Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Real men use ... (Score 1) 685

by angloquebecer (#38033034) Attached to: Linux Mint: the New Ubuntu?

I've used debian/gentoo/ubuntu extensively. I've found I've never gotten into a mess I can't fix eventually with portage. Sometimes that fix takes a long time or requires using the lower level "ebuild" commands to manually patch source but that's why I use Gentoo on certain machines. As long as you remember to install gentoolkit and run your revdep-rebuilds regularly (and perl-updater/python-updater and etc-update....OK I guess that's a few things to remember) you should get a very very stable system. What I like about portage the best over apt is the ability to install any specific version of the software that's in the tree (or in an overlay).

Apt definitely has the advantage over portage in terms of the ppas. Especially nice gem is "apt-add-repository" where I can give my mother a single line of code to paste into a terminal and she can add any ppa I find to her machine. Yes, I know you can do this with "Software Sources" but explaining how to do something through a GUI is a lot harder than "copy and paste *this*".

Comment: Re:They shouldn't. (Score 1) 357

by angloquebecer (#37691886) Attached to: Linux Kernel Developer Declares VirtualBox Driver "Crap"

If developers can't support their application, then maybe they shouldn't be making and releasing them.

Utter nonsense. An unsupported, buggy, piece of crap software (albeit open source) that serves the needs of maybe only the developer himself is still more valuable to the community at large than never having this software exist at all. Someone could fork the project. Bug fixes could come eventually. Just releasing software doesn't force everyone to use it.

In reality, your comment should be "If developers can't support their application, then maybe I shouldn't be using their application if I need their support."

Comment: Re:I guessed wrong (Score 1) 482

by angloquebecer (#37500880) Attached to: The Great JavaScript Debate: Improve It Or Kill It

I suspect they benefit in two ways.

  1. 1. The more google services are available, the more people will have a google account in general. This makes it easier for them to use other google services with ads (like gmail).
  2. 2. The more time people spend in the browser (even editing documents) the more likely they will see ads in other tabs/windows. It's been long known Google wants to replace the OS with the browser.

Comment: Re:What's the difference between source and binary (Score 1) 63

by angloquebecer (#36711674) Attached to: Debian, SFLC Publish Patent Advice For Community Distros

Machine code and C are just two languages - they are a bunch of symbols arranged in some syntax that coveys a series of steps to be executed.

This is the reason software shouldn't be allowed to be patented in the first place. It doesn't matter whether you write a linear algebra system or an iPhone fart program, in the end it's all math.

Comment: Re:WTF (Score 1) 371

by angloquebecer (#36445826) Attached to: How Citigroup Hackers Easily Gained Access
GET is not less secure than POST. Also encrypting anything client side (using javascript) and then sending it in an AJAX call doesn't really make it more secure either since the client will need to know the encryption method and thus will be able to submit encrypted dummy values as well.
For aesthetic purposes you might not want the user to see the variables being passed via the URI but don't kid yourself into thinking that, because the user can't see the variables in their browser, they cannot be arbitrarily modified.

Comment: Re:Patents (Score 1) 161

by angloquebecer (#35716196) Attached to: The Biggest Legal Danger For Open Source?

Patents do not cover "an idea". They cover a specific solution, which for software is a specific algorithm.

Except we see increasingly generic software patents being approved all the time.

Find a different algorithm to produce the same (or similar enough) results, and the patent isn't an issue.

Except this isn't true in the real world. Patent lawsuits can be filed before any source code is subpoenaed. As long as the end product (read running binary) appears to infringe upon a patent, then the actual underlying algorithms don't mean anything.

Once in a great while, some brilliant algorithm will be discovered for doing something that isn't specialized, but in the vast majority of such cases, those algorithms come after years of research work and refinement. Why shouldn't the thinker have some control over their thoughts?

Because algorithms themselves are nothing more than math. Trade secrets and copyright on the original source code should be the only protection warranted on original algorithms.

Comment: Blown out of proportion (Score 1) 290

by angloquebecer (#34929348) Attached to: Yahoo IPv6 Upgrade Could Shut Out 1M Users
From TFA:

Yahoo has been one of the most vocal Internet companies to express concern about industry estimates that 0.05% of Internet users will be unable to access Web sites that support both IPv6 and the current standard, IPv4.

So 0.05% of the internet won't be able to access Yahoo. What % of that actually WANT access to it? In this case, it really is "very little" of value was lost.

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.

Working...