Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Vitality is defined by users, not developers. (Score 1) 82

Many desktops, like Motif, took weeks to learn in comparison.

What? Motif didn't have a desktop. It only had a window manager and a session manager, and some libraries. Did you mean CDE? That was Motif-based. However, it only took a few minutes to learn, because it was very simple to use. It included a dock and a file manager.

SCO and Caldera both shipped Motif-based desktops, but neither one was part of Motif. I don't know if they have any relation, or not.

Comment Re:Why all the desktop stuff? (Score 1) 82

Solaris had been running on x86 since about 1990.

Solaris for x86 was a pathetic joke, Linux was already becoming a thing (and you could get Motif for it) and anyone who spent money on Solaris for x86 was making a grave mistake as hardware support was never any better than piss-poor.

Comment Re:Expect drama (Score 1) 104

Sheesh. A Social Justice Warrior is someone who fights for social justice. It's really not that complicated.

The people using SJW as a pejorative are not, as far as I can tell, against social justice. They just a) have a different idea of what it is and b) relentlessly mock and troll anyone with whom they disagree. They seem to be mostly the same crowd that called any attempt to move society forward "politically correct" in the last decade. Now instead of PC it's SJW. A little catchier, but it's hard to make traction with society when one names one's enemies Social Justice Warrior. It implies that one is fighting against social justice, which is not a good way to make friends and influence people.

Comment Re: The new normal for Android (Score 1) 126

Boy, anyone who has hung around Mac-oriented Forums knows what a larf-riot THAT comment is! Apple Users are some of the pickiest mofos you'll EVER see!

Nonsense. They will cry about things they don't like, like the Macintosh developers of old complaining about every little change Apple made, but they won't actually do something about it and leave the platform. They're not picky at all, they're just whiny.

Meh, I will admit I never was interested enough to really know what Cydia was, and wasn't.

But you were happy to present incorrect information about it as if you knew what you were talking about anyway. One button 4 life!

Comment Blind as a Bat-Man (Score 1) 80

I wish I could see the difference between a regular display at and 4k one. 8k is just too damn many pixels.

I should have listened to my Ma when she said not to sit so close to the TV screen, but Julie Newmar as Catwoman was too much to resist.

Comment Re:Not wasted (Score 1) 80

The only real value of this is saving a graphics card, or CPU some effort in converting 8k down to 4k or 1080p.

There's no value in that, because scalers are very good now. But the human eye can tell the difference between 300 and say 600 dpi, to which 550 is close enough, especially when viewing images with a lot of stippling. For photographs, the difference will be imperceptible.

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 217

One more thing. Let me put this into a concrete context, perhaps that'll transfer the idea a little better.

I go to the Kindle store. I only like science fiction, books on Python. I can tell them so, or I can let them figure it out. But either way, that's what they'll show me for specials and so forth. If I enter my email, they can email me (see, no way for them to know my email otherwise unless I actually buy.) So, this, for me, would be good. I see books I want, and I never see another stupid vampire book again. They, in turn, have a customer who is more likely to buy, because (shock) they're actually showing me things I want.

But when I leave the site, all knowledge of me, goes with me. Now, when I'm visiting, say,, that crap does not -- can not -- follow me around.

Now, say someone visits the Kindle store using my URL. I thoughtlessly pasted it into an email to them or something, and off they go. One thing will happen, and another might. First, they get Python and science fiction suggestions for the personalized part of their advertising experience. If they buy from those suggestions, no harm done. But second, they may buy something else, such as a stupid vampire book. Later, I come back, a vampire book is presented to me, I hop to my clickable prefs, am hopefully offered the opportunity to unclick "vampire books" or whatever, and off I go.

Is this so bad? Right now, my SO and I use the same Amazon account. I like, as stated, Python and SF. She likes mysteries and cookbooks. So I see those. All the time. It's not the end of the world. What's missing here is the ability to tell Amazon that I am not her, and for our shopping experiences to be differentiated.

I suspect -- I'm just guessing -- that if the limits of how the site knew what you wanted were set the way I suggest, they'd be a lot more careful to show you what you wanted, because it's one of the only avenues left to better the targeting of their advertising.

Anyway, again, just mulling it over. Maybe it truly sucks as an idea. Your thoughts on how to get out our shared cookie/scripting nightmare are?

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 217

The point is, it'd be a new way of operating. The site would provide copyable links to share.

No question it's more work.

But OTOH, it gets you a personalized experience.

It's not like most websites are using cookies and scripting responsibly now anyway. Certainly the ad companies aren't. Be a treat to turn all that crap off. But if, and it's a big if, I admit, you wanted the site to know your shopping habits, that's a way for them to do it without your browser having to shovel in a bunch of bandwidth eating, data-stealing crap from WeFuckCustomers, Inc.

As I said, it's just an idea. Seems like we're in need of some ideas, though.

Comment Re:the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 217

Facebook? You use Facebook and you're concerned about ads?

...problem solved.

Also, from my POV, the only "independent sites" out there don't depend on external ads. The others are, by definition, dependent. Like this one.

Comment Perhaps... (Score 1) 217

Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.

You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.

Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever

All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.

As long as you come and go from such a formatted URL, the site knows it's the same person.

If you don't do this, you get a non-personalized experience.

No cookies required. But it does require the user to be a little bit proactive if they want the experience to span multiple visits, because they'll have to bookmark. Otherwise, this visit will know it's them all the way across the visit, but when they leave... the info is either gone or buried in their history.

It's a bit clumsy, and it certainly isn't secure in the sense of others not being able to appear as that person and so forth, but "secure" surely isn't a word I'd use for cookie technology, either. It does allow for basic identity, and it does put control of it in the hands of the user. So for cases where the limitations are acceptable, seems like a reasonable approach.

If not this, then something else. But cookies and forwarding the browser all over creation should die in a fire. Somehow.

How come everyone's going so slow if it's called rush hour?