Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The 87 Lamest Moments In Tech, 2000-2009

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the where-to-begin dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 328

harrymcc writes "The last ten years have been an amazing era for tech — and full of amazingly dumb moments. I rounded up scads of them. I suspect you'll be able to figure out which company is most frequently represented, but Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Sony, and many others are all present and accounted for, too."

cancel ×

328 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The very lamest moment? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522136)

Wouldn't that be the "first post" ?? :)

Re:The very lamest moment? (1, Insightful)

Muskstick (1522069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522150)

I was trying to think of something witty to write as a first post, congratulations on failing at it completely.

Re:The very lamest moment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522482)

fuck you!

Damn I was late!!!

sony rootkit (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522164)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony_rootkit [wikipedia.org]

never forget, never forgive

Re:sony rootkit (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522324)

The /. ponies day. I thought Taco had lost it completely then.

On the other hand, it was also one of the greatest moments of the decade too.

Re:sony rootkit (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522500)

wtf? it was pathetic and tedious...

Re:sony rootkit (-1, Troll)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522460)

And despite the HUGE problems with Abble's Snow Leopard, with it's infinites beach balls of death, deleting whole accounts when logging in as a guest, uncountable bugs and slowness, it doesn't make this list. But, let Microsoft release a decent OS like XP with a animated dog on it. Oh! That's enough for it to be included... Gotta show you how prejudiced these kind of lists are... Who made this list? Kdawson?

Re:sony rootkit (1, Informative)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522584)

You might be confusing "lame" and "horrible".

Re:sony rootkit (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522796)

Which version of Snow Leopard does all of that?

I've found it to be pretty good so far, on both my Mac and my wife's.

I've not heard of this other stuff. It sounds a little made-up, or at least cherry-picked.

Re:sony rootkit (2, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522834)

Re:sony rootkit (2, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522882)

It's true, see here. [appleinsider.com]

obligatory (3, Informative)

farlukar (225243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522168)

decade = 2001-2010

But at least they didn't make it a 87-page article.

Re:obligatory (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522208)

Well doh, they say so on page 1. But I still think it's a little wierd since say "the 60s" for me naturally go from 60-69, so we are at the end of the 00s, which somehow sounds incredibly lame.

Re:obligatory (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522228)

Yeah, how /do/ people pronounce this decade?

The 00's - the 'ohs', 'double zeros', 'aughts', 'zeroes'....

I'll just do my best not to refer to it.

Re:obligatory (5, Funny)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522266)

Yeah, how /do/ people pronounce this decade?

The naughties.

Re:obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522268)

I've heard it called the noughties (for the two noughts)

Re:obligatory (2, Interesting)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522442)

The lack of a trite name for this decade has been the coolest, because people haven't been able to call something the "blank of the blank", mimndlessly.

The next decade is even better!

Re:obligatory (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522622)

Yeah, how /do/ people pronounce this decade?

The noughties (or naughties). What I want to know is, what the hell are we going to call the next one?

Re:obligatory (1)

Grench (833454) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522676)

The teenies (yes, even though that won't start until 2013)

Re:American English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522740)

It is not Naught, it is Aught (OT). As in double-ot (sic) buckshot.

Fast forward to the grandfatherly types saying, " Why, I remember back in Aught 6 ('06) when gas cost $1.50 a gallon."

Free American English, lose the extraneous vowels in words like colour.

Re:obligatory (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522772)

The second dark age.

(I kid, I kid)

Re:obligatory (1)

vain gloria (831093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522904)

Brit here. Parallel with "Cool Britannia" (remember that?) I saw a lot of use in the press of the "Naughty Nineties" (modelled on the "Swinging Sixties"). So if the astonishingly imaginative trend continues, I imagine the next decade will be christened the Naughteens.

Re:obligatory (1)

FixitFelix (1416985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522908)

Tenties?

Re:obligatory (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522232)

Uhh... no, decade goes from x0-x9. Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?

Re:obligatory (2, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522518)

Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?

