Comment Re:Wait, has she not heard of GDPR? (Score 1) 106
Comment Didn't AMD already do this? (Score 3, Insightful) 15
Comment Re:So do I, because... (Score 1) 155
Comment Re:Translates to english? (Score 1) 101
'No, You Can't Ignore Email. It's Rude.' (nytimes.com) 255
I'm not saying you have to answer every email. Your brain is not just sitting there waiting to be picked. If senders aren't considerate enough to do their homework and ask a question you're qualified to answer, you don't owe them anything back. How do you know if an email you've received -- or even more important, one you're considering writing -- doesn't deserve a response? After all, sending an inappropriate email can be as rude as ignoring a polite one. [...] Whatever boundaries you choose, don't abandon your inbox altogether. Not answering emails today is like refusing to take phone calls in the 1990s or ignoring letters in the 1950s. Email is not household clutter and you're not Marie Kondo. Ping!
Comment Logjam (Score 5, Insightful) 126
Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 127
I want to know that same thing, but for the cluster of ntpd servers running on my LAN.
Comment Re:Limiting your market (Score 1) 399
I guess that explains RAGE then.
Comment Re:stopped using it? (Score 1) 857
Comment Re:Burn in hell, Sveasoft / James Ewing (Score 1) 257
I think it's ironic that after everyone got pissed off at Sveasoft and flocked to DD-WRT, DD-WRT started pulling shenanigans with source code availability as well.
I only run and recommend Tomato (and variants) now, unless you are wanting to set up a non-WDS wireless bridge or repeater.
Comment Re:Tomato (Score 1) 257
TomatoUSB is a bit stale now too, but someone named Toastman is continuing to improve his own fork of it: http://tomatousb.org/forum/t-379538/new-toastman-builds
I like that it comes with some good out-of-the-box QoS settings, although they're perhaps a bit harsh for a small home LAN.
Comment Re:Aw c'mon (Score 1) 237
Firefox 4.0 was not a feature release. It was a major release that included changes in the core.
Yet another arbitrary distinction... especially when most people here complain that 4.0 should actually be called 3.7.
You just showed that version numbers aren't just a number but carry meaning with them. Mozilla using them arbitrarily distorts their meaning, and this is what people are complaining about.
They don't carry meaning other than what we assign to them. What I showed is that they broke their own rules before, in a small way, pointing out the inconsistency does not mean that I think those "rules" are important. Are they doing it arbitrarily now? Nope, just differently. Bugfixes etc: small number, features added and major functionality changes: first number. It's not confusing to me, nor is the old system. And I don't care if a user says he has a problem on 4.3.5 or 7.0. The only thing that I find annoying about the change in version numbers is the addons needlessly expiring, but that situation already seems to be improving. How those numbers increase isn't very important, as long as we have an easy way of determining which is which. Their removing the number from the about box does have me worried though.
Comment Re:Aw c'mon (Score 1) 237
Now, you have no clue if 7 represents a major change or just a bugfix without actually testing it.
Really? What about 5.0.1 and 4.0.1? Bugfix releases still can and do happen. 7 is a feature release, as were 6, 5 and 4 before it. Perhaps the features added aren't alway major news or huge visible changes, I agree. But at least they're coming available much quicker now and can be refined sooner as well.
Hence, frustration for developers.
As a web developer, I am not frustrated by the jump in version numbers. It is, after all, just a number. If anything, it makes it easier to know when new functionality becomes available, even if it comes in bite-sized chunks, rather than wondering whether a point release is just a collection of bugfixes or actually expands functionality. If anything, I thought that they shouldn't have done the out-of-process plugins in the small numerical step from 3.6.3 to 3.6.4... that alone warranted calling it 3.7, imho.