Excuse me, I wasn't thinking properly (obviously!).
So it points to deficiencies in the network interface driver, not the TCP/IP stack. Which is different in terms of problem correction but, as I udnerstand it, not much different for causing problems?
If you chop [per-copy royalties], then you aren't being adequately compensated...
What is the difference between per-copy royalties from documentation, and per-copy royalties from code?
The only possible answer I can see would be, "because you're printing out books." Well, what's the difference between that and charging for distribution of software on physical media?
There are two takes on this that all support free redistribution of documentation, and there are two views that support royalties:
reasons for free documentation:
Documentation of software is a part of the software package itself. Therefore, if the software is free, why shouldn't the documentation be free? If the software is of high quality, why should I skimp on documentation?
If I'm just downloading the documentation with free software, then the money lost by any one due to my having the documentation in front of me is close to nil. The difference between the money lost from letting me download software, or letting me download software and documentation, is nil. The cost difference between writing software for free, and writing documentation concurrently with the software, is not generally measurable, so again the difference is nil.
The difficulty of producing quality hardcopy documentation(i.e., going through a publisher) require a more conventional (non-free) way of doing things.
In my opinion, the first argument should not even be considered for free software; the only reason to use it is to try to make available the software free of charge, but make using it so hard that documentation also needs to be bought. That essentially means crippling the software (or at least the user interface, which is an important part of the software ), or similarly producing the software in a sub-optimal development environment.
The second is reasonable; if you look at the LDP's and O'Reilly's Linux Network Administrator's Guide, it is woefully outdated, due at least in part (as far as I can discern) to the ease of downloading it rather than buying it, and most people's willingness to do so (and hence the unprofitability of updating it).
So how do you make money writing documentation? Well, how do you make money selling free software? Personal service, consulting, teaching, etc. Can people make money doing that? You betcha (if you don't believe me, look at how profitable certification teaching is!).
The packet sniffing code is completely disjoint from the TCP/IP stack and the rest of the OS.
Ummm... what? So you're saying that the performance of the TCP/IP stack will in no way affect the performance of snipping packets coming off the stack Uh, OK...
Comparing/. to internal mailing lists is a poor comparison. Try the comparison someone else used, of the FreeBSD mailing lists vs. the Linux mailing lists; aside from the fact that/. is a hip forum (hence attracting people trying to be hip),/. is also not a Linux-only forum. Windows NT, 95, Mac OS, Mac OS X, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Digital Unix, HP-UX, AIX, OPENSTEP, and OS/2 are just some of the other operating systems people use that come here. Even the idiots who flame every Linux-unfriendly author whose article is posted here, are not all Linux users, but also hangers-on.
On the other hand, I definitely agree with you about/. readers -- but then that's the cost of being part of a popular thing, whether you're there for the popular or the thing.
It's perfectly possible, just not suggested. In particular, the username restriction is at the level of the scripts used to create users; there are many ways to get around this.
Take a look at the program you're running: is it a script, and in what language? If you know how to change it to either issue a warning rather than exit, or simply accept it, do so. If it's a compiled program, all I can say is "weird" -- what program are you using?
You can also copy stuff pell-mell -- I'm not sure about the compatibility of passwd and shadow, but you can at worst try. Try it out, and if it works, you've solved all your problems.
Slashboxes. Selection of articles you want to see based on subject and author. Moderation.
Slashdot is a portal, duh. Or rather, it can be used as a portal, a looking glass, into the Linux community. If you go to straight-up slashdot.org not logged in, it's just a news site).
So, it's a BBS, a news site, a portal, a forum for writers to try ideas on for size.
The amazing thing is that it does almost all of it right.
Linux started to get really 'hot' around that time, and talking about hot stuff is what a news site is all about...
I don't know that that really applies, since/. has always included articles that interested the editors (or more than anything that interested CmdrTaco, or that one of the other editors would think would interest CmdrTaco, etc.). For instance, Enlightenment coverage went way down when CmdrTaco stopped using Enlightenment; Window Maker coverage went down when Window Maker became significantly more stable, etc.
And OS/2 has been the subject of at least one poll, if I remember correctly; and yes, lots of comments and never enough clever ones. Which is why I've been pro-moderation in this forum (that and I trust CmdrTaco & friends to do a good job with their moderation system).