It sure did feel like it. (reference to pre-911 life)

Re:obligatory (0, Redundant)

Whatshisface (1203604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522600)

So for you January - August 2001 was also part of the 90s ? And FWIW, we started at year zero, and so the first decade ended at year 9. Ergo the current decade is 2000-2009. The defense rests.

Re:obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522692)

This is a beautiful example of why the /. moderation system needs a "-1, Misinformed". The Gregorian calendar goes from B.C. 1 to 1 A.D. with no year zero. Of course, this doesn't mean that you can't call any 10-year period a decade.

Re:obligatory (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522894)

Something I've noticed is that "Decades" are often defined by what happened in the last few years of that decade. The Sixties is remembered for Woodstock (68). The 70's for disco (late 70's/early 80's), Iranian hostages (79-80), etc.

How much do you want to bet that this decade will be remembered as the Social Networking decade (when was Myspace started?)

Re:obligatory (2, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522588)

Uhh... no, decade goes from x0-x9. Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?

The controversy stems from the fact that there was no year 0. The julian/gregorian calendar retroactively goes back to year 1 AD, and before that is 1 BC.

Human lifes on the other hand start at year 0.

So people who say the decade was from Jan 1 2001- Dec 31 2010 are technically correct although you can just say a decade is a 10 year period and arbitrarily start it whenever.

But since /. is full of programmers that have experience with arrays, especially in C type languages - none of this should be news or that hard to grasp.

Re:obligatory (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522284)

technically a decade is any ten year period, doesn't matter when it starts

Re:obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522332)

decade = 2001-2010

Well, I choose to define 'decade' as 1997-2006, so the decade's been over for a while. As was already pointed out, a decade is any arbitrary span of ten years. As was also pointed out, when people refer to certain decades of years (the 50s, the 70s, the 90s, etc), they're commonly referring to the first year of that decade (1950, 1970, 1990) to the last year of that decade (1959, 1979, 1999). Or do you consider 1960 to be part of the 50s?

Re:obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522400)

do you consider 1960 to be part of the 50s?

Who doesn't? :)

Re:obligatory (2, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522638)

So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?

Re:obligatory (2, Insightful)

ShounenSuki (862154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522718)

Of course not, but that is why we don't work with ordinal numbers when talking about decades.

Re:obligatory (3, Funny)

Ren Hoak (1217024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522406)

decade = 2001-2010

You aren't a coder, are you? If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.

Re:obligatory (5, Insightful)

dkh2 (29130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522538)

Actually, he has it right. Our modern, western notion of a calendar is marred by the fact that the Romans had no concept of zero until the conquest of Spain and the ensuing interaction with the moorish people who lived there. Thus, we start counting dates with 1, not zero. Therefore, the '60's is the decade beginning immediately after the end of year xx60 but a person "in their 60's" has completed 59 years of life and not 10 more.

In our Christian era calendars you do not find a year zero. To our modern, mathematically educated minds that would have been the year before Jesus of Nazareth was 12 months old.

Of course, our calendars, while allegedly based on the birth date of this man Jesus, are flawed by many other issues. Among these are:

1) We don't actually have agreement about the precise year of Jesus' birth.
2) The 25-December customary date is a fabrication. Jesus was most likely born in the spring based on accounts of what was happening at the time.
3) Our calendar system has been changed a few times over the past two millennia.

Re:obligatory (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522814)

I really don't see what impact the actual birth date of Jesus has on counting days.

Even the birth year isn't that big a deal (it just makes the early part of the calendar less useful, the rest of it can refer to hundreds of years of days with reasonable precision).

Re:obligatory (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522822)

2) The 25-December customary date is a fabrication. Jesus was most likely born in the spring based on accounts of what was happening at the time.

Even the Bible supports this.

Shepherds out and about in deep Winter? Hmm... even in Israel you get snowfall in Winter. Not the time to have sheep and lambs around.

Re:obligatory (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522644)

You aren't a coder, are you? If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.

Surely a coder would have to be more mindful of the correct definitions of things like a decade. Otherwise if they moved between languages that had either 0 or 1 based arrays then they would constantly make errors.

