I understand the desire to change things, but putting some social media Share link in place of the Read More link goes against the kind of website Slashdot is.
Please restore the original layout. Thanks.
+1 - Mod parent up.
+2. In a Slashdot comment, we must add links and formatting by typing HTML by hand. You would therefore think we know how to copy and paste a web address from Slashdot to Facebook, if that's what we really want to do. We don't need an icon to do it for us.
If you're going to add icons, switch the places for Share and Comments. Put the Share link to the right of the heading. Put the Comments link at the bottom. To me it seems more logical that way, it puts the Comments link back where it was.
The NetBSD init system (which was introduced way back in 2001, and I think ended up being adopted by the other BSDs) has a simple way of solving this. There's a tool called rcorder that parses REQUIRE and PROVIDE lines in each startup script (it's tsort, essentially) and determines the order to run each script. If you wanted to debug something, you could run this yourself and check the output.
Came here to say this.
Ditto.
SysVInit's numbering always struck me as a little hacky. But it's so simple it works. Plus everybody's used to it. When systemd appeared, I looked into FreeBSD and read about its init system. It's a total face-palm that so many years have gone by without Linux adopting something like BSD's way --- or just taking it. It's an even bigger face-palm that instead Linux adopted systemd.
I didn't read the article, but the summary makes it sound like it would have been a waste of time anyway:
How Much Python Do You Need To Know To Be Useful? ... Cogswell suggests there are three basic levels to learning Python: Learn the core language itself, such as the syntax and basic types (and the difference between Python 2 and Python 3); learn the commonly used modules, and familiarize yourself with other modules; learn the bigger picture of software development with Python, such as including Python in a build process, using the pip package manager, and so on.
Isn't that the case with any language? Dice could have attracted even more people with this:
How Much of a Programming Language Do You Need To Know To Be Useful? ... Cogswell suggests there are three basic levels to learning your next programming language: Learn the core language itself, such as the syntax and basic types (and the difference between the current and last major versions); learn the commonly used modules, and familiarize yourself with other modules; learn the bigger picture of software development with the language, such as including it in a build process, using the package manager, and so on.
Solutions in search of an actual problem in many cases from the sounds of it.
On the other hand, I've heard that the apple model under Jobs was 'come out with something that the customers don't even know they want yet'.
Steve Jobs made products that he thought he would like himself. Since he wasn't your classic geek but instead a perfectionistic and brutal minimalist, it worked. That's often how it works with devices. Clever stuff on the inside, austere simplicity on the outside.
One fringe benefit for Google and Apple is that making your own programming language makes recruitment easier --- for instance, since it builds a lot of its own server applications in Go, Google is more likely to hire a developer who's already proficient in the language since she would need less training.
And had Google used C, it would be more likely to hire someone who's good with C, since they would need less training.
I'm trying to think of how to make advertising work, because I really like all of the free stuff, and I know eventually those media creators need to somehow get paid.
Pages BAD: Animated, big, or pop-up ads OK: Text ads, like on the side of Google Search Results. Maybe little bitty, icon-like logos of brands along the side or bottom (a few). Also, somehow the print advertising in paper newspapers was never that annoying. It was even interesting. It's worth studying why and implementing whatever the computer-screen equivalent is.
Video BAD: 30-second commercials before my 2-minute Youtube video begins OK: 5-second commercial at the end of the Youtube video
Games BAD: Full-screen ads between levels, or partial-screen ads during levels. OK: Little ads at the bottom of the Game Over screen.
Businesses spend millions of dollars to hire a celebrity endorsement, talented graphic designers and filmmakers, and others, to cater to touchy-feely emotional associations. They often focus on just getting people to think the brand is cool or trustworthy in a nebulous way, instead of simply outlining the cold, hard facts about their product. I'm not saying I endorse this way of advertising. I'm saying that the elephant in the room is that they are sabotaging it all by their rude interruptions. What kind of emotional aftertaste will I have for a brand in this scenario: Ah, funny cat video. Click. Hi, I'd like to sell you insurance! Meh, you ruined the moment.
Businessmen might think the limits I've outlined above will make their ads too subtle. But if you cross that threshold of subtlety, you ruin everything. Besides, people are a lot more detail-oriented than you think. In school I remember that Guess jeans were all the rage. The difference between Guess jeans and all of the others was a one-inch triangular patch sewn on the back. I'm even talking teenagers here. They may sometimes seem incapable of remembering historical dates, but man can they spot the difference between the Polo logo and a knock-off. That's why I think little logos will be noticed. They may even be more compelling because they are not chasing you. They're standing back, like they don't really need you, totally cool.
