Try posting a comment, hitting Preview, and then hitting back - Slashdot erases the contents of your comment window.
I think this only happens when you have javascript enabled. So for most people, it's probably not an issue, and Slashdot really is back-button compatable.
I use Opera v6 for Linux, with JavaScript enabled. I have no problems previewing a comment and then hitting "back". I still have everything I typed.
I'm curious about that 'consumer IR port'. I've had a program on my Palm Vx called "OmniRemote" for quite some time that talks to my TV, VCR, and cable box. (I haven't gotten around to doing my DVD player yet, but I will eventually, I'm sure.:) Anyway, what's the difference between a "consumer IR port' and the one for talking to Palms 'n such? Since Palms can already talk to consumer devices using IR?
Many people seem to be saying "Palm is easy to use and has a huge installed base -- I'll stick with that." By that (alleged) reasoning, you should use Windows.
With an open OS & apps, you have all the same benefits of Linux on your desktop -- if you don't like something, you can fix it -- always assuming somebody else didn't fix it before you, in which case you just d/l the patch, and off you go. "apt-get upgrade" anyone?
Also, has anybody considered the impact a device like this may have on the "Linux: usable by anybody -- even (especially?) your Mom" front? All those apps are open source and available, yes?
I've used a hard case (also available at Best Buy) as long as I've owned my Vx (since Jan 2000), and it's never turned on in my pocket.
My only gripe about the hard case is I have to take my Vx out of the case to use my nifty-neat new portable keyboard. I'm seriously considering cutting the bottom half off the back panel. I've also suggested to Palm that they market one "pre cut". We'll see.
I thought about getting an OmniSky modem for my Vx. Then I thought, Maybe I can plug my Vx into my cell phone? And you know what? I can. For the price of a $60 cable, I can surf the web (via AvantGo, anyway) and send & recieve e-mail. And with SprintPCS, you pay $10 extra per month and get to use your "plan minutes" for data connections (which normally cost extra -- why? because they can:))
And even if I exceed my plan minutes, I expect I'd have to exceed 'em by a whole lot, every month, to make the $200 + $40/month attractive compared to $60 + $10/month.
[quote] If that's true then why did I get all that Y2K work back in '98 and '99 fixing 5 to 10 year old programs? [end quote]
I discussed Y2K OO claims in the "Meyer" section.
I guess I should add "OO would solve Y2K problems" to my myths.
He was responding to this claim in your article:
I guestimate custom software systems last about 3 years on the average.
That is, if custom software only lasts three years, why was he getting work (of any kind, OOP/Y2K/whatever) in 1998 & '99 fixing "5 to 10 year old programs"?
He was not trying to add another myth.
I, myself, would also dispute your claim (that "custom software lasts three years on average"). There are boatloads of systems in the telecomm industry that last decades.
Sigh. I was replying to EnderWiggnz's comment that began "there is something definitely WRONG with a company that, when they make a new compiler, they break 10% of their existing apps.".
It's not so far fetched. I've read of some businesses that do that exact thing (post sites visited with user IDs to internally available "public" sites) in an attempt to curb non-work usage. I can assure you, I'd read a lot less/. (or at least read it a lot slower (via my dial-up link -- my reading speed, as such, wouldn't change:)) if my employer did that.
And if they tell you they do it before hand, and you sign a paper that acknowledges that admission, who's to blame when they find you at www.a-triple-x-site.com, and discipline you for it?
I'm curious about this. I've been posting with a non-spam-blocked e-mail address for a while now and never gotten any e-mail at it. I'll admit that I don't post regularly or often, but I'd expect to get *some* if/. were as spambotted as everybody seems to think (as evidenced by all the spam-blocked e-mail addresses).
This is a serious "knock-on-wood" situation, though.:)
The Telcordia solution to quantifying Internet growth statistics is based on an internally developed unique sampling method. In this approach, over 150,000 randomly generated IP addresses are sampled on a daily basis and checked for their existence.
I haven't checked http://www.argreenhouse.com/netsizer ('cause it seems to be taking just forever to load), but they appear to be generating random quads and seeing if they exist, and running statistics against their findings over time.
After they've beaten their heads against that for a while, you can tell them about NP-Completeness, "easy" problems versus "hard" problems, and all that other fun stuff.
I've upgraded a few scripts, but not all that many. As far as using the new functionality, in new scripts, you betcha! I have a really hard time going back to Perl4 and not having references, hashes of hashes [...], arrays of arrays [...], etc, etc. Perl5 lets you do much more complex data structures than Perl4. If you *have* Perl5, it's well worth your time to learn to *use* Perl5.
how 'bouts: x-leave-my-freaking-post-alone-you-dirty-whores: yes
*laugh*
+1 Funny
Re:x86 is popular to hate, but not that bad really
on
Is The x86 Obsolete?