I've been reading/. since it was Chips and Dip and CmdrTaco was working on eClock. A good way to check age is to look at user numbers (as reported by http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=user info&nick= -- I've got a few thousand on you.
For once I'm not being elitist, though -- I know people that still haven't gotten a/. account, and they've been reading it as long as I have. If they were to suddenly decide to make a named post, they would get an account in the tens of thousands, and no one would know they'd followed it (and made numerous AC posts) before.
I'm just trying to say that maybe/. hasn't changed that much since it started:)
I would certainly classify it as news as well -- it's not a place to come looking for Linux information or help (Ask/. notwithstanding, since it's not for newbie or FAQ's).
/. seems to me to offer decent coverage of other operating systems, but it in no has ever included as many articles on any operating system other than Linux as much as Linux (even Windows, and that rarely positively). It's never even really been much for intelligent posts about other operating systems -- a year ago, I was getting flamed on/. for posting pro-OS/2 comments, and topical/interesting OS/2 submissions passed over.
That said, there's still always been plenty of articles and comments about other operating systems; Mac OS X, BeOS, Amiga, QNX, OS/2, even Windows 2000.
Perhaps our perceptions of the old times are different. . . (although I've been around longer, I think -- nyah nyah!:)
I am personally reasonably annoyed at Wolfram Research, Inc., and others, who create license strings based on CPU ID's where possible.
To go way back, if you have Mathematica running on an old NeXT Computer, then you can't upgrade the computer unless you buy another license. Similar things are done with other software on other CPU's that have ID's today, and it's a real PITA for legitimate licensees (although I will admit that not much else will stop pirates).
This sort of thing is, of course, well within the rights of companies that offer such licenses, but making it easier for them to make it invasive and difficult for me (as someone who occasionally upgrades my computer) is not my idea of a good plan.
Also note that I'm a fan of Mathematica, but not Wolfram. sigh
I am not trying to be pedantic -- I am trying to correct your dissociation of GUI and the phrase it stands for. To say "A GUI is not just a Graphical User Interface" is to be, well, wrong.
If a person refers to a GUI and means a User Interface with graphical features, I am in no way surprised.
If most people refer to a GUI and mean a graphical user interface, but most people assume it means a graphical environment with drag and drop, then I am confused because how do most people assume one thing, but also assume another thing with some suggestion of difference?
I was attacking your suggestion that a GUI isn't a graphical user interface.
There is no "metaphor" involved in comparing a GUI to a graphical user interface; they rather share the simpler relationship of "acronym."
Most people assume that a GUI provides the ability to shar resources between applications, and do drag and drop, etc.; this is logical. People don't assume that a GUI is not a graphical user interface.
Excuse me if, in my current state of occasionally peeking at the code of programs on my system and even sometimes (the horror!) taking snippets of code from them for use in my own projects, I consider modification and distribution a part of "use."
Yes, I know that I can still run the program, but I can still run a program under Microsoft's EULA. I am less restricted by the GPL, but still in some ways onerously restricted.
To rephrase the statement you found to have a legalistically erroneous turn of phrase, "In order to use the code of GPl'd programs as I am wont to do, just as with Microsoft programs, I must submit to an onerous license restricting my freedom."
I hope that has clarified things so that you don't think I'm some idiot with no understanding of the GPL, but rather some idiot rarely interested in making his language appeal to lawyers (just professors of English).
A GUI is not just a Graphical User Interface. It is a work environment.
Say what? Since when did GUI stand for anything other than Graphical User Interface? Perhaps you meant "A good GUI is more than a windowing system," which is true, but please -- PLEASE -- don't go around making the acronym "GUI" mean more than it means.
If you want a different meaning than an acronym, don't use the acronym, but rather something else. How difficult is this?
Enslavement is the wrong term, I'm sure; but submission is correct, I believe.
In order to use GPl'd programs, just as with Microsoft programs, I must submit to an onerous license restricting my freedom. In that sense, it is (as I'm sure the original poster meant) indeed oppressive.
Don't get me wrong, I ultimately don't mind using the GPL because the FSF's heart is in the right place, and the moral qualms are not very significant; especially in light of the fact that the GPL has actually accomplished its stated goal of protecting free software from ceasing to be free software several times.
However, I am an idealist who looks forward to a day that the GPL is cast aside in favor of everyone "simply" sharing their code.