For those that are interested, be a little enticing. For those that aren't, don't be annoying. Because I don't think the tactic is working to hit everyone over the head in the hopes that they'll fall into some kind of stupor and buy.
After a copy of two typewritten pages with editor's marks all over them, which he says is a fourth or fifth draft:
"Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no accident. Very few sentences come out right the first time, or even the third time. . . . If you find that writing is hard, it's because it is hard." --- William Zinnser, On Writing Well
However, the first fifty pages of that book, along with The Elements of Style, have helped me write much better.
After a photograph of two typewritten pages with editor's marks all over them, which he says is a fourth or fifth draft:
"Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no accident. Very few sentences come out right the first time, or even the third time. . . . If you find that writing is hard, it's because it is hard." --- William Zinnser, On Writing Well
However, the first fifty pages of that book, along with The Elements of Style have helped me write much better must faster.
The whole idea of there being an original idea is absurd. There simply is no such thing.
Progress is the slow refinement of ideas past. One sharp engineer building upon the ideas of engineers past. And when such an engineer makes an advance, that advance is so obvious that simultaneous invention in different parts of the world is more common than you thought. The same can be said for art.
This is coming from someone who has been accused of being "creative" by my parents, teachers, and bosses, without solicitation. See Everything Is a Remix.
Abolish the whole system. Invalidate all patents ever granted.
I say this as a thirtysomething computer programmer, although I've also always been a minimalist: Given the choice between something that uses software and something that does not, go softbare.
My car, TV, and entire life are now filled with much more software than ever. Now that they can "do" more, they are also slower, flakier, and more complicated. And as a computer programmer, I know why: even the simplest program is amazingly complex. Every keystroke is a pitfall.
Two million lines? I think I'll drive --- no, just walk.
For those who don't care to read the long article, the problem is that phone apps can't link into each other very easily, the way websites can. The answer to this problem and so many others is just to make your phone app a web app, instead of a native one.
--- 1 2015-04-03 14:03:43.000000000 -0500 +++ 2 2015-04-03 14:04:15.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ The concept of making money by selling an operating system is a 1990's idea. It made Microsoft a lot of money at one time, but they are simply not the only game in town, and the software has matured enough that the concept of making -hwolesale changes in look and feel both isn't enough, and too much to handle at +wholesale changes in look and feel both isn't enough, and too much to handle at the same time.
In Springfield, Missouri, there was a law that your car music must not be heard more than 15 feet away, or something like that. Almost never enforced but useful against someone blaring their heavy-bass car stereo.
Overly broad rules seldom enforced are common. In the hands of a scrupulous cop, they are convenient and don't really harm anyone. In the hands of someone unscrupulous person, a broad or vague law is dangerous. But then again, just about any law, no matter how well worded, can be misused by someone evil.
I'm beginning to see why Slashdot is famous for not reading articles. The articles are often poor. This article isn't the clickbait regularly posted by certain submitters. Instead it reads like a writing assignment.
"The Dynamic Semantic Publishing (DSP) architecture of the BBC curates and publishes content (e.g. articles or images) based on embedded Linked Data identifiers, ontologies and associated inference." This is one of those sentences that makes sense only to those who already know everything about it. It doesn't tell a new person what it is. This style of writing is a form of encryption.
The parts I could decrypt sound like things in existence for years:
"Think of an article that not only tells the new facts, but refers back to previous events and is complemented by an info-box of relevant facts." This is already done by hyperlinks. People who want to research a topic further know they can use Google.
"Another example would be a news feed that delivers good coverage of information relevant to a narrow subject." Isn't this RSS?
"Finally, if we use an example in life sciences, the ability to quickly find scientific articles discussing asthma and x-rays, while searching for respiration disorders and radiation." I don't know what to say. Google, Google Scholar, or Wikipedia. I don't think this writer knows about Google.
Whatever the writer is getting at, it's either already out or a bad idea. Already out: hyperlinks, search engines, Wikipedia. A bad idea: automatic hyperlinking (which also happens to be already out too).
Microsoft SQL: - select top 100 * from table instead of select * from table limit 100 - White space after values is ignored ('Bob' = 'Bob ') - Command-line client sucks
Oracle - A column of type date is actually timestamp. There is no column type that stores just a date. - Command-line client sucks - expensive
MySQL - You can quote strings with single ticks, double quotes, or backticks - The MyISAM engine - Query cache based on the text of the select statement, rather than its meaning. So slightly rewording your query will skip the cache. Also updating a single row will clear the cache. This is inferior to how I understand PostgreSQL's shared buffer cache, which keeps frequently read rows in cache, only flushing out the ones that are updated, and deciding whether to use the cache after the query is parsed, and so not dependent on the query being literally written the same way.