·
· Score: 1
When Intel's marketdroids announced the 486, every Intel engineer should have either demanded a change, or cut and run. There is no excuse for the continuing existence of the x86.
Forgive me, I'm not up on the details of Intel history. What alternative did they (that is, Intel et al) have? They seem to have viewed themselves as bound by the same strictures as Microsoft: backward compatibility. You say they should have abandoned the x86 architecture. Would this not have forced them to walk away from one of the most, if not the most, popular/lucrative chips on the planet? I suppose they could have emulated x86 code, but then what do they tell the hundreds of thousands of businesses worldwide that already have x86 computers? "Buy our new chip: it'll run all your old applications, only a lot slower!"
Would it have been slower? Did somebody, even Intel, try this? What happened?
I just wanna know why you think scrapping support of the x86 architecture would have been a valid business decision?
If exchanging a kernel is such a dang-blasted important task for any Linux user to know how to do, why is it so complicated?
I assume you refer to the difficulty of configuring the kernel correctly, i.e. running make {config|menuconfig|xconfig} and choosing the right options for what you want to do. I give the anwer: it's so complicated because it has to be. With power comes complexity; there really isn't any good, flexible way around that. There are lots of options because people run Linux on lots of different kinds of systems, and not all of them want, for example, SCSI support, or network support, or USB support, etc.
As near as I, at least, can tell, if you take away the complexity, and the requirement of knowing what you're doing, you'll dramatically decrease the flexibility and (obviously) the configurability of the OS.
As for Don't say that a 'normal' user doesn't need to do a kernel swap, well, sorry, most users don't need to do a kernel build. They can quite happily wait for RedHat or Debian or SuSE or whomever to release a 2.4.x kernel and download the binaries.
I compiled from source my first kernel two days ago, and let me tell you: it ain't something that I would recommend any user do.
It isn't something I would recommend just any user do, either. At least, not without some sort of preparation and due diligence (e.g. read the help files, and don't say yes or no until you know what they're talking about). I'm not trying to imply you didn't prepare and do your due diligence, by the way; I'm agreeing with you.
1. Why is swapping the Kernel so complicated? Why not automate this more?
I'm not positive, 'cause I don't use it, but I think that Debian, for example, has automated new kernel builds. I couldn't speak for any other distros, not having used 'em.
The HOWTO that comes with the kernel source doesn't mention ANYWHERE that you have to swap in the newly compile System.map file so lilo and your system don't have hissy fits.
I'd agree that that's a problem. I hope you send/sent an e-mail to the HOWTO maintainer.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Opera v6 for Linux, with JavaScript enabled. I have no problems previewing a comment and then hitting "back". I still have everything I typed.
I have seldom encountered an html file larger than a meg, and even those are in my experience very rare.
You've obviously never saved a 5k Word doc in HTML. *sigh*.
"[...] After the storm of negative publicity that followed this blunder [the Great Worm], Morris's username on ITS was hacked from RTM to RTFM."
I wondered about that, too. Presumably, they meant "impugnity", but is that a word?
With an open OS & apps, you have all the same benefits of Linux on your desktop -- if you don't like something, you can fix it -- always assuming somebody else didn't fix it before you, in which case you just d/l the patch, and off you go. "apt-get upgrade" anyone?
Also, has anybody considered the impact a device like this may have on the "Linux: usable by anybody -- even (especially?) your Mom" front? All those apps are open source and available, yes?
Um, "steeped"? He mentioned it, what, once? Or are you unhappy with "Apocalypse" in general? See etymology at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=apocalyps e .
"Not everyone online is pedophile", perhaps?
:)
-- The Logic Police
Go to palmgear.com and search for web browser and you'll find one or two.
I've used a hard case (also available at Best Buy) as long as I've owned my Vx (since Jan 2000), and it's never turned on in my pocket.
My only gripe about the hard case is I have to take my Vx out of the case to use my nifty-neat new portable keyboard. I'm seriously considering cutting the bottom half off the back panel. I've also suggested to Palm that they market one "pre cut". We'll see.
I thought about getting an OmniSky modem for my Vx. Then I thought, Maybe I can plug my Vx into my cell phone? And you know what? I can. For the price of a $60 cable, I can surf the web (via AvantGo, anyway) and send & recieve e-mail. And with SprintPCS, you pay $10 extra per month and get to use your "plan minutes" for data connections (which normally cost extra -- why? because they can :))
And even if I exceed my plan minutes, I expect I'd have to exceed 'em by a whole lot, every month, to make the $200 + $40/month attractive compared to $60 + $10/month.
Just my $0.02.
He was not trying to add another myth.
I, myself, would also dispute your claim (that "custom software lasts three years on average"). There are boatloads of systems in the telecomm industry that last decades.
Sigh. I was replying to EnderWiggnz's comment that began "there is something definitely WRONG with a company that, when they make a new compiler, they break 10% of their existing apps.".