Since despite plans for future use of Java in MacOS X's YellowBox, Apple is offering classes in how to program in Objective C today. All of the major applications in Mac OS X that I've seen (OmniWeb, all the administration stuff, etc.) is written in Objective C.
It's still a very viable alternative, and recieved a major blood tranfusion with Mac OS X.
Elitism. While Slashdot is not uniformly as technical as some of the readers (Alan Cox, Tom Christiansen, and Bruce Perens all read Slashdot and I won't claim to be as skilled or as knowledgable as them:), it seems oriented towards a more technical audience. It has not, in the past, been a forum for informing people not already interested in the material it covers. It has also not, in the past, been a place as technically inclined as Freshmeat.
As for Jon's ability to get to the root of complex problems, I sometimes disagree. He has a knack for simplifying complex issues, but I don't always feel that he simplifies them accurately; he has and seemingly always has had an agenda behind his writing, and it appears to influence his writing. Whether I disagree or agree with the apparent agenda is a non-issue; in fact I agree and disagree about evenly.
Slashdot, in the past, has not catered to people trying to learn what the Internet is. It has largely catered to people around the same level technically as Rob Malda, and the other editors have influenced this. However, it feels like Jon Katz' contributions are a good bit afield of the others'.
There is a place for teaching people more; embracing the analog world, as you said. And there is a place for people, fully comfortable with the digital world, to sit down, BS, and be comfortable without trying to explain every second word. For the former, Linux.org and Linux.com and a host of other sites of varying repute and quality exist. For the latter, it seems that KernelNotes, Freshmeat, and Slashdot are the only general sites.
Why is it so unreasonable that Slashdot not be all things to all people?
grab a.deb, change its suffix to.tar.gz (or.tgz as you like), and untar/gunzip it.
Take a look inside. I don't have Linux installed right now (in the process of clearing out a nasty and cobwebby install), so I can't say how to do it -- but look and see, I remember it was extremely easy.
If you'd like to email me for more, feel free, but I seem to recall there's also some documentation on the Debian web site.::search search:: Yup, take a look at:
Why not share your knowledge by helping others with their new Linux systems?
I think you're missing the point here. To answer the question using my own personal views, it's because the learning process is more important than the knowledge gained.
I would be hard-pressed to name a UNIX guru not willing to share experiences and help. However, simply saying ``Joe Newlinuxuser wants to set up apache, I'll go ask him some questions and do it for him,'' is insufficient, and this is what a lot of these tools do. It assumes that Joe Newlinuxuser has the background to know that he wants Apache installed, and that he wants to do something relevant to his larger goal, etc. The UNIX guru rather feels that, in order to give Joe the proper background to be able to ask relevant questions and to be able to get relevant things done in a secure and efficient manner, Joe needs to spend some time in the trenches.
An easy installation, easy system administration, etc. are valuable and useful tools. But they don't equate to ``intelligent sysadmin in a program.'' I tell people to not use an easy Linux install for the same reason I don't tell people to use Visual C++: there's so much you need to know for anything other than a routine drag and drop moment, that most drag and drop utilities can't tell you. A lot of people that learn to program using Visual C++ or Borland C++ never know what Makefiles are, and how you can get them to work magic peripheral too, but a necessary component of, compiling and installing a piece of (software/documentation) or doing something.
In each simplification step (assembly->C->C with lots of useful libraries->C++->Borland C++), there are assumptions made that don't always apply. When doing something as important as secure system administration on a machine connected to the internet, just as with software that is supposed to compile on five different platforms, you need to know the assumptions made, and how to get around them.
My own personal beef with Red Hat has nothing to do with this, but rather I don't like RPM's and I don't like the defaults they set and it's a pain to change all of their assumptions to all of my assumptions, or stick in the tools simplifying toosl that simplify the things I want simplified. In a phrase, their distro is fine but not the one I want to install.
There is a place for easy tools, simplification, etc. -- and it isn't in increasing the audience of the lower level tool. It's in making a busy, well-informed user of the lower level tool more productive.
In my (obviously not) humble opinion, let Red Hat reap massive benefits and continue to funnel that money into Linux, and I will like and support them. If they just make massive amounts of money, no skin off my back; and if they just die, my sympathies to a company that was doing some nice things.
In re-reading my post, it was probably more inflammatory than necessary -- so I apologize. I am extremely glad to know that at least some features on Slashdot are written with a specific audience in mind, whether I agree with that choice of audience or not.