It's no wonder so few web developers fully exploit the powers of the database, reimplementing many of its features in PHP, poorly. I once went to a local PHP meeting. The leader gave a talk, mainly about object-oriented programming, which I never got into. Anyway, he also recommended some kind of job queue application, like to email new users a welcome message. Don't use your database for that, he said, because keeping track of who you've emailed in the users table would upset MySQL's delicate query cache. At the end of the talk, I asked the group of 20 or 30 who had used PostgreSQL. Nobody.
Like others have said, most web developers probably should use SQLite. It's great not only as an embedded database but also the backend for most of the little web apps out there. Or if you're writing business applications for a large company, use PostgreSQL. The rest can go to the dumpster.
In other news, Microsoft is also renaming Windows to something else, although they're not sure what. The version number will start at at least 20, though, to further distance itself from Windows 10.
Microsoft is also seeking to ditch the names Bing and Microsoft.
I agree and disagree with the writer of the article.
On the one hand, there are a lot of silly rules floating around. The reason you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition is because Latin doesn't. In fact Latin can't. The same goes for why you shouldn't split an infinitive. The infamous double negative used to be accepted English centuries ago, just as it still is acceptable in Spanish, French, and many other languages. I've come to think of it as a parity bit. Since one simple word flips around the meaning of the whole sentence, it's better to put it in twice.
But on the other hand, one of my favorite books is The Elements of Style. To its credit, it doesn't mess with chiding writers over ending a sentence with a preposition. It doesn't even advertise itself as a standard-bearer of "proper" English. It is mainly a collection of common-sense tips for improving your craft. It's most famous advice is "too omit needless words." It goes on to show you how to write clearly, rather than wishy washy. In short, how to serve the reader, and help him understand the information while wasting his time as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
What about all the users who Windows tests?
I understand the desire to change things, but putting some social media Share link in place of the Read More link goes against the kind of website Slashdot is.
Please restore the original layout. Thanks.
+1 - Mod parent up.
+2. In a Slashdot comment, we must add links and formatting by typing HTML by hand. You would therefore think we know how to copy and paste a web address from Slashdot to Facebook, if that's what we really want to do. We don't need an icon to do it for us.
If you're going to add icons, switch the places for Share and Comments. Put the Share link to the right of the heading. Put the Comments link at the bottom. To me it seems more logical that way, it puts the Comments link back where it was.
The NetBSD init system (which was introduced way back in 2001, and I think ended up being adopted by the other BSDs) has a simple way of solving this. There's a tool called rcorder that parses REQUIRE and PROVIDE lines in each startup script (it's tsort, essentially) and determines the order to run each script. If you wanted to debug something, you could run this yourself and check the output.
Came here to say this.
Ditto.
SysVInit's numbering always struck me as a little hacky. But it's so simple it works. Plus everybody's used to it. When systemd appeared, I looked into FreeBSD and read about its init system. It's a total face-palm that so many years have gone by without Linux adopting something like BSD's way --- or just taking it. It's an even bigger face-palm that instead Linux adopted systemd.
PHP is Turing complete, so it's technically possible to write anything in PHP that you could write in another language.
Just don't do that, though.
I think of PHP as mainly a glue language between my database and views, a templating language. Maybe as an extension to Apache.
But yeah, if you're writing what you would call an application in PHP I can see why you might be frustrated.
I didn't read the article, but the summary makes it sound like it would have been a waste of time anyway:
How Much Python Do You Need To Know To Be Useful?
...
Cogswell suggests there are three basic levels to learning Python: Learn the core language itself, such as the syntax and basic types (and the difference between Python 2 and Python 3); learn the commonly used modules, and familiarize yourself with other modules; learn the bigger picture of software development with Python, such as including Python in a build process, using the pip package manager, and so on.
Isn't that the case with any language? Dice could have attracted even more people with this:
How Much of a Programming Language Do You Need To Know To Be Useful?
...
Cogswell suggests there are three basic levels to learning your next programming language: Learn the core language itself, such as the syntax and basic types (and the difference between the current and last major versions); learn the commonly used modules, and familiarize yourself with other modules; learn the bigger picture of software development with the language, such as including it in a build process, using the package manager, and so on.
Solutions in search of an actual problem in many cases from the sounds of it.
On the other hand, I've heard that the apple model under Jobs was 'come out with something that the customers don't even know they want yet'.
Steve Jobs made products that he thought he would like himself. Since he wasn't your classic geek but instead a perfectionistic and brutal minimalist, it worked. That's often how it works with devices. Clever stuff on the inside, austere simplicity on the outside.
