Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Unity's core mission (Score 1) 74

Let's all remember that Unity's core mission was to unify the interface modals across the complete spectrum of hardware all the way down to the telephone.

Now try to tell me that using my desktop with phone-compatible modality (single window per screen, keyboard optional, touch-UI as primary interface) has *anything* to do with reality. It was such a profound mistake and misunderstanding of how and why we interact with computers I still boggle to this day to comprehend the true depth of Unity's hubris.

Perhaps there were individual technological achievements with Unity that bear sustenance, but let's absolutely not forget the very real mistakes struggled with by everyone trying to be a good Ubuntu community member when Canonical so vastly misunderstood so many things to set us all up for failure.

Comment Re:Still.... (Score 1) 1051

Hairyfeet,

I think you missed the point, and most of the comments. But I won't lay into you, because I don't believe anyone has made it plain.

The point is that this person should have known better. In fact, they did. End of story. They knew better, but that did not apparently affect the process enough to avert a negative outcome. Hence, Linus' response.

Comment Re:It'll make Linux better (Score 1) 1051

A.C., though your comment isn't clear in its entirety, I'll attempt to address what I see as a gross logical error:

I'm curious as to how Linus' comments are somehow going to result in a more unstable linux, according to you. Your fat check writer (pun intended), is interested in stability? The stability of what? If Linus hadn't been steering this process for years under the banner of "DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE", Linux wouldn't even be here for your corpulent bean counter to consider writing checks FOR, much less be interested in (the unclear part of your comment) how stable its development-base is.

In fact, the more I consider your comment, the more I'm surprised you haven't been unavoidably, mortally confused earlier in life.

Comment AT & Whom? (Score 1) 241

Wait, is this the same AT&T that didn't officially admit until somewhere in the 'aughts that packet switching was actually a viable technology?

The same AT&T that couldn't possibly understand why telephones would replace the telegraph?

The same AT&T that tells Congress that competition among telcos hurts consumers?

Something doesn't seem quite right, here.

Google

Submission + - Google proposes DNS extension (blogspot.com) 1

ElusiveJoe writes: Google along with a group of DNS and content providers hope to alter the DNS protocol. Currently, a DNS request can be sent to a recursive DNS server, which would send out requests to other DNS servers from its own IP address, thus acting somewhat similar to a proxy server. The proposed modification would allow authoritative nameservers to expose your IP address (instead of an address of your ISP's DNS server, for example) in order to "load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server." Or it would allow any interested party to look at your DNS requests. Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a "domain name doesn't exist" server.

Slashdot Top Deals

Chemistry professors never die, they just fail to react.

Working...