Re:obligatory - but as usual, meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522686)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

The AD calendar in fact was started in 525 AD, by Dionysius Exiguus. The relationship between the dates and Christs Birth are almost coincidental as there is evidence for dates between 18BC and 6AD. So discussing whether AD is zero based or one based are pretty irrelevant, as potentially it is -18 based upto +6 based.

The customer is always right and likes numbers ending in zero to start date periods with, get used to it.

The XBox's need more coverage. (2, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522174)

The 360 for its inexcusable failure rate, then in the wake of Microsofts competitors constantly revising their models and offering updates Microsoft declares they will not create a version two or revise their hardware.

Then - while XBox 360's were new and failing in droves, Microsoft not only decides the old model will no longer be supported with new products they recall as much existing stock of the old model as they can and do their best to make it got away. Sort of like they wanted to do with XP when Vista came out.

Something all the game consoles need:
Older laptop style optical drives that can be changed by release a lever. Can anyone say failure rate?

Re:The XBox's need more coverage. (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522314)

I dont think Xbox 360 was really lame. It was actually pretty good. Granted, I only bought mine in 2007 but it has worked great and so have my friends ones too.

Re:The XBox's need more coverage. (2, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522348)

I'm not calling a working XBOX 360 lame. I'm calling a 54.2% failure rate [consumerist.com] and no plans to revamp the hardware lame.

Re:The XBox's need more coverage. (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522404)

Such a survey is inherently inaccurate because of selection bias.

Re:The XBox's need more coverage. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522440)

let's examine the data behind this shall we. they surveyed 5000 people which is just 0.0178% of the total units sold, so statisticly it's a worthless sample size. They also don't give any clue on how they selected these 5000 people, for all we know they picked people with rabid MS hate.

i'd say the only thing lame here is your claim of 54% failure rate, it just doesn't sense check.

Re:The XBox's need more coverage. (1)

DaemonKnightVS (1422157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522372)

Great fun as a console, but there is no denying that it had a huge problems. Scratching discs (which could be fixed by placing padding into the optical drive, pretty lame for ms not to include said padding in the first place!), failing optical drives and of course rrod! Those can be described as pretty lame!

Re:The XBox's need more coverage. (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522358)

the xbox had a failure rate of between 3% and 5% in line with industry norms (MS claim). while it's not a stellar performace it's nothing special. typically when you dig into the claims of 50% failure rates, they are either online polls or of limited sample size (in other words fucking worthless).

Playstation 3 backwards compatibility and price (4, Funny)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522188)

"If anything it's too cheap" That didn't go over too well did it now.

MS? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522192)

I guess that's only because you're limiting yourself to actual tech decisions, not including tech companies litigating [sco.com] .

(Oh wait. Let's make that "litigation companies litigating." I don't even know why I brought it up.)

Re:MS? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522344)

They did mention SCO.

Talking of dumb... (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522194)

... wtf is a scad?

Re:Talking of dumb... (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522280)

Dictionary [merriam-webster.com] - learn how to use one

Re:Talking of dumb... (1)

aaaurgh (455697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522926)

Perhaps what the poster was trying to say was...

How does "any of several carangid fishes (especially of the genus Decapterus)" act in the role of a numerator in the context.

Perhaps the OP should also learn to use a dictionary too, I also thought WTF when I saw "scads" used as it was.

Nice find. (2, Interesting)

upuv (1201447) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522212)

Ah that was good for a Laugh.

Steve Ballmer on stage at any time is always funny. :) Developers Developers Developers..... bahahahahahahaha

Sony root kit. I'm still finding PC's infected with this beast.

Zune. Do they still make this thing. I actually saw one in the wild once. Man that thing is UGLY.

The Kindle the most pointless electronic gizmo ever. It's not a laptop, phone, or book. You don't own the content. and it's UGLY. You want how much??????

All in all a good read. Thanks.

First Paragraph (5, Insightful)

datajack (17285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522222)

When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.