You don't know Steve Jobs.
I hate almost all businessmen, salesmen, and advertisers. But about Jobs you're wrong. Read the biography.
One fringe benefit for Google and Apple is that making your own programming language makes recruitment easier --- for instance, since it builds a lot of its own server applications in Go, Google is more likely to hire a developer who's already proficient in the language since she would need less training.
And had Google used C, it would be more likely to hire someone who's good with C, since they would need less training.
The company has decided instead to focus on three major parts of its business: search, communications, and digital content.
I'm sure they had something more specific in mind, but "communications" and "digital content" covers just about everything.
I'm trying to think of how to make advertising work, because I really like all of the free stuff, and I know eventually those media creators need to somehow get paid.
Pages
BAD: Animated, big, or pop-up ads
OK: Text ads, like on the side of Google Search Results. Maybe little bitty, icon-like logos of brands along the side or bottom (a few). Also, somehow the print advertising in paper newspapers was never that annoying. It was even interesting. It's worth studying why and implementing whatever the computer-screen equivalent is.
Video
BAD: 30-second commercials before my 2-minute Youtube video begins
OK: 5-second commercial at the end of the Youtube video
Games
BAD: Full-screen ads between levels, or partial-screen ads during levels.
OK: Little ads at the bottom of the Game Over screen.
Businesses spend millions of dollars to hire a celebrity endorsement, talented graphic designers and filmmakers, and others, to cater to touchy-feely emotional associations. They often focus on just getting people to think the brand is cool or trustworthy in a nebulous way, instead of simply outlining the cold, hard facts about their product. I'm not saying I endorse this way of advertising. I'm saying that the elephant in the room is that they are sabotaging it all by their rude interruptions. What kind of emotional aftertaste will I have for a brand in this scenario: Ah, funny cat video. Click. Hi, I'd like to sell you insurance! Meh, you ruined the moment.
Businessmen might think the limits I've outlined above will make their ads too subtle. But if you cross that threshold of subtlety, you ruin everything. Besides, people are a lot more detail-oriented than you think. In school I remember that Guess jeans were all the rage. The difference between Guess jeans and all of the others was a one-inch triangular patch sewn on the back. I'm even talking teenagers here. They may sometimes seem incapable of remembering historical dates, but man can they spot the difference between the Polo logo and a knock-off. That's why I think little logos will be noticed. They may even be more compelling because they are not chasing you. They're standing back, like they don't really need you, totally cool.
For those that are interested, be a little enticing. For those that aren't, don't be annoying. Because I don't think the tactic is working to hit everyone over the head in the hopes that they'll fall into some kind of stupor and buy.
After a copy of two typewritten pages with editor's marks all over them, which he says is a fourth or fifth draft:
"Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no accident. Very few sentences come out right the first time, or even the third time. . . . If you find that writing is hard, it's because it is hard." --- William Zinnser, On Writing Well
However, the first fifty pages of that book, along with The Elements of Style, have helped me write much better.
After a photograph of two typewritten pages with editor's marks all over them, which he says is a fourth or fifth draft: "Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no accident. Very few sentences come out right the first time, or even the third time. . . . If you find that writing is hard, it's because it is hard." --- William Zinnser, On Writing Well However, the first fifty pages of that book, along with The Elements of Style have helped me write much better must faster.
The whole idea of there being an original idea is absurd. There simply is no such thing. Progress is the slow refinement of ideas past. One sharp engineer building upon the ideas of engineers past. And when such an engineer makes an advance, that advance is so obvious that simultaneous invention in different parts of the world is more common than you thought. The same can be said for art. This is coming from someone who has been accused of being "creative" by my parents, teachers, and bosses, without solicitation. See Everything Is a Remix. Abolish the whole system. Invalidate all patents ever granted.
I say this as a thirtysomething computer programmer, although I've also always been a minimalist: Given the choice between something that uses software and something that does not, go softbare.
My car, TV, and entire life are now filled with much more software than ever. Now that they can "do" more, they are also slower, flakier, and more complicated. And as a computer programmer, I know why: even the simplest program is amazingly complex. Every keystroke is a pitfall.
Two million lines? I think I'll drive --- no, just walk.
Once again I almost threw my laptop into the wall in anger.
For those who don't care to read the long article, the problem is that phone apps can't link into each other very easily, the way websites can. The answer to this problem and so many others is just to make your phone app a web app, instead of a native one.
--- 1 2015-04-03 14:03:43.000000000 -0500
+++ 2 2015-04-03 14:04:15.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
The concept of making money by selling an operating system is a 1990's idea.
