This is what happens when someone makes a stupid car analogy on slashdot. Instead of trying ignoring it or steering the subject back to what's actually being discussed... people/extend/ the damned things, making them/worse/! Little hover cameras? Gah!
What? Stop with the stupid card analogies. They don't apply here. Let's come up with a better analogy.
It's like... a service provider. Who provides a service. And that service provider monitors the health and usage of their service. And if you don't use their service, it doesn't affect you; while if you do use it, it does.
That's a lot of vitriol. Is it backed with any actual data from the past decade? Especially the Fiesta, which scores quite favorably for reliability, efficiency, etc.
Technologically uneducated users? Can you explain to me how, at the last developer's conference I attended for an open source CMS, Apple users outnumbered IBM clone users by probably 3 or 4 to 1?
People who speak in generalities and think only in generalities. Problem is, that's not how the world works.
I would argue that perhaps people attending a conference on how customize their CMS experience may not be the most technologically educated out there;)
Additionally, if IT goes around imposing such a policy without the business asking for it, they'll open up a huge hornets' nest. The IT department can suggest it as a way for the business to save money, and maybe some IT departments have been lax in not doing so, but without the business actually telling them to do it IT is not going to. In fact, the business would be pretty pissed off if they did.
You're right except - in the large corps where this applies, the business groups have no incentive for doing this. They are not sharing a budget with IT - so what is it to them if IT saves some money every year?
Except that the original poster did not raise an issue, but merely said that this was not the year for Linux on the desktop. How else can one respond?
The issue here is that "linux isn't ready for the desktop". As it was stated without any supporting evidence and in obvious troll... no response was necessary - and any attempt at a response to such a broad over-generalization just looks defensive.
It comes across to me as "feeding the trolls". I see your point, but a naive part of me would like to think that the people reading slashdot have at least a little common sense - enough to not take a childish AC post at face value.
Usually "works for me" posts come across as an attempt to deny than an issue exists, by trying to speak louder than your opponent. If you think it doesn't exist, and want to make a point, that's great -- but only saying "Well I'm using it" doesn't prove anything and it makes the poster come across as defensive.
Let me relay a little dialog in which I learned the REAL revenue model of youtube. I got this mysterious call just a few days ago.
Me: Hello
Them: Mr or Ms Skull?
Me: Yes, may I help you?
Them: You remember that... embarrassing video you posted to youtube a couple of years back?
Me: Um... yes?
Them: You know you gave us-- I mean, google ownership of it.
Me: I... guess so?
Them: Yes. We have noticed that you have been searching for jobs lately.
Me: who is this?
Them: And we see from your email that you've been speaking with Innitech in particular.
Me: if you don't tell me-
Them: And we also see that you mapped out directions to their headquarters.
Me: I'm going to hang -
Them: If you don't want Innitech to find this video before hiring you, you will wire 1,000,000 USD to the following numbered account
Why is it that every time someone posts a "linux not ready for desktop" comment, at least one person has to pipe up that they're using linux exclusively on the desktop?
That's about as helpful as saying, "Well, the bug doesn't happen on my machine."
This is exactly the response I expected from someone who doesn't understand federalism.
Hint: When a FEDERAL government official says that no taxes will be raised, it's implicit in the statement that it means FEDERAL taxes. The FEDERAL government has no control over what your STATE charges you.
See also Constitution, United States.
This is exactly the sort of response I'd expect from someone with no sense of humor...
It's a LOAN, not a bailout. You have to pay back loans.
The government is "giving" them the difference between the market interest rate, and the one the government would give them. If the market rate is 10%, and the government gives them the loan at 4%, the government is giving them the 6% difference as a handout. That's the equivalent of writing Tesla a check. It's a bailout.
Are you one of those who also thinks the government "loses" money when taxes are lowered?
Regardless of the semantics, it's a loan - the money is to be paid back, and with interest at that. The definition of "bailout" these days is to give money with few or no strings attached, and no requirement to repay it. That is very clearly not what's happening here.
Second, there's in this the now-typical Google 'we rule the world' attitude in this--much like that at Microsoft fifteen years ago. Why should Goggle applications has an always running updater while other don't? Not even Apple makes that sort of demands and OS X is one heck of a lot more important to a Mac than anything Google might do.
Wait, what?
I don't know about OS X, but apple products on Windows absolutely demand this and a lot more. After installing itunes, I found I had "iTunesHelper.exe", "mDNSResponder.exe" and "iTunesService.exe", and the quicktime launcher always running in the background. When I disable them they come back every time I run iTunes (save the qt launcher) - and stay running after itunes is closed.
When I update iTunes, quicktime takes over all of my browser preferences again which means I have to spend time reverting them. Not to mention reinstalling its always-running launcher and updater. Every. Fscking. Time.
So when looking for an example of companies that don't "demand" to have their apps running, you'll want a better example than Apple.
And it sounds like you still don't understand the concept of sleeping processes. Just because there's a process taking up a number in a process table, it doesn't mean that it's doing anything else. It won't be using any RAM because it's paged out to disc. It won't be using any processor cycles because it's sleeping.
