That still requires a metric assload of libraries to be installed on the server.

I checked on my machine. The agregate size of libX* excluding Xm and Xaw in /usr/lib is 3.5M. Add in a widget toolkit like fltk and you get another 1.2M. 4.7M is hardly a metric assload.

Looks like I'd better start looking for a new default search engine, because I have no intention of moving past Firefox 22, thanks to that insane new interface they're cramming down people's throat.

You're missing out: the new firefox is substantially less memory hungry than the old one. As for the interface: the classic theme restorer works well. The only thing missing is the menu bar (with the odd thing on the right hand side). Overall given my screen (1024x600) and how much I use the menus (rare), that's not terrible.

I don't know if firefox tries to do those awful client-side decorations that Chrome thought were a good idea. If it does, I've got that disabled.

What neither chip maker wants to admit is that from 1993 to 2006 what we had was a BUBBLE, no different than the real estate or dotbomb bubbles.

That's because it's total horseshit.

In 1993 we had what a 486 at 60MHz or something? In 2006 we were up to the Core 2 processors which were several thousand times faster. It's not a bubble because it never burst. We still get to keep our Core 2 duo processors and they're every bit as fast. And the newer processors have been faster or cheaper or lower power and frequently two or even three out of three.

Whereas in the other bubbles, stuff got expensive then it crashed and the same stuff got cheap again. The only value was the money and people left with the stuff turned cheap had nothing.

There is no reason, NO REASON that Firefox should eat up 1 GB of RAM.

Firefox caches images and rendered pages so that things happen reasonably fast. A 1000x1000 colur image at 24 bit is already 3M. There is no way a modern page with an image or two would fit in a few M.

Once you have 800 tabs loaded (something I tend to do) all running JS and using images all over the place, memory vanishes fast.

There are basically several problems. Yeah firefox isn't perfect and could do with some optimization. But, many websites do pointless bloaty stuff and require scads of JS and huge images just to show some text. And then there's the browsing habits.

These days I run with NoScript, and a tab unloader, and I'm picky what scripts I allow. It makes firefox usable on my 1GB netbook. It's taking up 176M at the moment. Actually it's got a bit better recently. Even with those it needed restarting to clear the ram, but now it runs substantially longer.

For example, if I were to say "you take pride in your work", you could also say that I was "accusing" you of "ego stroking". Would you find that insulting?

No, because that means something different. Words mean stuff. If you pull a humpty-dumpty and simply invent the meaning to suit yourself then no one will have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I think you find it insulting because you believe it, and find that revelation uncomfortable.

Not really no, I was trying to educate you. You asked which post was insulting. I answered telling you where and why. You're now accusing me of ego stroking and trying to make up the meaning of things to prove your point.

Basically you tossed out some insults, seemed surprised that you were modded -1, asked for clarification then insulted the person providing it.

Come to think of it I remember you trolling XKCD threads before. Maybe one day you'll learn that it is simply a matter of taste, and that yes, throwing around insults on slashdot will get you downmodded.

Seems unlikely however.

Name one.

You really want to do this?

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

You said:

I have a different theory. His comic appeal to people who merely believe themselves to be above average. Like the 'Big Ban Theory' or the bad joke that is new 'Cosmos' series. Presumably a show for 'geeks' that has broad consumer appeal because everyone wants to believe that they're smarter than the people around them.

You're accusing people of ego stroking. That's simply throwing insults.

Wow, did I strike a nerve!

Not really no. The downmod as flaimbait is entirely fair.

You don't like XKCD (or apparently any other webcomic) and that's fine, you have different tastes to some people here.

However, youre using that mere difference of opinion to hurl unwarranted and unjistified insults at people who do like it. In other words you're baiting people to flame you by insulting them over nothing more than a difference of taste.

That's not striking a nerve and doen't justify your actions, it's slashdot's moderation system working exactly as designed.

And ad blocking. Don't even get me started. So many ad blockers are so proud of what they do, like it's some badge of honor to block.

Well, look at it from another perspective. I have nothing against ads online. I understand they pay for stuff and whatnot. If I see something advertised on a site I like that I want, I'll follow the link there so they get their cut.

Well I used to.

I don't run adblock, but I hardly see any ads anymore.

You see, I'm browsing on the moment on an eee 900. As you may recall, it has a 900 MHz Celery P3 and a whole gig of ram. I basically run noscript and enable the minimum necessary to bring up the text and sometimes the pictures.

Why? Because frankly this thing doesn't have the CPU grunt to run every wierd bit of javascript that everyone seems to want to tack on to their pages these days. Sadly, it seems that advertisers not only want to advertise to you (that's fine) but want to do it while consuming as much of your CPU as they can (not fine).

So, I don't see most ads. I'm not proud of not seeing ads, I feel in fact vaguely guilty about it. However, I'm not going to re-enable all javascript and make browsing on this computer unusable.

On another note, once I disabled all the weird google services I noticed the creepy tracking went away and so I no longer get targeted ads. I'm seriously not re-enabling it again.

However please not, I do not nor will I likely ever run adblock.

Another method is to download a recent rom of CyanogenMod, unzip it, find the APKs and then load them on to a normal phone.

I got an excellent flashlight (defined as the only one which doesn't seem to want network access) and a very good filemanager that way.

Who the hell modded this shit up?

This story isn't about gender issues, it's about tech issues. Smith seems to be the first candidate for the CTO who actually has a damn clue about the Tech in the Chief TECHNOLOGY Office position.

Previous appointees have been from tech businesses but have had a business background. Smith has an engineering background and has been working actually doing tech.

I mean, when was the last time you heard there isn't enough men employees in female dominated industries?

How about every single fucking time this topic comes up on slashdot and people post scads of links about campaigns to do exactly this in order to counter this ridiculous and pernicious piece of misinformation?

We can't fairly judge whether or not she'd be a good fit because we have no idea what the alternatives are.

No: whether a candidate is a good fit is independent of the other candidates. Whether a candidate is the best fit depends on teh other candidates. However, given the previous appointees, Smith would be the most qualified CTO so far.

So, Smith is a very good fit. Others may be better, but given historical trends it seems unlikely.

I hate to see things like this happen.

What appointing a CTO based on the fact that the CTO is actually substantially more expert in technology than any of the previous CTOs appointed in that position?

Appointing her just because she is female cheapens what I've done.

You seem to be assuming that the reason she's being picked is something other than her track record---a track record which is impressive. That reflects more on you than on her or the people who picked her.

Just as the joke of a new CEO of Microsoft who was picked for his race pisses off my Indian friends, this is the same deal.

If your friends are claiming that Microsoft would poor candidates based on race then I'd advise to inquire how they think Microsoft chose Ballmer. He's white in case you hadn't noticed and was terrible.

I'd far rather have someone with in-depth hands-on industry experience making decisions than some academic with no real-world understanding, whatever their underlying academic discipline was.

Academia is part of the real world, easily as much as industry is. Furthermore, the most fundemental breakthroughs tend to come from academia. So, what's your beef?

This is nothing but cultural imperialism - imposing our own, "correct" values at gunpoint and forcing the native peoples to accept it or die.

Yeah well, I ain't a moral relativist. They treat people as property (and hey force them to accept that at gunpoint).

That is the first time that's happened to me in text only form!

Well played sir. +1 internets for you.