With some of the features I've been seeing lately (and not just Katz's articles and not all of Katz's articles), there seems to be no thought put into target audience, or who that audience is, or...
My personal recommendation for future articles published in a semi-technical forum such as Slashdot would be to assume more baseline knowledge of the audience (keep in mind also that commentators inside said audience can clarify concepts and terms for audience members on the fringe). If the article was intended for much wider distribution, though, that's another thing:)
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, I wasn't thinking properly (obviously!).
So it points to deficiencies in the network interface driver, not the TCP/IP stack. Which is different in terms of problem correction but, as I udnerstand it, not much different for causing problems?
The only possible answer I can see would be, "because you're printing out books." Well, what's the difference between that and charging for distribution of software on physical media?
There are two takes on this that all support free redistribution of documentation, and there are two views that support royalties:
reasons for free documentation:
- Documentation of software is a part of the software package itself. Therefore, if the software is free, why shouldn't the documentation be free? If the software is of high quality, why should I skimp on documentation?
- If I'm just downloading the documentation with free software, then the money lost by any one due to my having the documentation in front of me is close to nil. The difference between the money lost from letting me download software, or letting me download software and documentation, is nil. The cost difference between writing software for free, and writing documentation concurrently with the software, is not generally measurable, so again the difference is nil.
reasons against free documentation:- Hey! I wrote those docs, I should be compensated! (see Why Software Should Not Have Owners)
- The difficulty of producing quality hardcopy documentation(i.e., going through a publisher) require a more conventional (non-free) way of doing things.
In my opinion, the first argument should not even be considered for free software; the only reason to use it is to try to make available the software free of charge, but make using it so hard that documentation also needs to be bought. That essentially means crippling the software (or at least the user interface, which is an important part of the software ), or similarly producing the software in a sub-optimal development environment.The second is reasonable; if you look at the LDP's and O'Reilly's Linux Network Administrator's Guide, it is woefully outdated, due at least in part (as far as I can discern) to the ease of downloading it rather than buying it, and most people's willingness to do so (and hence the unprofitability of updating it).
A more carefully considered presentation of these views is over at Free Software and Free Manuals.
So how do you make money writing documentation? Well, how do you make money selling free software? Personal service, consulting, teaching, etc. Can people make money doing that? You betcha (if you don't believe me, look at how profitable certification teaching is!).
SLACK! ;-)
Comparing /. to internal mailing lists is a poor comparison. Try the comparison someone else used, of the FreeBSD mailing lists vs. the Linux mailing lists; aside from the fact that /. is a hip forum (hence attracting people trying to be hip), /. is also not a Linux-only forum. Windows NT, 95, Mac OS, Mac OS X, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Digital Unix, HP-UX, AIX, OPENSTEP, and OS/2 are just some of the other operating systems people use that come here. Even the idiots who flame every Linux-unfriendly author whose article is posted here, are not all Linux users, but also hangers-on.
/. readers -- but then that's the cost of being part of a popular thing, whether you're there for the popular or the thing.
On the other hand, I definitely agree with you about
It's perfectly possible, just not suggested. In particular, the username restriction is at the level of the scripts used to create users; there are many ways to get around this.
Take a look at the program you're running: is it a script, and in what language? If you know how to change it to either issue a warning rather than exit, or simply accept it, do so. If it's a compiled program, all I can say is "weird" -- what program are you using?
You can also copy stuff pell-mell -- I'm not sure about the compatibility of passwd and shadow, but you can at worst try. Try it out, and if it works, you've solved all your problems.
Slashboxes. Selection of articles you want to see based on subject and author. Moderation.
Slashdot is a portal, duh. Or rather, it can be used as a portal, a looking glass, into the Linux community. If you go to straight-up slashdot.org not logged in, it's just a news site).
So, it's a BBS, a news site, a portal, a forum for writers to try ideas on for size.
The amazing thing is that it does almost all of it right.
And OS/2 has been the subject of at least one poll, if I remember correctly; and yes, lots of comments and never enough clever ones. Which is why I've been pro-moderation in this forum (that and I trust CmdrTaco & friends to do a good job with their moderation system).
I've been reading
For once I'm not being elitist, though -- I know people that still haven't gotten a
I'm just trying to say that maybe
I would certainly classify it as news as well -- it's not a place to come looking for Linux information or help (Ask /. notwithstanding, since it's not for newbie or FAQ's).