That all really depends on whether the process that you're assuming to be asleep is well-behaved.
Helps to understand these things before you complain about them.
Helps to not make assumptions about those proprietary binaries running on your system... (google update notwithstanding, since we don't know that the source they've released matches the binary we get.)
I never gave GE my password. I'm not sure what the workaround is for Windows.
Similar. Using the CACLS command line tool, or the Security dialog in file properties, remove all file permissions for all users except the "delete" and "read attribute" permissions.
Read attribute might be able to go too, I haven't tested - but the above will make it so that the file can't be updated, can't be executed, but can still be deleted when you want to.
I've paid $40 a month for the last 9 years, and I've regularly consumed over ~70GB of data per month on TWC. Now, suddenly, there is not enough bandwidth to go around and they need to charge me extra $1 for any gigabytes over 40GB?
9 years ago you were the only person consuming 70GB/month. Now, more than half of your neighborhood is doing it.
I completely believe there is fine print. Regardless, they sold it as "unlimited".
This requires a bit of context, doesn't it? "Unlimited" began being advertised at a time when dialup was charging for hourly use. The cable companies saw an opportunity here - "always on" connections that were not time limited. Hence "unlimited". I don't think there was a discussion around unlimited bandwidth even then -- just an assumption of unlimited connectivity in comparison to the time-limited usage of dial-up.
So you think they'd get with the times and stop advertising unlimited, right? Well... guess what, they have. I can't find any of the major carriers advertising "unlimited" service, and haven't for several years now. So maybe you were among those who did sign up when they advertised "Unlimited" [connectivity] - your TOS agreement also lets them change that whenever they want.
This isn't what we want to hear, but it seems to me that they're the basic facts of the matter.
Amazon is not government run. They answer only to their shareholders, primarily through the board of directors.
This means that they have complete and total control over not only what they choose to sell, but how they choose to present it (or not present it). Your only recourse is to not support them (as the author recommends).
Anyone with passwords turned on is not secure IMHO
Don't go spouting nonsense like that! Storing SSH keys is only as secure as the physical security of the client. If you're travelling (esp international) and need remote access to servers, passwords are the only way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what happens when someone makes a stupid car analogy on slashdot. Instead of trying ignoring it or steering the subject back to what's actually being discussed... people /extend/ the damned things, making them /worse/! Little hover cameras? Gah!
What? Stop with the stupid card analogies. They don't apply here. Let's come up with a better analogy.
It's like... a service provider. Who provides a service. And that service provider monitors the health and usage of their service. And if you don't use their service, it doesn't affect you; while if you do use it, it does.
There. Was that so hard?
That's a lot of vitriol. Is it backed with any actual data from the past decade? Especially the Fiesta, which scores quite favorably for reliability, efficiency, etc.
Technologically uneducated users? Can you explain to me how, at the last developer's conference I attended for an open source CMS, Apple users outnumbered IBM clone users by probably 3 or 4 to 1?
People who speak in generalities and think only in generalities. Problem is, that's not how the world works.
I would argue that perhaps people attending a conference on how customize their CMS experience may not be the most technologically educated out there ;)
Additionally, if IT goes around imposing such a policy without the business asking for it, they'll open up a huge hornets' nest. The IT department can suggest it as a way for the business to save money, and maybe some IT departments have been lax in not doing so, but without the business actually telling them to do it IT is not going to. In fact, the business would be pretty pissed off if they did.
You're right except - in the large corps where this applies, the business groups have no incentive for doing this. They are not sharing a budget with IT - so what is it to them if IT saves some money every year?
Except that the original poster did not raise an issue, but merely said that this was not the year for Linux on the desktop. How else can one respond?
The issue here is that "linux isn't ready for the desktop". As it was stated without any supporting evidence and in obvious troll ... no response was necessary - and any attempt at a response to such a broad over-generalization just looks defensive.
It comes across to me as "feeding the trolls". I see your point, but a naive part of me would like to think that the people reading slashdot have at least a little common sense - enough to not take a childish AC post at face value.
Usually "works for me" posts come across as an attempt to deny than an issue exists, by trying to speak louder than your opponent. If you think it doesn't exist, and want to make a point, that's great -- but only saying "Well I'm using it" doesn't prove anything and it makes the poster come across as defensive.
Alas. It was all I could come up with on short notice, in my hurry to get first post ;)
Let me relay a little dialog in which I learned the REAL revenue model of youtube. I got this mysterious call just a few days ago.
Me: Hello ... embarrassing video you posted to youtube a couple of years back? ... guess so?
Them: Mr or Ms Skull?
Me: Yes, may I help you?
Them: You remember that
Me: Um... yes?
Them: You know you gave us-- I mean, google ownership of it.
Me: I
Them: Yes. We have noticed that you have been searching for jobs lately.
Me: who is this?
Them: And we see from your email that you've been speaking with Innitech in particular.
Me: if you don't tell me-
Them: And we also see that you mapped out directions to their headquarters.
