Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Missing role: deleters (Score 3, Insightful) 160

It's much worse than that. Articles aren't deleted because people assume no-one will want to look at them. Articles with hundreds, even thousands of hits a month are commonly deleted because they are seen as not being notable enough for inclusion. The reasons why are usually because there aren't enough sources to prove that the article in question is notable, or the sources are of a sketchy nature (blogs and the like). The actual guidelines themselves say that articles should have the best citations that people can find--often enough mentions on blogs simply have to do. The notability guidelines are being taken as literal truth by a huge number of wikilawyers, who will mercilessly use it as a weapon to nominate articles for deletion. They'll then use other trollish guidelines as absolute law to rubbish the citations people dig up to try and save the article from being deleted. I've seen it happen way too many times now, and I just don't have the patience to dealwith these sorts of fuckwits.
Linux

Submission + - Wikipedia sucks more, moves to remove suckless dwm (jasonwryan.com)

An anonymous reader writes: the Wikipedia article for dwm, one of the most influential tiling window managers in modern computing is in jeopardy of deletion because apparently it just isn't notable enough. Despite being credited as a code base and influence for several tiling window managers, this popular minimalist window manager evidently lacks the commercial and academic success necessary for Wikipedia.

Other FOSS window managers articles marked for deletion in the recent past/present have included Wmii, Larswm, Xmonad and Ratpoison. Perhaps the bigger question in this debate is whether Wikipedia should refine it's notability guidelines to make special considerations for Free and Open Source Software. Most FOSS projects will never see the same commercial and academic exposure as their proprietary counterparts, and yet they remain completely relevant.

It seems more than a little ironic that Wikipedia, a community-driven encyclopedia with its own FOSS project, should be systematically discarding otherwise popular FOSS articles.

Comment Re:no training wheels (Score 1) 198

True, but software of a very poor or insecure nature is usually unlikely to make it into most Linux distributions. Well-maintained repositories and package managers pretty much ensure users don't install buggy pieces of crap (for most purposes, any way). People install badly-written software for Windows by combing the web for dodgy-looking downloads; that just doesn't happen in Linux. Well, except for new users who have difficulty reconciling themselves with the limitations of repositories, any way.

Then again, many distributions are starting to include features for one-click installations of random software and repositories. At least on the one hand it'll stop people from complaining that "omg installing software too hard in loonix", but on the other maybe we'll start seeing people suffer from buggy, cruftinated Linux systems.

Comment Re:This makes sense (Score 1) 502

Only because terribly written software was used to writing all over the place all the time. Vista only requires root for the same kind of things linux does. The only other complaint was that it showed an inordinate amount of alerts for the same thing, file copying into protected folders, which was fixed in SP1. I'd still prefer the Vista SP0 4 dialogs to what Nautilus does (i.e, tell me to get fucked.)

One of the major reasons for having the UAC dialogues in the first place was to try and stop developers from writing applications that needlessly require to be run as admin. In that sense, it has been at least somewhat successful. There was a similar purge of root-hogging daemons in Linuxland about ten years back.

Comment Re:they need something based on the rules of crick (Score 1) 294

I'd been trying to make this joke all week, but despite reading the wiki page on Cricket, I couldn't write the joke to make it sound like I knew what I was talking about. Three strikes and I suppose now *I'm* out.

Don't feel so bad about it. The OP got it wrong too. If you get bowled leg-before-wicket (LBW), then you're already out.

Submission + - Mozilla blocks WPF & .NET Framework Add-Ins (mozilla.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla has blocked the Microsoft WPF Plug-In & .NET Framework add-in. Firefox users on Windows will start seeing these blocked completely by the browser as of Saturday.
Microsoft

Submission + - Firefox Automatically Disables Microsoft Addon (pcworld.com) 1

Sasayaki writes: After it was revealed that the .net update to Firefox pushed through Windows Update left the browser vulnerable, Windows users today discovered that their browser had automatically disabled and blocked that addon (you could 'opt-in' again if you wanted). An interesting move- will Microsoft take it laying down?
Microsoft

Submission + - Firefox Strikes Back

An anonymous reader writes: In response to recent security holes found in the Microsoft.NET Framework Assistant Firefox add-on, Mozilla has blocked it and another Microsoft product, Microsoft Presentation Foundation. Some Firefox users began seeing pop-up notifications of the blockage last night. The pop-ups noted that the add-ons were "known to cause stability or security problems". Microsoft fired the first volley in this controversy previously by installing the Microsoft.NET add-on to Firefox through automatic Windows Updates without explicitly asking the users whether they wanted that add-on.

Submission + - Firefox Prompts to Disable Microsoft .NET Addon

ZosX writes: "Around 11:45 PM (Eastern time for those that care), I was prompted by Firefox that it had disabled the addons that Microsoft includes with .NET. Specifically the .NET Framework Assistant and the Windows Presentation Foundation. Citing that the "following addons have been known to cause stability or security issues with Firefox." Thanks mozilla team for hitting the kill switch and hopefully this will get Microsoft to release a patch sooner for the millions of poor souls that are too unfortunate to be aware of faster, more secure alternatives to their precious Internet Explorer. (Is it possible to troll for IE apologists on slashdot?)"

Comment Re:Continuous Shufling Machine (Score 4, Insightful) 597

That seems just as snide as catching the counters with machines, possibly worse. People like to play Blackjack because they know it can be beaten. Whether they actually will beat the house is another matter entirely (and most probably won't). Having enormous, permanently shuffling decks completely blows that illusion away. I can see it turning more people away than bringing them in.
Windows

Submission + - Windows not safe for online Banking (washingtonpost.com) 1

bikeoid2 writes: Security Fix arrives at the definitive conclusion that there is no safe way for online banking with Windows machines, and proposes that businesses access online banking only via bootable live CDs such as Knoppix.

Comment Re:Astroturfing. (Score 5, Insightful) 310

Maybe the astroturfing garbage will finally stop... or at least be more obvious.

That's pretty naive. Of course it will continue. Although it will be obvious to you or me, it will still be somewhat deceptive. They'll probably try and portray the freebies themselves as positive endorsements for Company X. "Luckily for me they even included a stylish bag to carry it around in! These will be sold separately and I must say they look super stylish!!!!1"

Submission + - Hotmail passwords leaked online (neowin.net)

loVolt writes: Neowin has received information regarding a possible Windows Live Hotmail "hack" or phishing scheme where password details of thousands of Hotmail accounts have been posted online.
Patents

Submission + - Red Hat Files Amicus Brief in Bilski Patent Case (groklaw.net)

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes: "Red Hat has filed a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court in regards to the In Re Bilski case, which has become incredibly important due to the possibility that it could redefine the scope of patentable subject matter in a way that affects software patents. In the brief, Red Hat argues that software should not be considered patentable subject matter because it causes economic harm due to patents being granted with vague subject matter, which makes it impossible to say that a given piece of software doesn't arguably infringe upon someone's patent. They also point out Knuth's famous quote that you can't differentiate between 'numeric' and 'non-numeric' algorithms, because numbers are no different from other kinds of precise information. It's a pity, though, that they don't seem to directly address Professor Lee Hollaar's brief that gave a hand-waving excuse about the Curry-Howard correspondence being merely 'cosmetic' (whatever that means), even though you can turn ZFC into a program (ZFC being the axiomatic framework in which almost all math is done) and you can turn programs into math in order to verify them. Of course, this is the guy who called the successor function 'essentially nonsense', presumably because he doesn't think that mathematicians can differentiate between assignment and equality the way computer scientists can."

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Working...