warned. :)
Ok, how many of us actually know /children/ who qualify for the term hacker? Or even cracker? I think the grand majority of these would be termed "script kiddies". And if these idiots can't even figure out the correct terminology, it's really no wonder they're so defenseless. =P
Ok, so.. Not only do they have to impose their flawed definition of the term "hacker" upon the public at large, now they have to twist it in the mind of small children? Shouldn't there be some kind of law that prohibits the government from /lying/ to small children on a massive scale? Argh.. I can't even think properly on this.. It's too fscking stupid.. Grr.
I mean, there are already enough clueless idiots out in the world who, upon being asked for the definition of the word hacker, get it.. enh!! dead wrong! But now whenever a person who went through the educational system during a time when this brainwashing campaign was in effect is exposed to the term "hacker", they might denounce the "offender" who brought it up as some kind of "drug dealer", and refuse to listen to their "subversive" or (religious children may choose to insert any religious word that attaches a strong stigma to the "subversive" or "hell-bound" individual) explanation of what the word really means? Or something equally ludicrous? Talk about.. stupid..
Sorry, but if some random script kiddies can bust into your system, you probably /deserved/ it. Perhaps someone more competent should be hired to replace you if you work the government or a company and find yourself in this situation? =P
No, hacking is clever and /sexy/.. And everything about that paragraph would be funny if it wasn't so sad.. And so.. stupid..
Oh joy.. another way for MS and AOL to spread evil across the land..
The first sentence was just awful.. "The Justice Department wants to save children before they turn into hackers." Um.. sure. The world could always use a few less programmers that actually have a passion for what they're doing.. Or not. Oh wait, they already discourage the production of more good programmers in school.. By teaching them Pascal. Better than Basic, I suppose, but not by a whole lot. You know, until I learned about C, I always thought programming sucked. Whoever had the bright idea to teach Pascal in recent years instead of C in high school needs to.. Well, nevermind. Let's just say something not very pretty..
I'm sticking with Mandrake, you fscking lusers! Er..
Joke!
One good thing does arise from all of the bitching, whining, first posting, and other offtopic idiocies.. These morons make it quite clear who is and is not worth listening to, as they all lump themselves quite neatly into.. that's right.. the latter.
I want some filters that make it to where I can't read posts from certain users. Blocking out articles isn't very exciting. Filtering out those with very, very low signal/noise ratios would be a Good Thing, especially since more and more people who you'd think would stick to AC trolling are actually getting accounts. At least those without accounts are easily filtered (and yeah, hard thresholds of 1 are highly recommended.. every once in a while I look to see what the ACs have to say about my comments.. talk about unfounded, uncreative, unintelligent deragotory flames that could only be unleashed from the mind of an impotent psychopath with so low self-esteem as to validate the notion of pressing various baseless insults, biggotry, and other "high-minded" prejudices upon a person solely for the purpose of cracking their self-confidence and/or ego.. it's kind of sad, really, especially because these "brave" souls can't even log in to say those kinds of things.. they have to snipe from the sidelines like good little cowards.. ;).
Languages that feature overloading.. Usually something that is widely embraced in the programming world. How ironic. ;)
Am I the only one who thought that said "Pizza the Hutt" when they first saw the headline of this article?
Maybe I've just seen too much Spaceballs.. =P
I can't believe no one pointed out my misleading comment. Argh.. You're breaking the GPL if you distribute GPL'ed code without source (i.e., just binaries). Whether or not you charge for the service is not of any consequence under any condition. =P
Sorry for the uh oh. :)
Pardon, but do you happen to know how many different definitions of SPARC there are? Scalable Processor Architecture isn't the only one. Fire up a Google search if you don't believe me. I counted three different meanings, and I didn't look very hard. However, if someone on here says SPARC, I'm going to think we are going to all know what is being discussed (unless it is pointed out otherwise by the speaker).
Use of the term "Linux" can be rather ambiguous. And nothing is more ambiguous than "open source" these days. Even free software is ambiguous. However, we must consider the medium here. And the context in which things are said. Were I speaking to a member of the media, I would be far more concise (not to mention which, I wouldn't parade my opinions as the opinions of the entire community at large =P). And AFAIK, I speak more precisely than far over half the people who bother to post something on this site (sorry, all, no offense intended :). Unfortunately, you can't always be ultra precise without sounding like a lawyer. And even then, who the hell would understand you?
Even the most eloquent of us slip into the more vulgar modes of speech at times. While it is normally admirable to remain civil, precise, and to the point, it's not always going to happen. People are creatures of high emotion (myself more than many), and I believe strongly in the idea that everyone should voice what they feel necessary for them to say.
Those who have but to say, "Fuck you, you fucking loser." are likely to be ignored. Well, good. As they should. A lot of more insightful arguments are made through similar modes of speech. Such is life. I usually try to remain as eloquent as possible, but sometimes a person just needs a good flaming. In the case of someone in a high position in our community causing something to proceed in a way which could affect the community adversely, flaming the fuck out of him/her (quite openly :) is a very good way to let everyone know that that is not something the community is so excited about after all, despite what our "leader" has to say.
All modes of speech have their place. If an opinion is worth being made known, it will hopefully serve its purpose. Not everything is going to be sweet roses. Arguments are necessary. So is civilized conversation. As I said, they all have their place. When introduced into the conversation when it is not their place, they're usually ignored or flamed anyway. So, what's the big deal?
No, I'm not saying we should all just have great big flame wars. I'm saying we should just get over it. It's not that big a deal.
That quote doesn't seem to be one of mine. Care to take it to whoever actually said it (ostensibly one post higher on the thread than mine)? =P