/. seems to me to offer decent coverage of other operating systems, but it in no has ever included as many articles on any operating system other than Linux as much as Linux (even Windows, and that rarely positively). It's never even really been much for intelligent posts about other operating systems -- a year ago, I was getting flamed on /. for posting pro-OS/2 comments, and topical/interesting OS/2 submissions passed over.
:)
That said, there's still always been plenty of articles and comments about other operating systems; Mac OS X, BeOS, Amiga, QNX, OS/2, even Windows 2000.
Perhaps our perceptions of the old times are different. . . (although I've been around longer, I think -- nyah nyah!
Idiot and troll.
Just to clarify for people who might read this and believe that something has changed, Slashdot has always been a Linux joint.
If anyone else remembers Chips nd Dips, it was almost all Linux or geek society related (but not other OS-related).
Idiot and troll.
WTF is convenient about it?
I am personally reasonably annoyed at Wolfram Research, Inc., and others, who create license strings based on CPU ID's where possible.
To go way back, if you have Mathematica running on an old NeXT Computer, then you can't upgrade the computer unless you buy another license. Similar things are done with other software on other CPU's that have ID's today, and it's a real PITA for legitimate licensees (although I will admit that not much else will stop pirates).
This sort of thing is, of course, well within the rights of companies that offer such licenses, but making it easier for them to make it invasive and difficult for me (as someone who occasionally upgrades my computer) is not my idea of a good plan.
Also note that I'm a fan of Mathematica, but not Wolfram. sigh
You can change your ethernet address (MAC address).
Unless you actually read the license itself, rather than their (not legally binding) claims about it.
I think he was referring to "capitalism sucking" rather than "Amazon sucking."
:)
I think; that's just my perception of his clauses
- I am not trying to be pedantic -- I am trying to correct your dissociation of GUI and the phrase it stands for. To say "A GUI is not just a Graphical User Interface" is to be, well, wrong.
- If a person refers to a GUI and means a User Interface with graphical features, I am in no way surprised.
- If most people refer to a GUI and mean a graphical user interface, but most people assume it means a graphical environment with drag and drop, then I am confused because how do most people assume one thing, but also assume another thing with some suggestion of difference?
- I was attacking your suggestion that a GUI isn't a graphical user interface.
There is no "metaphor" involved in comparing a GUI to a graphical user interface; they rather share the simpler relationship of "acronym."Most people assume that a GUI provides the ability to shar resources between applications, and do drag and drop, etc.; this is logical. People don't assume that a GUI is not a graphical user interface.
Excuse me if, in my current state of occasionally peeking at the code of programs on my system and even sometimes (the horror!) taking snippets of code from them for use in my own projects, I consider modification and distribution a part of "use."
Yes, I know that I can still run the program, but I can still run a program under Microsoft's EULA. I am less restricted by the GPL, but still in some ways onerously restricted.
To rephrase the statement you found to have a legalistically erroneous turn of phrase, "In order to use the code of GPl'd programs as I am wont to do, just as with Microsoft programs, I must submit to an onerous license restricting my freedom."
I hope that has clarified things so that you don't think I'm some idiot with no understanding of the GPL, but rather some idiot rarely interested in making his language appeal to lawyers (just professors of English).
su -c 'ln -s
If you want a different meaning than an acronym, don't use the acronym, but rather something else. How difficult is this?
Enslavement is the wrong term, I'm sure; but submission is correct, I believe.
In order to use GPl'd programs, just as with Microsoft programs, I must submit to an onerous license restricting my freedom. In that sense, it is (as I'm sure the original poster meant) indeed oppressive.
Don't get me wrong, I ultimately don't mind using the GPL because the FSF's heart is in the right place, and the moral qualms are not very significant; especially in light of the fact that the GPL has actually accomplished its stated goal of protecting free software from ceasing to be free software several times.
However, I am an idealist who looks forward to a day that the GPL is cast aside in favor of everyone "simply" sharing their code.
Since despite plans for future use of Java in MacOS X's YellowBox, Apple is offering classes in how to program in Objective C today. All of the major applications in Mac OS X that I've seen (OmniWeb, all the administration stuff, etc.) is written in Objective C.
It's still a very viable alternative, and recieved a major blood tranfusion with Mac OS X.
