Yeah, I know... but don't tell my boss or he'll find out the two weeks I spent reverse-engineering that file we got with no specifications was wasted effort!
Because of the formats that/don't exist yet/. If you think anything a government office writes down about "how they're going to do things" won't lock them in long after it makes sense, you've never worked with any government data, probably have never worked with any legacy data of any sort.
Why not just require the format to be in ANY published standard format? "XML" by itself is meaningless, "extensible" is a loaded term (and a very bad idea when trying to write a way to keep things compatible). Why do lawmakers always have to over-specify things until the purpose of the law is lost?
I like to think I'm great at bullshitting enough to expand nothing into something, but I really don't think I could pull off turning "We ported an existing operating system to C++ of all things for some reason. Surprisingly, it's slow and doesn't work. Also, (on a completely unrelated note) we have this smaller icon format." into a full hour.
I heard a handful of disjointed footnotes about unrelated projects which (it being open source) should probably stay separate, and/still/ have no idea what the presentation was supposed to tell anybody that a single paragraph (or well-thought-out single sentence) wouldn't.
To me, "we copied something that already exists, almost!" is not noteworthy.
You still haven't mentioned what you think the presentation was about. I'm okay with not understanding the explanation, but all I've heard from ANYONE is: "if you don't know, you weren't the target audience". Except for those Haiku enthusiasts I asked who also said they had no idea wtf the talk was about.
I try to avoid showing off to potential interests when I have absolutely nothing to show. I still have no idea what was "good" about the presentation. I have been asking people, and have yet to get a straight answer: What was the presentation about, why was it worth presenting?
I'm willing to accept the distinct possibility that there's just something I don't know enough about to find interesting, but I'd love it if someone would tell me what that was.
Everything they showed didn't work, everything asked for wasn't available, they seemed _very_ impressed with themselves about a compressed form of SVG (which is just so important to Operating System design).
I really don't see what I (or anyone) am supposed to take out of that presentation.
The best example of gnome over-simplification can be summed up in one word: "Close". Remember the familiar "Okay/Cancel" buttons on anything which presents you with things you might get wrong? In the Gnome world, these do not exist. Gnome (by which I mean, [insert-your-gtk-derived-application-of-choice]) is of the opinion that nobody anywhere ever makes mistakes or wants the ability to to go back to a previous state.
But you remember exactly how everything looked before you started anyway, right?
You should check out the usage of "something to sneeze at" which is, nil. The phrase you seem to have my post confused with is: "nothing to sneeze at" and of course, I said the exact opposite.
There are more important things to worry about than 100 people a day dying.
Is there anyone out there that finds this to be an incredibly boring / stupid / loaded question? Does that person want to go out sometime?
I listen to music. If I had some way to say "give me a random sampling of the whole of music in the universe", I'd do that. Every now and then, I will listen to the same song repeatedly for several days. Reggae makes me naucious, but I'm pretty sure that's a physical reaction, not related to preference. Other than that, I will make the sweeping statement that people who like particular music are assholes.
I like to listen to music. What kind? The kind with notes, rhythms, or sounds, you fuckhead.
I hate the conversation, because when you just don't give a shit who is playing what kind of music you're listening to, there's not much to it.
"What kind of music do you listen to!?" "Any of it. I usually prefer things that either doesn't have words or has words I don't understand, though that's more a statistic than something actively sought." "Yeah.. but.. what bands?" "I don't know." "What genre?" "I don't know." "Do you like coldplay?" "I have no idea. Is this coldplay?" "no" "Then I don't know."
I own an Avril Lavigne CD. Somebody pointed that out once, so I thought I'd mention it. I bought it because every now and then I find music that I know to exist in stores, and I am in favor of supporting artists. I don't think I even bothered to play it. I already had some MP3s.
I just pushed play on my ipod. I have no idea what the music is I'm listening to, but it sounds nice. It's a shuffle, so I don't know what it's called. (no screen)
But everyone always hates the music I listen to. I think this is indian or bulgarian or something.
Basically you mean something like an apt-kernel-config tool?
Why qualify it? I mean I want to type$ apt-kernel config
It's not actually at the point where it matters for the most part yet, or at least it wasn't last time I built a kernel (a year or so ago), but it's the principle of the thing more than anything else.
Of course, some of the most numerous drivers are network drivers... not the kind of thing you want to be picking and choosing piecemeal while reliant on a network source to get at them.
So, not as a server, obviously not to be cheap... I have a rock that makes even less noise than the PS3, maybe it's not too late to cancel the PS3 order- I'll even sell my solution for less.:D
Windows supports lots and lots of hardware (different usage of the word "supports lots of hardware" than Linux uses, to be sure). New manufacturers come about and write drivers for their own stuff, and distribute those drivers themselves.
The Linux model is suprisingly backward for something "Open Source". In a world where customizing things is considered the norm, with drivers it's just plain/weird/ to retrieve a driver from a third party. You need to compile something yourself (eek) or hope that it gets included in the mainline.