Sorry.
Just out of curiosity, do you plan to sing the same tune when Perl 6 comes out? Quite possibly breaking a lot more than 10% of the existing apps? And if you think it won't, well, Larry Wall "... promises that Perl 6 will be "better, stronger, faster" and that there will be a clear, clean migration path from Perl 5 to Perl 6." Hmmm, migration path ... that means that some changes will be involved, yes?
...
Just wondering
And if they tell you they do it before hand, and you sign a paper that acknowledges that admission, who's to blame when they find you at www.a-triple-x-site.com, and discipline you for it?
What, the Internet? ;)
it'll be a cold day in Helsinki that I cast my vote for either of them
Helsinki has lots of cold days. Perhaps you should reconsider your euphemism.
I'm curious about this. I've been posting with a non-spam-blocked e-mail address for a while now and never gotten any e-mail at it. I'll admit that I don't post regularly or often, but I'd expect to get *some* if /. were as spambotted as everybody seems to think (as evidenced by all the spam-blocked e-mail addresses).
:)
This is a serious "knock-on-wood" situation, though.
note these are hosts, not individual IP addresses
Umm, false. From here:
The Telcordia solution to quantifying Internet growth statistics is based on an internally developed unique sampling method. In this approach, over 150,000 randomly generated IP addresses are sampled on a daily basis and checked for their existence.
I haven't checked http://www.argreenhouse.com/netsizer ('cause it seems to be taking just forever to load), but they appear to be generating random quads and seeing if they exist, and running statistics against their findings over time.
code a solution to the traveling salesman problem
... and tell 'em it has to be O(N) complexity! :)
After they've beaten their heads against that for a while, you can tell them about NP-Completeness, "easy" problems versus "hard" problems, and all that other fun stuff.
I've upgraded a few scripts, but not all that many. As far as using the new functionality, in new scripts, you betcha! I have a really hard time going back to Perl4 and not having references, hashes of hashes [...], arrays of arrays [...], etc, etc. Perl5 lets you do much more complex data structures than Perl4. If you *have* Perl5, it's well worth your time to learn to *use* Perl5.
how 'bouts: x-leave-my-freaking-post-alone-you-dirty-whores: yes
*laugh*
+1 Funny
When Intel's marketdroids announced the 486, every Intel engineer should have either demanded a change, or cut and run. There is no excuse for the continuing existence of the x86.
Forgive me, I'm not up on the details of Intel history. What alternative did they (that is, Intel et al) have? They seem to have viewed themselves as bound by the same strictures as Microsoft: backward compatibility. You say they should have abandoned the x86 architecture. Would this not have forced them to walk away from one of the most, if not the most, popular/lucrative chips on the planet? I suppose they could have emulated x86 code, but then what do they tell the hundreds of thousands of businesses worldwide that already have x86 computers? "Buy our new chip: it'll run all your old applications, only a lot slower!"
Would it have been slower? Did somebody, even Intel, try this? What happened?
I just wanna know why you think scrapping support of the x86 architecture would have been a valid business decision?
*laugh* No, only that their sense of humor differs from yours. As does mine, for example, 'cause I laughed out loud at some of Linus's comments.
If exchanging a kernel is such a dang-blasted important task for any Linux user to know how to do, why is it so complicated?
I assume you refer to the difficulty of configuring the kernel correctly, i.e. running make {config|menuconfig|xconfig} and choosing the right options for what you want to do. I give the anwer: it's so complicated because it has to be. With power comes complexity; there really isn't any good, flexible way around that. There are lots of options because people run Linux on lots of different kinds of systems, and not all of them want, for example, SCSI support, or network support, or USB support, etc.
As near as I, at least, can tell, if you take away the complexity, and the requirement of knowing what you're doing, you'll dramatically decrease the flexibility and (obviously) the configurability of the OS.
As for Don't say that a 'normal' user doesn't need to do a kernel swap, well, sorry, most users don't need to do a kernel build. They can quite happily wait for RedHat or Debian or SuSE or whomever to release a 2.4.x kernel and download the binaries.
I compiled from source my first kernel two days ago, and let me tell you: it ain't something that I would recommend any user do.
It isn't something I would recommend just any user do, either. At least, not without some sort of preparation and due diligence (e.g. read the help files, and don't say yes or no until you know what they're talking about). I'm not trying to imply you didn't prepare and do your due diligence, by the way; I'm agreeing with you.
1. Why is swapping the Kernel so complicated? Why not automate this more?
I'm not positive, 'cause I don't use it, but I think that Debian, for example, has automated new kernel builds. I couldn't speak for any other distros, not having used 'em.
The HOWTO that comes with the kernel source doesn't mention ANYWHERE that you have to swap in the newly compile System.map file so lilo and your system don't have hissy fits.
I'd agree that that's a problem. I hope you send/sent an e-mail to the HOWTO maintainer.