Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Why a single place? (Score 1) 141

There are also several modern examples of wild fox newborns raised as pets without significant problems.

Evidently they've never been put in charge of the hen house. Or elected to Congress.

(since you missed my last joke [which, admittedly, wasn't that good], I thought I'd try another one :-)

Comment: Re:Hard to trust them (Score 1) 125

I would like to believe that Microsoft really has turned a new corner with this more open strategy but it really is hard.

"Only Nixon could go to China." How can you ever improve relations with a former enemy if you don't begin to trust them? It takes a bit of a leap of faith, then trust can be built in small steps over a period of time. We see the same sort of thing happening recently with Obama and Raul Castro. They're both taking small steps forward.

In Microsoft's case, we see them taking a series of small steps toward building credibility in the Open Source world. That won't happen instantly, and there are some folks for whom it will never happen (RMS and followers, you know who you are.) But every time Microsoft takes some small step in the right direction, I see folks here immediately wondering what they're really up to. In fact, last time this sort of thing came up here, someone even brought up the Trojan Horse analogy. Maybe - but probably not. I prefer the simpler explanation that Microsoft's realizes that their business interests have changed. In fact, they would be stupid not to.

Regardless, the war with Microsoft can never end for those who are unable to trust them under any circumstances. Just as World War II will never end for a Japanese soldier who refuses to leave the jungle. And like World War II, Microsoft's Windows Monopoly was over long ago.

Comment: Re:money, money, money (Score 1) 107

Isn't that the point of the new tlds?

Exactly. I acquired my first domain over 15 years ago when Network Solutions ran the whole thing, and the only TLDs that were commercially available were .com, .net, and .org. At that time, they cost $35 apiece per year. That $35 always seemed a bit excessive for something that was basically an entry in a computer database, but for just $105 per year, you could completely "own" a domain.

Then things changed: the Network Solutions monopoly ended and we had competition in the domain registry business. Prices went down to the point that you now can register a domain for $12 or less per year. However, the number of TLDs exploded.

I just did a search on my primary domain name (which I still own with .com, .net., .org., and a few other TLDs), and the following alternatives were suggested at various price points: .club, .lawyer, .co, .guru, .us, .rocks, .today, .xyz, .city, .company, .solutions, .io, .expert, .life, .website, and others. Several of those go for $40 more apiece, so if I actually purchased all of them, it would cost many times the $105 I paid in the "bad old days" of the Network Solutions monopoly. Interestingly, the prices of the TLDs are all over the map, even though I assume that each costs the same to provide. (I used to buy ".info" at the teaser price of $0.99, but I stopped playing that game when they came up for renewal at full price.)

Of course, I don't buy every possible TLD for my small operation, but I assume that the big players of the net are forced to buy every single one that gets minted out. I assume the domain registrars of the world keep making money on these things since they keep minting them out.

Overall, I own a few domains, with a few primary TLDs for each. I host them all using shared web hosting. Ironically, I actually pay more each year for domain names than for the hosting itself. That seems really screwy. Makes me long for the bad old days. And that really .sucks.

Comment: Re:And yet, no one understands Git. (Score 1) 202

by Marginal Coward (#49418495) Attached to: 10 Years of Git: An Interview With Linus Torvalds

I used Mercurial for a short time a few years ago. Although I focused above on Git, the same points apply to Mercurial since it's also a distributed version control system. Both use similar concepts, but both are very different from what people who haven't used a distributed version control system are used to. So, it's a huge gear shift to really grok the new concepts of either one. Likewise, it's probably pretty easy to switch between Git and Mercurial since the concepts are similar.

So, the problem with what you're saying is that my point doesn't involve the user interface of either one. Some nice GUI tools are available for both to make them easier for the newbie to learn. I use a couple of those for Git, along with a few Git commands when necessary. However, some folks use Git commands exclusively. Perhaps the same is true for Mercurial.

Comment: Re:And yet, no one understands Git. (Score 1) 202

by Marginal Coward (#49416879) Attached to: 10 Years of Git: An Interview With Linus Torvalds

I used SVN casually for a few years, but I can't say I ever fully grasped its approach to branching and tagging, which are done mostly by using a set of specially named directories rather than as a fundamental feature of SVN itself. In contrast, Git's approach to those things make perfect sense to me.

Comment: Re:And yet, no one understands Git. (Score 1) 202

by Marginal Coward (#49416851) Attached to: 10 Years of Git: An Interview With Linus Torvalds

After reading TFA, I found that Linus Torvalds made some of the same points, where "a traditional version control system" could be substituted wherever he uses "CVS":

The other big reason people thought git was hard is that git is very different. There are people who used things like CVS for a decade or two, and git is not CVS. Not even close. The concepts are different. The commands are different. Git never even really tried to look like CVS, quite the reverse. And if you've used a CVS-like system for a long time, that makes git appear complicated and needlessly different. People were put off by the odd revision numbers. Why is a git revision not "1.3.1" with nice incrementing numbers like it was in CVS? Why is it that odd scary 40-character HEX number?

But git wasn't "needlessly different." The differences are required. It's just that it made some people really think it was more complicated than it is, because they came from a very different background.

Comment: Re:And yet, no one understands Git. (Score 1) 202

by Marginal Coward (#49416373) Attached to: 10 Years of Git: An Interview With Linus Torvalds

For those who are used to any of the older-style centralized revision control systems, it's a huge gear shift to begin using Git. And yes, it seems needlessly complicated, and seems to get in the way of getting things done. However, once you get over the hump and begin to "git" it [tee-hee], it seems very well designed and is very efficient to use.

To git over the hump, you really need to study it somewhere such as Pro Git. After that, you need some practice, as well some help from a buddy or two. Soon, it will click. After that, it takes some time and effort to truly master it - I've been using it for a couple of years and I don't think I'm quite there yet. But the more I understand it, the more I see the value of it. It's really a Good Thing.

Comment: Re:Same question as I had more than a decade ago (Score 1) 198

It was just a joke, son, ah say, a joke. :-)

I don't know if Stallman himself is humorless, but many of his followers seem to be. Maybe that comes from obsessing over the possibility of being enslaved by software - though it's hard to determine whether obsession causes humorlessness, or humorlessness causes obsession. Maybe a little of both.

Comment: Re:Some Premises Need to be Questioned (Score 1) 247

by Marginal Coward (#49383931) Attached to: NSA Worried About Recruitment, Post-Snowden

I am still having a little trouble with "we don't need our spies to spy". Maybe we do.

Agreed. I thought the old idea of "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail" had gone out of style decades ago.

Like many other questionable things that governments do, I think the basic calculus of spying still holds: the other guys are going to spy, so we'll be at a severe disadvantage if we don't do the same. To do otherwise would be admirable but quite naive.

In that vein, the recurring self-righteous outrage at NSA that we see here following the Snowden revelations actually seems kindda cute. Aren't those kids just adorable?

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...