But then, why should I download code for Steve's Magic USB Vibrator if I'm not even going to use it?
I dont understand the idea of "Well, if you dont want it, don't build it!" If I don't want to build it, why should I even get it in the first place?
This is a problem which can easily be fixed, may already have been fixed. But for now (or then), it'[wa]s annoying.
Having all these things "supported" is nice, but I think the idea of constantly piling more and more things into the mainline kernel is A Bad Thing. With the way things are going, it's probably more efficient to download just the files required for a configure script to run, then have/that/ retrieve the things you actually care about, rather than downloading all 9 gigs* of source (*projected for inflation so this post is relevent next week) at once, only to discard most of it.
Actually, that sounds like a good idea. Does anything like that already exist? (I havent bothered to build the kernel in a year or so, but KVM may have me jumping on it.. and I dont know if debian supports my game pad..)
oops. I guess he<strike> didn't read that far</strike>'s an insane dumbass.
Actually, I can't imagine how someone in his position could say such things with sincerity. That is, I must assume he has at some point in his life read the constitution. There was probably a quiz on it in Attorney General class or something, and it won't all fit on your hand. And I can't imagine someone honestly thinking "The government shall not attempt to take away this particular right" does not imply that the right exists in the first place.
I propose an ammendment forbidding the government from taking away my trained unicorn.
1) You haven't made a prototype 2) You haven't taught it to anyone else, meaning 3) You haven't even played the "game" 4) You're already comparing it to chess
How about seeing if it's any good before you start thinking about selling it?
5) You don't want to give any details, because 6) You're worried about people stealing your idea 7) Which you haven't even shown to anyone else, which means 8) You haven't even done any basic steps towards finding out if it's worth stealing
How about embracing open development? Or at least a little less closed than "I need to do everything myself. If I ask the opinion of others, they might steal my idea! Which is definitely on par with chess! But not go, because I read that was awesome"
Do I sound hostile? That's because I am giving you advice and you don't want to hear it. Why did you ask for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know... but don't tell my boss or he'll find out the two weeks I spent reverse-engineering that file we got with no specifications was wasted effort!
Because of the formats that /don't exist yet/.
If you think anything a government office writes down about "how they're going to do things" won't lock them in long after it makes sense, you've never worked with any government data, probably have never worked with any legacy data of any sort.
Why not just require the format to be in ANY published standard format? "XML" by itself is meaningless, "extensible" is a loaded term (and a very bad idea when trying to write a way to keep things compatible). Why do lawmakers always have to over-specify things until the purpose of the law is lost?
Install squid. Having a program be invasive for you is no more invasive than trying to do it by hand. I don't see how you could think otherwise.
Of course, there's the obvious solution of: give up, your goal is technically impossible.
This, combined with H-HDD mentioned later on in the article, seems to cancel themselves out.
Why isn't anybody making an open source version of Internet Explorer?
Oh right, 'cause they're busy making their own thing instead of copying something [almost].
I like to think I'm great at bullshitting enough to expand nothing into something, but I really don't think I could pull off turning "We ported an existing operating system to C++ of all things for some reason. Surprisingly, it's slow and doesn't work. Also, (on a completely unrelated note) we have this smaller icon format." into a full hour.
/still/ have no idea what the presentation was supposed to tell anybody that a single paragraph (or well-thought-out single sentence) wouldn't.
I heard a handful of disjointed footnotes about unrelated projects which (it being open source) should probably stay separate, and
To me, "we copied something that already exists, almost!" is not noteworthy.
You still haven't mentioned what you think the presentation was about. I'm okay with not understanding the explanation, but all I've heard from ANYONE is: "if you don't know, you weren't the target audience".
Except for those Haiku enthusiasts I asked who also said they had no idea wtf the talk was about.
I try to avoid showing off to potential interests when I have absolutely nothing to show. I still have no idea what was "good" about the presentation. I have been asking people, and have yet to get a straight answer: What was the presentation about, why was it worth presenting?
I'm willing to accept the distinct possibility that there's just something I don't know enough about to find interesting, but I'd love it if someone would tell me what that was.
Everything they showed didn't work, everything asked for wasn't available, they seemed _very_ impressed with themselves about a compressed form of SVG (which is just so important to Operating System design).
I really don't see what I (or anyone) am supposed to take out of that presentation.
The best example of gnome over-simplification can be summed up in one word: "Close".
Remember the familiar "Okay/Cancel" buttons on anything which presents you with things you might get wrong?
In the Gnome world, these do not exist. Gnome (by which I mean, [insert-your-gtk-derived-application-of-choice]) is of the opinion that nobody anywhere ever makes mistakes or wants the ability to to go back to a previous state.
But you remember exactly how everything looked before you started anyway, right?
You should check out the usage of "something to sneeze at"
which is, nil.
The phrase you seem to have my post confused with is: "nothing to sneeze at"
and of course, I said the exact opposite.