It made Microsoft a lot of money at one time, but they are simply not the only
game in town, and the software has matured enough that the concept of making
-hwolesale changes in look and feel both isn't enough, and too much to handle at
+wholesale changes in look and feel both isn't enough, and too much to handle at
the same time.
In Springfield, Missouri, there was a law that your car music must not be heard more than 15 feet away, or something like that. Almost never enforced but useful against someone blaring their heavy-bass car stereo. Overly broad rules seldom enforced are common. In the hands of a scrupulous cop, they are convenient and don't really harm anyone. In the hands of someone unscrupulous person, a broad or vague law is dangerous. But then again, just about any law, no matter how well worded, can be misused by someone evil.
It seems like the end game is peer-to-peer wireless.
As an avid user of PostgreSQL, I think he deserves a lot of money.
I'm beginning to see why Slashdot is famous for not reading articles. The articles are often poor. This article isn't the clickbait regularly posted by certain submitters. Instead it reads like a writing assignment.
"The Dynamic Semantic Publishing (DSP) architecture of the BBC curates and publishes content (e.g. articles or images) based on embedded Linked Data identifiers, ontologies and associated inference." This is one of those sentences that makes sense only to those who already know everything about it. It doesn't tell a new person what it is. This style of writing is a form of encryption.
The parts I could decrypt sound like things in existence for years:
"Think of an article that not only tells the new facts, but refers back to previous events and is complemented by an info-box of relevant facts." This is already done by hyperlinks. People who want to research a topic further know they can use Google.
"Another example would be a news feed that delivers good coverage of information relevant to a narrow subject." Isn't this RSS?
"Finally, if we use an example in life sciences, the ability to quickly find scientific articles discussing asthma and x-rays, while searching for respiration disorders and radiation." I don't know what to say. Google, Google Scholar, or Wikipedia. I don't think this writer knows about Google.
Whatever the writer is getting at, it's either already out or a bad idea. Already out: hyperlinks, search engines, Wikipedia. A bad idea: automatic hyperlinking (which also happens to be already out too).
It was a much simpler era, where there was little need to worry about platforms other than Windows+IE
You were part of the problem.
Microsoft SQL:
- select top 100 * from table instead of select * from table limit 100
- White space after values is ignored ('Bob' = 'Bob ')
- Command-line client sucks
Oracle
- A column of type date is actually timestamp. There is no column type that stores just a date.
- Command-line client sucks
- expensive
MySQL
- You can quote strings with single ticks, double quotes, or backticks
- The MyISAM engine
- Query cache based on the text of the select statement, rather than its meaning. So slightly rewording your query will skip the cache. Also updating a single row will clear the cache. This is inferior to how I understand PostgreSQL's shared buffer cache, which keeps frequently read rows in cache, only flushing out the ones that are updated, and deciding whether to use the cache after the query is parsed, and so not dependent on the query being literally written the same way.
It's no wonder so few web developers fully exploit the powers of the database, reimplementing many of its features in PHP, poorly. I once went to a local PHP meeting. The leader gave a talk, mainly about object-oriented programming, which I never got into. Anyway, he also recommended some kind of job queue application, like to email new users a welcome message. Don't use your database for that, he said, because keeping track of who you've emailed in the users table would upset MySQL's delicate query cache. At the end of the talk, I asked the group of 20 or 30 who had used PostgreSQL. Nobody.
Like others have said, most web developers probably should use SQLite. It's great not only as an embedded database but also the backend for most of the little web apps out there. Or if you're writing business applications for a large company, use PostgreSQL. The rest can go to the dumpster.
In other news, Microsoft is also renaming Windows to something else, although they're not sure what. The version number will start at at least 20, though, to further distance itself from Windows 10.
Microsoft is also seeking to ditch the names Bing and Microsoft.
I agree and disagree with the writer of the article.
On the one hand, there are a lot of silly rules floating around. The reason you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition is because Latin doesn't. In fact Latin can't. The same goes for why you shouldn't split an infinitive. The infamous double negative used to be accepted English centuries ago, just as it still is acceptable in Spanish, French, and many other languages. I've come to think of it as a parity bit. Since one simple word flips around the meaning of the whole sentence, it's better to put it in twice.
But on the other hand, one of my favorite books is The Elements of Style. To its credit, it doesn't mess with chiding writers over ending a sentence with a preposition. It doesn't even advertise itself as a standard-bearer of "proper" English. It is mainly a collection of common-sense tips for improving your craft. It's most famous advice is "too omit needless words." It goes on to show you how to write clearly, rather than wishy washy. In short, how to serve the reader, and help him understand the information while wasting his time as much as possible.