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

 



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: Centralized on GitHub! LOL! (Score 1) 113

Same is true for subversion. In both cases you can develop and test your code and review your changes against what was last seen original copy. All the rest (preparing commits early so you can push them faster when connectivity is restored) is just a detail.

Depends on how you use commits and what you think they are for. As they say, the devil is in the detail... in this case, the area you've marked out probably contains enough room for the entirety of hell ;-)

The key advantage of git is that if the central server goes down, I can spin up a complete copy (using git itself, emails, or an existing open source git server) and restore a large portion of collaboration. Subversion can't do that.

Comment: Re:What's with all the pitchforks? (Score 1) 208

by lilrobbie (#49046211) Attached to: Elementary OS: Why We Make You Type "$0"

The pitchforks came out primarily due to the original blog posting calling anyone who downloaded their OS without paying for it "cheaters". It seemed extremely two-faced of eOS, especially as their work is so dependent on the *free* hard work of the Linux eco system... yet they have the gal to accuse those who don't pay them of rorting the system.

Comment: Re:Escaping only helps you until a war. (Score 1) 339

by lilrobbie (#48944363) Attached to: Davos 2015: Less Innovation, More Regulation, More Unrest. Run Away!

The parent's point is that double-taxation is unfair to the individual that balances & accumulates wealth. Because the mere act of holding on to that wealth (e.g., saving up for a house) incurs additional taxes, compared to the individual who keeps their credit cards maxed out and Bank savings at $0.

Comment: Re:Private Links != Paid Priority (Score 1) 258

by lilrobbie (#48405409) Attached to: Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality

What about all of the customers not downloading that data, should they also pay for these upgrades?

Indeed they should.

But, there's nothing stopping an ISP from divying up the cost according to usage. In Australia, we have different data caps + plan speeds for exactly this purpose. I pay more for my internet with it's 500Gb download limit than my parents with their 70Gb download limit.

The problem with what's gone on with Netflix is that Comcast seems to be ignoring the fact that they were *already* paid (by their customers) to be able to stream Netflix at the promised speeds. Comcast is not delivering on that promise, and is now trying to deflect blame by asserting that it's not their fault Netflix traffic is flooding some crucial uplinks.

If Comcast couldn't support the advertised download rates *on average* for it's customers, they shouldn't have sold it to so many people...

Comment: Re:Funny inability to see alternatives (Score 1) 469

by lilrobbie (#47962629) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Anyway, enough with the ranting. Uselessd is a fitting name. Even so, adopting it (or systemd) requires a change of philosophy, one that I am not willing to make. Linux (and UNIX in general) is supposed to be an open system with a intelligible interface. Hell, all init is supposed to do is run a shell script! It is not supposed to be this big binary blob that only takes up memory. Memory that I could be using for other things, like say, run sendmail...

Hehe. I had a good chuckle that "run sendmail" is in the sentences just following "Linux (and UNIX in general) is supposed to be an open system with a intelligible interface."

From the horrors that are sendmail config, it sounds like there is already some wiggle room in that philosophy :-)

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 2) 1262

That screenshot might make a wonderful conspiracy theory if it wasn't full of obvious holes.

Why isn't she logged in? Because she didn't take a local screenshot, she probably used an ONLNE screenshot service (e.g., snapito.com)

Why wasn't there a search query filled in? Because she used a direct user link... you know, twitter.com/[user]

Why was the screenshot taken so quickly after the last message? Because she'd just had a previous 3 MINUTES of detailed information including her address and her parents address sent to her with threats of bodily harm.

Why only 10 tweets? Because the account was a throw-away. Who would deliberately write that type of harassment with an account they intended to keep using?

I love a good conspiracy theory, but quite frankly I could find more support for Hitler being a time-traveller from the future than the one your touting here.

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 1) 739

by lilrobbie (#47547751) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

The other thing that seems to be frequently lost in these "Linus acting off" articles is how few and far between his rants actually are. We see 1, perhaps 2 of these a year? And as near as I can tell practically *all* of his discussions are on public mailing lists.

I suspect most readers getting all hot and bothered over Linus's response on the kernel mailing list probably missed the fact he went and raised a GCC bug on the issue, and seemed to have a perfectly reasonable interaction with the GCC developers: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

Comment: Re:Will this affect overseas profits tax evasion? (Score 1) 749

by lilrobbie (#47453249) Attached to: Obama Administration Says the World's Servers Are Ours

> Those corporations/individuals are just acting rationally within that system.