There are more important things to worry about than 100 people a day dying.
Yes.
100 people a day is, seriously, something to sneeze at.
You can't get less than "no security"..
Is there anyone out there that finds this to be an incredibly boring / stupid / loaded question?
Does that person want to go out sometime?
I listen to music. If I had some way to say "give me a random sampling of the whole of music in the universe", I'd do that. Every now and then, I will listen to the same song repeatedly for several days.
Reggae makes me naucious, but I'm pretty sure that's a physical reaction, not related to preference. Other than that, I will make the sweeping statement that people who like particular music are assholes.
I like to listen to music. What kind? The kind with notes, rhythms, or sounds, you fuckhead.
I hate the conversation, because when you just don't give a shit who is playing what kind of music you're listening to, there's not much to it.
"What kind of music do you listen to!?"
"Any of it. I usually prefer things that either doesn't have words or has words I don't understand, though that's more a statistic than something actively sought."
"Yeah.. but.. what bands?"
"I don't know."
"What genre?"
"I don't know."
"Do you like coldplay?"
"I have no idea. Is this coldplay?"
"no"
"Then I don't know."
I own an Avril Lavigne CD. Somebody pointed that out once, so I thought I'd mention it.
I bought it because every now and then I find music that I know to exist in stores, and I am in favor of supporting artists. I don't think I even bothered to play it. I already had some MP3s.
I just pushed play on my ipod. I have no idea what the music is I'm listening to, but it sounds nice.
It's a shuffle, so I don't know what it's called. (no screen)
But everyone always hates the music I listen to. I think this is indian or bulgarian or something.
Basically you mean something like an apt-kernel-config tool?
Why qualify it? I mean I want to type$ apt-kernel config
It's not actually at the point where it matters for the most part yet, or at least it wasn't last time I built a kernel (a year or so ago), but it's the principle of the thing more than anything else.
Of course, some of the most numerous drivers are network drivers... not the kind of thing you want to be picking and choosing piecemeal while reliant on a network source to get at them.
So, not as a server, obviously not to be cheap... :D
I have a rock that makes even less noise than the PS3, maybe it's not too late to cancel the PS3 order- I'll even sell my solution for less.
I was all ready to do the same 'til I heard $800.
Windows supports lots and lots of hardware (different usage of the word "supports lots of hardware" than Linux uses, to be sure). New manufacturers come about and write drivers for their own stuff, and distribute those drivers themselves.
/weird/ to retrieve a driver from a third party. You need to compile something yourself (eek) or hope that it gets included in the mainline.
The Linux model is suprisingly backward for something "Open Source". In a world where customizing things is considered the norm, with drivers it's just plain
But then, why should I download code for Steve's Magic USB Vibrator if I'm not even going to use it?
I dont understand the idea of "Well, if you dont want it, don't build it!"
If I don't want to build it, why should I even get it in the first place?
This is a problem which can easily be fixed, may already have been fixed. But for now (or then), it'[wa]s annoying.
Having all these things "supported" is nice, but I think the idea of constantly piling more and more things into the mainline kernel is A Bad Thing. With the way things are going, it's probably more efficient to download just the files required for a configure script to run, then have /that/ retrieve the things you actually care about, rather than downloading all 9 gigs* of source (*projected for inflation so this post is relevent next week) at once, only to discard most of it.
Actually, that sounds like a good idea. Does anything like that already exist? (I havent bothered to build the kernel in a year or so, but KVM may have me jumping on it.. and I dont know if debian supports my game pad..)
you bought the PS3 to be a cheap server?
1) Server of what exactly?
2) How's that workin' out for you?
Didn't know HP made a special patriotic release. Is it any better than that shithole HP-UX?
Time to receive another insincere reply from my state representative!
oops. I guess he<strike> didn't read that far</strike>'s an insane dumbass.
Actually, I can't imagine how someone in his position could say such things with sincerity. That is, I must assume he has at some point in his life read the constitution. There was probably a quiz on it in Attorney General class or something, and it won't all fit on your hand.
And I can't imagine someone honestly thinking "The government shall not attempt to take away this particular right" does not imply that the right exists in the first place.
I propose an ammendment forbidding the government from taking away my trained unicorn.
1) You haven't made a prototype
2) You haven't taught it to anyone else, meaning
3) You haven't even played the "game"
4) You're already comparing it to chess
How about seeing if it's any good before you start thinking about selling it?
5) You don't want to give any details, because
6) You're worried about people stealing your idea
7) Which you haven't even shown to anyone else, which means
8) You haven't even done any basic steps towards finding out if it's worth stealing
How about embracing open development? Or at least a little less closed than "I need to do everything myself. If I ask the opinion of others, they might steal my idea! Which is definitely on par with chess! But not go, because I read that was awesome"
Do I sound hostile? That's because I am giving you advice and you don't want to hear it. Why did you ask for it?
So a citizen who independently seeks to overthrow the government is not guilty of treason, only those who support him are?