Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:There's an add-on for that.. (Score 1) 387

There's a bunch of things firefox has included in the core browser that probably should be replaced with an addon. There have been many examples of this already. What they are missing here is a prompt on upgrade if their change in behaviour applies to you so you aren't surprised by it.

Most users don't read the release notes, or follow some obscure blog where this change may have been discussed.

Comment Re:Open to Questions (Score 1) 1305

I'm sure you don't want to funnel traffic to some other middleman who is only trying to boost his own advertising revenue. As much as possible, find the original source of a story and link to that prominently. Science reporting? Direct link to arXiv or similar. We're going to want to dissect the paper in the comments anyway. If there are other sources with more context or analysis, fine keep them too.

Comment Re: Any deceptive SourceForge practices are ending (Score 1) 1305

Good. That deserves to be on the front page, at least once you've got a solid plan for how you are going to fix it.

Github is the obvious competitor you have to beat, or at least distinguish yourself from. If you're going to focus on source control you have to beat github on features. Make it easy for people to contribute to projects, while also respecting the contribution rules of that project.

My suggestion would be to focus on the things that github doesn't do. If you want to be a trusted place for downloading software, help us to trust the integrity of the binaries you are hosting. Host build & test servers that can be used to produce repeatable builds.

Comment Re:Nine years of pair programming? (Score 1) 186

Code review before the "RockStar" can merge his code in, should give the same result. Your new feature is not done until someone else can use it & maintain it. Otherwise the business is screwed if you get hit by a bus.

Starting a policy of reviewing all code may seem like a waste of time. But as a team works together more, code reviews should get faster.

To cover some of TFA's "Downsides";

Working on stories which have dependencies is hard

Yes. If you find you need to reuse some common code between two feature branches, first refactor & rebase that code into a separate feature branch. If possible, merge that code to master first. Then you can both merge it cleanly. A branch is not a "feature" or a "use case", it's a patch series that you can merge without breaking production. You don't have to wait until a whole "story" (or whatever you call it) is complete.

Reviewing big changes is hard

Try to split big changes into a series of smaller commits before pushing for review. Again, this may involve rebasing & reworking patches that you have already written. Don't get too attached to the commit's you have already created. I don't want to review all of your experiments while you were working out what not to do.

Comment Re:This stuff is meant to be pretty fancy. (Score 2) 65

... may be the AMD GPU itself is simply not powerful enough to use that bandwidth effectively ...

Building the right balance of compute units, memory capacity & bandwidth is a hard problem. Games developers will target high frame-rates on their target hardware, optimising or cutting back features until everything works well enough.

We will have to wait and see if developers will find creative ways to use this bandwidth increase.

Comment Re:The biggest problem with backdoors (Score 0) 345

There is NO technical means by which you can have a backdoor which is only usable by one government

Counter argument; Dual_EC_DRBG. Only an entity that knows the hidden key that the algorithm is using can deduce the internal state of this RNG.

Backdoors are a problem, and I'm not suggesting that they should be implemented. But it is possible to build one so that only the person with the right secret key can open it.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.