Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Sure, go ahead. (Score 1) 260 260

Well then they're screwed. I'm not saying that Google is right to do this. I'm just saying that it's silly to think that an extension or two (paid, or not) is going to motivate people to switch away from Chrome.

I believe Google's motivation for doing this (other than corporate greed) is the tendency for crap-ware to install extensions in Chrome without the user's permission. I can't say that I'll miss that.

Comment: Re:Sure, go ahead. (Score 2) 260 260

...And overnight, Chromium replaces 97% of Chrome's market share.

Not that I approve of Google's decision, but how many people do you think actually use extensions from outside the store? And how many of those people like them enough to bother locating Chromium builds for Windows? I highly doubt Chrome's market share will be much affected by this...

Comment: Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (Score 3, Informative) 199 199

You don't need to use a login script. GP supports pushing files to client machines seamlessly and natively. It's also less than twice the work, because generally Firefox is going to be their "general" web browser, not the one they use for the intranet. You just need to configure some defaults, and possibly force a proxy or something like that.

The complexity is also not needless. Giving your users a choice of browser is a good thing, not necessarily a waste.

Comment: Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (Score 1) 199 199

I'm not saying that this is really comparable to IE's group policy settings, but it's actually possible to lock down Firefox through GP without any add-ons. Firefox can take configuration defaults and lockdown instructions from two files placed in the same folder as the executable. At that point it's a simple matter of writing the files and then deploying them using GP or even a login script.

Somewhat harder than IE, but definitely not a non-starter.

You can actually lock down anything that is configurable from about:config. It's pretty cool. See here:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Locking_preferences

Comment: Re:Ah So (Score 1) 155 155

That's simply not true. Pornography is legal in Japan. The display of genitals in pornography is not, which they circumvent using pixelation. Even if what you say were true, the cultural significance of tentacles in sexuality predates laws on pornography. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman's_Wife

Comment: Re:Ah So (Score 4, Insightful) 155 155

Ah yes, Chinaman build great big antenna, now he watch chick in short skirt get demon tentacle-fucked!

You're thinking of Japan... pornography is illegal in China, and tentacles aren't a part of their culture to begin with. Also, the "Chinaman" you speak of is a woman.

Comment: Re:Finally! (Score 1) 362 362

I suppose that's what I meant. The scripts that ship with debian by default are far more difficult to comprehend than upstart scripts. I suppose if all you do is check the first argument and then start the executable then sysvinit is just as easy. The problem is that usually the scripts are supposed to do way more than that, things that upstart takes care of.

Comment: Finally! (Score 4, Interesting) 362 362

It seems like I'm the only person on here who thinks this, but I really can't wait for the switch to happen. Upstart scripts are unbelievably easy to write when compared with init scripts. For one thing, they don't require massive amounts of boilerplate code. For another, they are relatively easy to manage and execute.

Just the other day I was trying to set up a couple of machines running deluge as a daemon. The Ubuntu machines took me 10 minutes tops. The remaining debian one had me in init script hell for an hour or more...

Comment: Re:Food (Score 2) 416 416

So long term, we're contaminating the underground water table, which will eventually rise to the surface, and contaminate the food supply -- Can't you just wait until corn, even grown for livestock feed starts showing trace amount of these chemicals?

Or should we not worry since America doesn't make anything anymore, not even food, and we'll import all of our food from China?

People right now are all up in arms over Fukishima, but I see this fracking as much much worse for us long term -- so bad that it'll make nuclear energy look incredibly clean by comparison.

Somehow I don't see that happening, given that we currently export massive quantities of food to China.

And of course fracking is worse than nuclear. Nuclear energy doesn't pollute the environment as a matter of course, it only does it when accidents happen. That said, shale gas extraction doesn't have to be nearly as bad as you seem to think. The reason it pollutes the groundwater is pure irresponsibility on the part of the natural gas industry. If the EPA cracked down on fracking they would certainly find a way to do it safely.

If I were you I would worry about the government not working more than anything else. The government is the only body that can really prevent negligence in resource extraction.

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.

Working...