No. The Experts were the ones working many, many hours in the preceding years fixing and updating things so that when the clock did turn, the problems were - for the main - no longer present. A job damned well done and the people fixing it should be praised, not ridiculed.

The people who don't know what the heck they were talking about are the media types like this guy who are quick to jump on catastrophic failures but rarely (if ever) give due praise when things are planned and done right. "Everything's fine" doesn't make good headlines for these people.

Re:First Paragraph (1, Interesting)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522252)

Mod parent up, I was just on my way to come post the same thing.

Re:First Paragraph (1, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522264)

Mod parent up. Anyone who says the whole Y2K thing was hype is either an idiot, a n00b or both. The author of TFA is quite possibly both.

Re:First Paragraph (2, Interesting)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522362)

Mod parent up to 6.
#88: Also note that Google's multiple outages this year (and last?) don't get a mention.
#89: No mention of Windows Mobile 6.5 and how MS threw away its last chance of ever competing with the droid/iphone.
#90: TFA

Re:First Paragraph (-1, Troll)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522430)

#89 is bullshit. Windows Mobile has its place and is there to stay. It is for power users, comparable to those who use Nokia N900 and for those who want a choice. iPhone is just a shiny fashion toy for those who are too stupid to use a more complicated but more powerful user interface (same people who shun command line). Android still feels rather like a beta version.

Re:First Paragraph (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522726)

I should've explained better - the "improvements" in Windows Mobile 6.5 were hardly improvements at all. Someone put it well when they said that it was "as useful as a poke in the eye"

Yes, Android feels like a beta, but then so do all Google products.

Even though WinMo is for power users (I agree), the problem with the popularity of the iphone is that the power users already want it in their enterprise environment and ferverently believe that it *IS* an enterprise phone.

Re:First Paragraph (1)

crivens (112213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522380)

I believe you just posted the singularily most intelligent and correct response on Slashdot. Congratulations!

Re:First Paragraph (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522464)

Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes? The Y2K was complete idiocy running rampant due to the media clamouring the upcoming disaster that would come due to a widespread inability to update the year.

Re:First Paragraph (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522520)

You complete dick.

I was working in a bank at that time. If we hadn't fixed our systems then come 1/1/2000 every customer in our business area would have found all their transactions failed as the system would have thought they'd expired 100 years ago!

Re:First Paragraph (4, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522594)

Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?

How would we know? It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix. "Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!"

Anyway, the worst of the hype that went around did not come from the experts. Nobody who knew what they were talking about would have said that there would be starvation in the streets. That said, there were definitely some people who tried to cash in on the paranoia. We had some consultant come in and try to sell us software to fix our systems because they were not Y2K ready. Sure enough, when the year changed the computers wrapped back to 1981. However, resetting them to the correct year worked fine.

But just because some unscrupulous people jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean to say that there were not real bugs to fix. The main software that we wrote had a Y2K bug in it, but we fixed it back in 1997 without fanfare. Just because you never heard of it being fixed doesn't mean to say that it was a made up bug.

Re:First Paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522558)

No. TFA is clearly riduling the doomsayers, not the people who prevented disaster. Later he explicitly says: "It turns out that the world has addressed the Y2K problem remarkably well."

You (and the me-too's) need to find a different example to vent against.

Re:First Paragraph (1)

drunkenoafoffofb3ta (1262668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522630)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but a journalist, Nick Davies, has built an entire book on media distortion and starts with the Y2K brouhaha and argues the opposite of what you're saying about media types.

He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy: http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world [flatearthnews.net]

He ends with "This is Flat Earth news. A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true - even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda".

Re:First Paragraph (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522648)

"You should use my dandruff shampoo."

"But you don't have dandruff."

"Exactly."

Re:First Paragraph (3, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522780)

To this (and the other replies here): he's not referring to people like you. Don't think that for a minute. I was a Y2K Fear debunker myself, and I assure you, I NEVER attacked people like you who WERE working around the clock to ensure that the transition was smooth.