- Elitism. While Slashdot is not uniformly as technical as some of the readers (Alan Cox, Tom Christiansen, and Bruce Perens all read Slashdot and I won't claim to be as skilled or as knowledgable as them
:), it seems oriented towards a more technical audience. It has not, in the past, been a forum for informing people not already interested in the material it covers. It has also not, in the past, been a place as technically inclined as Freshmeat. - As for Jon's ability to get to the root of complex problems, I sometimes disagree. He has a knack for simplifying complex issues, but I don't always feel that he simplifies them accurately; he has and seemingly always has had an agenda behind his writing, and it appears to influence his writing. Whether I disagree or agree with the apparent agenda is a non-issue; in fact I agree and disagree about evenly.
- Slashdot, in the past, has not catered to people trying to learn what the Internet is. It has largely catered to people around the same level technically as Rob Malda, and the other editors have influenced this. However, it feels like Jon Katz' contributions are a good bit afield of the others'.
There is a place for teaching people more; embracing the analog world, as you said. And there is a place for people, fully comfortable with the digital world, to sit down, BS, and be comfortable without trying to explain every second word. For the former, Linux.org and Linux.com and a host of other sites of varying repute and quality exist. For the latter, it seems that KernelNotes, Freshmeat, and Slashdot are the only general sites.Why is it so unreasonable that Slashdot not be all things to all people?
Take a look inside. I don't have Linux installed right now (in the process of clearing out a nasty and cobwebby install), so I can't say how to do it -- but look and see, I remember it was extremely easy.
If you'd like to email me for more, feel free, but I seem to recall there's also some documentation on the Debian web site.
- the FAQ,
- the Debian Packaging Manual
I assume that #2 is what you were referring to, but I don't know.I would be hard-pressed to name a UNIX guru not willing to share experiences and help. However, simply saying ``Joe Newlinuxuser wants to set up apache, I'll go ask him some questions and do it for him,'' is insufficient, and this is what a lot of these tools do. It assumes that Joe Newlinuxuser has the background to know that he wants Apache installed, and that he wants to do something relevant to his larger goal, etc. The UNIX guru rather feels that, in order to give Joe the proper background to be able to ask relevant questions and to be able to get relevant things done in a secure and efficient manner, Joe needs to spend some time in the trenches.
An easy installation, easy system administration, etc. are valuable and useful tools. But they don't equate to ``intelligent sysadmin in a program.'' I tell people to not use an easy Linux install for the same reason I don't tell people to use Visual C++: there's so much you need to know for anything other than a routine drag and drop moment, that most drag and drop utilities can't tell you. A lot of people that learn to program using Visual C++ or Borland C++ never know what Makefiles are, and how you can get them to work magic peripheral too, but a necessary component of, compiling and installing a piece of (software/documentation) or doing something.
In each simplification step (assembly->C->C with lots of useful libraries->C++->Borland C++), there are assumptions made that don't always apply. When doing something as important as secure system administration on a machine connected to the internet, just as with software that is supposed to compile on five different platforms, you need to know the assumptions made, and how to get around them.
My own personal beef with Red Hat has nothing to do with this, but rather I don't like RPM's and I don't like the defaults they set and it's a pain to change all of their assumptions to all of my assumptions, or stick in the tools simplifying toosl that simplify the things I want simplified. In a phrase, their distro is fine but not the one I want to install.
There is a place for easy tools, simplification, etc. -- and it isn't in increasing the audience of the lower level tool. It's in making a busy, well-informed user of the lower level tool more productive.
In my (obviously not) humble opinion, let Red Hat reap massive benefits and continue to funnel that money into Linux, and I will like and support them. If they just make massive amounts of money, no skin off my back; and if they just die, my sympathies to a company that was doing some nice things.
Charles,
:)
Thank you for responding.
In re-reading my post, it was probably more inflammatory than necessary -- so I apologize. I am extremely glad to know that at least some features on Slashdot are written with a specific audience in mind, whether I agree with that choice of audience or not.
With some of the features I've been seeing lately (and not just Katz's articles and not all of Katz's articles), there seems to be no thought put into target audience, or who that audience is, or...
My personal recommendation for future articles published in a semi-technical forum such as Slashdot would be to assume more baseline knowledge of the audience (keep in mind also that commentators inside said audience can clarify concepts and terms for audience members on the fringe). If the article was intended for much wider distribution, though, that's another thing