Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"they" can fuck off, the binary units are the o (Score 1) 618

It's like the word "gay" or "hacker." You rely on context to know what the words really mean. In the case of written text, "GiB" provides that context. I know that "gigabyte" has more than one meaning. It's just not a precise word and I don't rely on it being so. In the case where I read "GiB" i think "gigabyte" if I don't really need that level of precision.

Example: How big is the download? x kilobytes = instant, x megabytes = a few minutes, x gigabytes = get some coffee. It doesn't matter if it says GiB, GB, or gigabyte. I'm still gonna get a cup of coffee because either definition still means I have time to do so.

Comment Re:I tried it (Score 1) 393

I haven't seen that happen. My experience is more binary. It either worked for a given video or it didn't there was no half way. Ironically, some older videos about openness and free standards were some of the ones that didn't work. This was some time ago.

I'd like to take a moment to extend my middle finger to any site that uses Flash for non DRM video. DRM is the only reason you should use Flash at all and it's not even a good reason at that. Fuck you Google. Set YouTube Free. You were going to do it at one point then just stopped and have been sitting on your dick ever since.

Comment Re:Safari and Firefox (Score 2) 111

Who reads twitter with a web browser anymore?

Anyone clicking a link in a Twitter keep alive e-mail. Recently they've taken a play from Facebook and started spamming anyone they think might be loosing interest in their network. If you're not actively engaged with a certain usage pattern you get mail.

Comment Re:Because of the BSD license (Score 2) 138

Upstreaming your work can save you time (money) regardless of license. You can maintain your patch set independently indefinitely, but pushing your patch upstream makes it more likely that someone else will do it for you and perhaps do it better than you. Even if your patch is trivial, sometimes a small change can inspire more work.

I once submitted a patch fixing an obscure overflow. It was a simple off-by-one flaw. Someone else scratched their head and decided to check the software for more code defects of similar nature. My simple change kick-started off around 15 more changes making my downstream project more secure and stable. I got more than my money's worth by submitting my work upstream.

It's not about someone else "stealing" your work, it's about doing less work and often getting more work done for free.

Comment Re:It's a shame because (Score 5, Insightful) 913

My 16 year old daughter took to it like a duck to water

Oh fuck no! HELLL FUCK NO!!!!!

Linux advocates have been using the argument that their their kids and grannies take to a new OS just fine. That argument was NEVER good enough for the Windows fan base. I'll be damned if a fucking Windows fan thinks he can use it on me!!! You leave me no choice but to retort with the same response you gave Linux users all these years:

Face it, Windows 8 is just not ready for the consumer market.

Comment Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (Score 1) 339

I'm aware of the propaganda and the non-portable code they release for only one platform. They're still not a big player in open source. Maybe if they were, they'd be able to sell a fucking phone. Even if they released the same volume of source code as one of their competitors... what difference does it make if no one uses it?

Comment Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (Score 1) 339

If they contributed, they contributed.

I gave blood once ~10 years ago. I'd hardly rate myself as a leader to the cause. Microsoft's contribution to open source is rather small and on par with me giving blood once. Sure, it helps, it's nice, it's better than nothing. It hardly makes them a big name in open source.

Comment Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (Score 1) 339

It's that I find Google's selfishness more useful than Microsoft's selfishness. I don't think I'm alone with that either. So, to answer the question in the headline, as a selfish developer, no Microsoft is not the most friendly for open source. It's fine to help yourself but when you actively look for ways to help yourself and avoid helping others... not gonna win my selfish vote. Google helps themselves and there's a lot of incidental helping to others. Microsoft seems to be making a point of making sure they don't help anyone else while helping themselves. I'll take Google's accidental over MS's intentional any fucking day. I'm a pig like that.

Comment Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (Score 1) 339

They only "contribute" code that requires a Microsoft license to use. Can you use their code without running their VM on their OS? No. Microsoft only releases stuff that require Microsoft products to work (save a few exceptions where it was the company that they acquired that was doing it).

Do I have to run Android to use Google's contributions to the Linux kernel? No. For that reason, I consider Google's contributions a lot more friendly to open source than Microsoft's because they're generally more useful and not limited in usefulness as an express design goal.

I suspect Google, despite having a competing product, has more commits to Firefox than Microsoft does. It's not that Google is a perfect saint, they're not, it's that it illustrates how MS's views on open source differ greatly from everyone else's. Yes, I know that all apparent altruism is a sham and Google is looking out for #1. But there are more positive (and tangible) side effects from Google's apparent altruism than there are from Microsoft's. And since I'm looking out for #1 too, I'm going to pick the products and services that fit my needs best as a developer. That generally means products and services that work well with other products that may or may not be from the same vendor.

Slashdot Top Deals

grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.