Me: I'm going to hang -
Them: If you don't want Innitech to find this video before hiring you, you will wire 1,000,000 USD to the following numbered account
Why is it that every time someone posts a "linux not ready for desktop" comment, at least one person has to pipe up that they're using linux exclusively on the desktop?
That's about as helpful as saying, "Well, the bug doesn't happen on my machine."
Your snide "not quite as good" remark totally ignores the benefits beyond technical features.
Unfortunately, the features are all that the majority of the software-purchasing [and pirating] world cares about.
Exceeding the appropriate speed for conditions gets you killed. "Speeding" just gets you ticketed.
Sums it up perfectly.
This is exactly the response I expected from someone who doesn't understand federalism.
Hint: When a FEDERAL government official says that no taxes will be raised, it's implicit in the statement that it means FEDERAL taxes. The FEDERAL government has no control over what your STATE charges you.
See also Constitution, United States.
This is exactly the sort of response I'd expect from someone with no sense of humor...
Ow.
It's a LOAN, not a bailout. You have to pay back loans.
The government is "giving" them the difference between the market interest rate, and the one the government would give them. If the market rate is 10%, and the government gives them the loan at 4%, the government is giving them the 6% difference as a handout. That's the equivalent of writing Tesla a check. It's a bailout.
Are you one of those who also thinks the government "loses" money when taxes are lowered?
Regardless of the semantics, it's a loan - the money is to be paid back, and with interest at that. The definition of "bailout" these days is to give money with few or no strings attached, and no requirement to repay it. That is very clearly not what's happening here.
Hydrogen is already proven but probably made from fossil fuels now.
I hear dihydrogen monoxide is a great source of hydrogen, if you can get past the environmentalist types who are afraid of the stuff.
and look up "literal" in the dictionary.
Here we go again.
literally - 2 : in effect : virtually - Merriam Webster
However, as we read in the article, the first and more popularly accepted definition is, in fact, correct:
literally - 1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually
Second, there's in this the now-typical Google 'we rule the world' attitude in this--much like that at Microsoft fifteen years ago. Why should Goggle applications has an always running updater while other don't? Not even Apple makes that sort of demands and OS X is one heck of a lot more important to a Mac than anything Google might do.
Wait, what?
I don't know about OS X, but apple products on Windows absolutely demand this and a lot more. After installing itunes, I found I had "iTunesHelper.exe", "mDNSResponder.exe" and "iTunesService.exe", and the quicktime launcher always running in the background. When I disable them they come back every time I run iTunes (save the qt launcher) - and stay running after itunes is closed.
When I update iTunes, quicktime takes over all of my browser preferences again which means I have to spend time reverting them. Not to mention reinstalling its always-running launcher and updater. Every. Fscking. Time.
So when looking for an example of companies that don't "demand" to have their apps running, you'll want a better example than Apple.
And it sounds like you still don't understand the concept of sleeping processes. Just because there's a process taking up a number in a process table, it doesn't mean that it's doing anything else. It won't be using any RAM because it's paged out to disc. It won't be using any processor cycles because it's sleeping.
That all really depends on whether the process that you're assuming to be asleep is well-behaved.
Helps to understand these things before you complain about them.
Helps to not make assumptions about those proprietary binaries running on your system... (google update notwithstanding, since we don't know that the source they've released matches the binary we get.)
I never gave GE my password. I'm not sure what the workaround is for Windows.
Similar. Using the CACLS command line tool, or the Security dialog in file properties, remove all file permissions for all users except the "delete" and "read attribute" permissions.
Read attribute might be able to go too, I haven't tested - but the above will make it so that the file can't be updated, can't be executed, but can still be deleted when you want to.
I've paid $40 a month for the last 9 years, and I've regularly consumed over ~70GB of data per month on TWC. Now, suddenly, there is not enough bandwidth to go around and they need to charge me extra $1 for any gigabytes over 40GB?
9 years ago you were the only person consuming 70GB/month. Now, more than half of your neighborhood is doing it.
I completely believe there is fine print. Regardless, they sold it as "unlimited".
This requires a bit of context, doesn't it? "Unlimited" began being advertised at a time when dialup was charging for hourly use. The cable companies saw an opportunity here - "always on" connections that were not time limited. Hence "unlimited". I don't think there was a discussion around unlimited bandwidth even then -- just an assumption of unlimited connectivity in comparison to the time-limited usage of dial-up.
So you think they'd get with the times and stop advertising unlimited, right? Well... guess what, they have. I can't find any of the major carriers advertising "unlimited" service, and haven't for several years now. So maybe you were among those who did sign up when they advertised "Unlimited" [connectivity] - your TOS agreement also lets them change that whenever they want.
This isn't what we want to hear, but it seems to me that they're the basic facts of the matter.
Arg! I have no idea why that posted anonymously, I didn't intend to...
This means that they have complete and total control over not only what they choose to sell, but how they choose to present it (or not present it). Your only recourse is to not support them (as the author recommends).
Don't go spouting nonsense like that! Storing SSH keys is only as secure as the physical security of the client. If you're travelling (esp international) and need remote access to servers, passwords are the only way to go.
Your keys are password protected on the client...