Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:why not a web page? (Score 1) 138

by pla (#49563203) Attached to: Has the Native Vs. HTML5 Mobile Debate Changed?
So if you need a framework so you can pretend to have a native version of the application

No, you need a framework so you don't need to reinvent the wheel for every project you work on. With Sencha's frameworks, I can write a pretty slick-looking responsive site in a few hours (or days, for something larger) that would take literally months to roll on my own (and for the record, yes, I can and have rolled my own, back in the dark ages).

why not just focus on having a webpage instead of a shitty application which is just a web page?

Two reasons. First, it increasingly doesn't make sense to force your end users to download and install potentially untrusted code - never mind needing to maintain separate versions for every major platform you target (oh, you want this on iOS and Android and Windows and Linux and OS X, etc?), when you can accomplish the same result in one nice tidy webapp. Second (and you can fairly call this a matter of personal preference), IMO just about everything looks like crap in a browser on a phone, and even that assumes the browser handles it correctly (yeah, like I want to support Chrome and FireFox and *shudder* MSIE and Dolphin and Safari and Opera, etc - Going right back to all the joys of supporting multiple OSs, woo hoo!).

The concept of a "webpage" hasn't limited itself to some statically published version of a document-with-markup in over 20 years; that model lost so thoroughly that pining for it doesn't even count as beating a dead horse anymore, more like trying to clone a mammoth from frozen DNA.

This sounds like lazy people who want to claim they have an app, when all they're doing is pointing to a web page.

It really doesn't matter to me what you want to call it, whether an app or a webpage or a widget or a three-handled family gredunza, if it accomplishes the intended goal... All just a matter of using the right tool in your box for each task - Sure, you can hammer in a screw, but sometimes a plain ol' nail will do the job just as well.

Comment: Re:Please don't link Newsmax... (Score 2, Insightful) 680

by CajunArson (#49535547) Attached to: Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden

So you're saying that old people like Snowden and Millenials hate his guts?

Your summary dismissal of facts based on the source not being politically correct enough shows that you are very enlightened and tolerant.

During WWII, did your grandpappie tell his bosses to not trust that E=mc^2 crap because the guy who thought it up wasn't an Aryan pure blood?

Comment: Re:Cripple Linux? (Score 0) 174

by CajunArson (#49530797) Attached to: Intel 'Compute Stick' PC-Over-HDMI Dongle Launched, Tested

It's also $40 cheaper, which translates into a savings of > 25% of the device price.

You want Ubuntu on the "non-crippled" version? Good news: If you are willing to pay the additional $40, you ought to be able to install Ubuntu because the same hardware (minus some RAM/storage) has already been setup to run Ubuntu.

Comment: Re:F Mark Rowley (Score 4, Insightful) 228

by pla (#49528643) Attached to: UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'
They're just trying to shoot the messenger but they created the problem by circumventing or ignoring the law.

The real problem here - And finish reading this post before you start shooting at me - Rowley has it absolutely correct. Tech companies do behave in ways friendly to terrorists.

Except, he has committed a fundamental attribution error by assuming they do in support of actual terrorism. Tech companies don't support terrorism - They support fairness, they support security, they support usability, for everyone. Unfortunately, "safe" and "secure" includes "from government tampering", and "fair" and "everyone" includes terrorists.

If the encryption software I use doesn't block all attempts to intercept my data, whether by flaw or by design, I will use something that does. Simple as that. Tech companies behave in ways friendly to terrorists because tech companies can't readily discriminate between the actions of crackers and governments, between privacy advocates and terrorists, between a legal court-ordered wiretap and an NSA hijacking - Nor should they.

Comment: Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 1) 270

by pla (#49496013) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment
Might be more rules with the police, but at least with private parties in Colorado a verbal agreement is a legally binding contract.

Even if they had it in writing, a purely one-sided contract would typically count as unconscionable. Since his "chat" with them didn't involve any actual concessions on their part (and "play nice and we won't harass you until the day you die", would make it equally unenforceable), I doubt you'll see them try to press this as a matter of contract law.

The fact they even mentioned it I'd call more of a smear campaign - The FBI needs to make this guy look like a complete asshole, because any other outcome would require actually acknowledging and fixing the underlying problem, rather than harassing the guy who pointed-and-laughed at the naked emperor.

Comment: Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 4, Insightful) 270

by pla (#49494113) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment
Roberts said he had met with the Denver office of the FBI two months ago and was asked to back off from his research on avionics â" a request he said he agreed to."

"Don't look behind the curtain" is not security, however much it gives you the warm and fuzzies.

So he's scaring people and breaking/threatening-to-break his word, and they're being dicks to him. This may not be statutory justice, but it's poetic.

Unless he "agreed" to it in the context of a consent decree, that conversation has no more legal binding than agreeing to "keep your nose clean and stay out of trouble". Sorry if that scares you, but we all have the right - and in this case, I would dare say a moral obligation, to expose security flaws in commercial air travel.

If this really bothers you, try venting your ire at Boeing, not at the messenger.

Comment: Re:Mandatory xkcd (Score 2) 229

by pla (#49493343) Attached to: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released
Nothing wrong with learning new software. When new software brings great features to the table or when it fixes long-standing and hard to squash bugs - Great!

Learning new software because OMGSHINYNEWPONIES, however? Fuck that. Particularly when the new ponies merely usurp preexisting functionality into a more fragile, unrecoverable environment. When the new ponies mean relatively minor configuration tweaks mean a reboot. When the new ponies speak a language only they can understand, and to hell with all of you who see any benefit in human-readable. When the new ponies have uncontrollable Tourrette's syndrome and like to spew random unintelligible obscenities at the user for no obvious reason and with no warning. When the new ponies don't actually do anything we couldn't do before. When the only reason we even have this discussion on the table involves NIH syndrome at RedHat.

An init system should do as little as possible, and do it well. Systemd ain't that.

Comment: Re:We all need to realize... (Score 2, Informative) 133

by CajunArson (#49492295) Attached to: AMD Withdraws From High-Density Server Business

Meh.. this meme has been copy & pasted onto Slashdot over & over again since the 90s.

Guess what:
1. I can tell you exactly how much Intel chips will cost if AMD is noncompetitive or goes away entirely... they'll cost exactly what they cost now because AMD is already effectively out of the game.

  People forget that Intel is not only in heavy competition with ARM, but Intel is in perpetual competition with its own parts from last year and if Intel really jacks up prices they will simply lose business from people who don't upgrade.

2. You have a very selective memory when it comes to history. In the brief periods of time when AMD really had some form of a performance lead over the Pentium 4, their chip prices were as high or even higher than what Intel charges for its extreme premium parts now. FX-62 for over $1000... I'm looking at you.

  AMD isn't some angel, it just doesn't have the opportunity to be the big dog very often. Additionally, even when AMD isn't the top dog they've charged whackjob insane prices for chips... $900 FX-9590 launched in 2013 as some sort of bad-joke, I'm looking at you.

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.