For a short-term definition of rationality. Taxes are not an arbitrary amount of money that goes to some higher power. It is something *you* pay, in order to ensure the upkeep of common infrastructure & services that you rely on.

These days, corporations seem to be focused exclusively on their remote shareholders, to the complete detriment of the economy and society that hosts & provides them with public utilities, law and other institutions the corporation needs. It is effectively turning these companies into a feudal system (e.g., the Google Bus), as only people working directly for the company receive any benefit from the company's success.

Comment: Re:Will this affect overseas profits tax evasion? (Score 1) 749

by lilrobbie (#47453231) Attached to: Obama Administration Says the World's Servers Are Ours

Eh, I suspect the GP is confusing "moral" and "legal". "Legal" just means someone has been paid enough to ignore/enforce a certain thing via law & regulation.

You are right that tax avoidance is legal... but it boggles my mind just slightly hearing exactly how little tax some of the big IT companies pay in America, considering their revenue, and the amount of service delivered within America. The whole point of a tax system is supposed to be a contribution to the upkeep of common infrastructures necessary for the society to function.

Do you honestly feel these companies are paying enough for the public resources they rely on to ensure these stay viable in future?

Comment: Re:Happy to let someone else test it (Score 1) 101

by lilrobbie (#47436191) Attached to: First Release of LibreSSL Portable Is Available

Well... perhaps it's actually a more realistic acknowledgement that if the OS is so badly broken it misses things like proper random number generation, chances are, it can't ever be made secure.

Let's switch to a metaphor. Imagine your OS is a house, and OpenSSL/LibreSSL is some type of security screen being fitted to your Windows (hah! do you see what I did there?). The OpenBSD people are basically saying if your house doesn't have the relatively industry-standard secure mounting points for putting their screens on, they won't install the screen. Why? Because by the time they rip apart enough of the house to embed these mounts into the walls and foundations where they belong, the expense is massive, and the result still inferior. And... if the security of the house was that low a priority to begin with, there are probably dozens of other ways this new screen can be circumvented.

You can't easily retrofit security. It tends to be as strong as the weakest link... if that link was the OS, you will never be able to achieve good security with that platform (e.g., yay random number generation is secure... oh, unpatched security flaw in memory allocation allows access to private memory of other apps... damn :-/). So why should the OpenBSD folks pretend otherwise by attempting to support it?

Keep in mind, most modern OSs have everything needed for LibreSSL. It's only either strange/old embedded systems (which really *should* be upgraded to fix the other hundred unpatched security flaws they have), or that poor grandparent stuck on Win95 somewhere who's computer is probably already part of a bot-net.

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 2) 1374

by lilrobbie (#46896705) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

Your answers are fine, but your post demonstrates one of the key problems with many gun advocates.

There are responsible gun owners like you out there... but your answers completely fail to acknowledge the ample proof that there are large numbers of *irresponsible* gun owners as well (e.g., how many Americans died as a direct result of guns in the US last year?).

Your airliner analogy confuses me. America has had numerous shootings, and very few airliner accidents, and even less that would have required someone other than a pilot to land a plane. Doesn't this prove that the odds are extremely stacked towards gun violence?

Equally, the comparison to automobiles is a bit of red herring too. Though we don't ban them, we do MANY things to ensure improve the safety of automobiles. For example, relatively strict licensing, safety features in cars, breathlizer ignitions, etc. Obviously, we do the same for guns... so stalemate.

A rational person *should* fear danger from automobiles, and do their best to avoid automobiles. After all, you don't play on the freeways do you? In the same way, a rational person *should* understand that you can only suffer a gun-related incident if there are guns in your immediate vicinity.

The fundamental perspective that I find is often missing from pro-gun arguments is any discussion about how many times a DOMESTIC CITIZEN with a gun has done something positive for society, vs. how many times a domestic citizen with a gun has done something negative for society. A car is used by millions of people for many useful things. Yes, deaths result from ownership and operation, but it is clear that society has net gain in spite of the down sides. I haven't yet seen compelling evidence to suggest that large numbers of gun owners leads to a corresponding improvement in my own quality of life.

All great ideas are controversial, or have been at one time.

Working...