What I attacked -- and what he's clearly referring to -- were the outright fearmongers. "We CAN'T fix it all in time, buy beans, bullets and head for the hills!" ... and ... "embedded systems are the great unknown, we're all going to die, so buy beans and bullets and head for the ... etc., etc." Have you forgotten the "Y2K Crisis Center" (or whatever they called it) with Sam Donaldson, on watch over the transition? All of the newspaper articles in early 1999 about how the End Was Coming?

THAT'S what he's referring to. Of course there were bugs to be fixed -- some of them true showstoppers. Yes, a lot of people like you poured a lot of nervous sweat into fixing them.

But personally, speaking for myself, I'll never respect Ed Yourdon again. He was the ringleader of the "too many lines of code, it CAN'T be fixed crowd," and continued to ringlead even after it became obvious that it WAS being fixed.

Not you, poster. You did a GREAT job just so that "debunkers" like me COULD say, "it'll be a non-event." :)

Re:First Paragraph (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522786)

I suggest that all slashdotters join me in ignoring this article, since the first paragraph makes if clear it was written by a fool who knows nothing of what he speaks.

Anyone who actually worked in a Y2K project knows that if the problem had been ignored then the consequences would have been disastrous.

Yay, another weirdly huge list. (5, Insightful)

jault (147271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522246)

You know, if that number was smaller, I might actually click through & read the article. But 87? Really? A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of & didn't edit at all.

Personally, I'd prefer a much shorter list which someone made some effort to pare down to the moments that were genuinely the lamest.

Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522274)

The Slashdotters will prove to you that we can come up with WAY more than 87 - you just watch. So many of them neck and neck it's hard to narrow it down.

Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list. (1)

jault (147271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522288)

No doubt. I just have a pet peeve with huge lists like this. A lot of the value in coming up with a list is how & why you decide to either include a particular entry or leave it off. The longer the list gets, the more it appears that the author didn't put any hard thought into it, and the less value it has (for me anyway).

Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522290)

Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers.

That was 14 right there.

Re:Yay, another weirdly huge list. (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522656)

Yes, but my list would be different than your list. And thus...

The 88th entry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522308)

Wasting time reading this lame list

Y2K (5, Insightful)

ernst_mulder (166761) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522338)

From TFA: "When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don't know what the heck they're talking about."

Well, that kinda hurts.

I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000. Cost quite a number of man hours. The majority of the Y2K my team had to solve weren't for the year 2000 but for passing into the year 1999 because many ordering systems had stupid (year+1) counters internally. It was a very stressful period and I very happy it went the way it did without major disasters.

The experts that didn't (and don't) know what they are talking about are the ones thinking you can upper-limit a year counter at 1999 (or 2039).

Agreed (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522434)

At the company I worked in at the time there were double digit year records used all over the place. If we hadn't fixed the code the whole system would have falled over come the millenium.

All these arsehats who go on about the Y2K being a load of scare mongering paranoia are the ones who don't have a clue about just how much work went on in 1999 trying to sort the issues out!

Re:Y2K (2, Interesting)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522646)

Heck, I worked at a museum that ended up spending 6 figures to wholesale replace their IBM System 36 accounting system with an AS/400. (Including having developers completely rewrite the RPG code...)

In 2001 we had several companies that wanted to donate System 36's to be museum displays. We ended up telling them that we already had 2 of our own!

Re:Y2K (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522870)

Newspaper? What is that? Wait a sec, I think I remember those. Newspapers were those paper things that had funnies in them. Yeah. Good thing you saved that newspaper thing so that it could go bankrupt a year or two later... that's practically the same thing as all the hysteria that centered on Y2K. :eyes rolling:

I see a lot of Apple hate... (2, Funny)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522370)

...among the /. comments. Despite Apple's blunders in this list being few and not really noteworthy, it naturally does not discourage the "grannies of /." to leap out from under their stones with their tag-sticks.

Re:I see a lot of Apple hate... (1)

comm2k (961394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522698)

Too bad they did not mention the MacBook Air...
I don't have any problems with the MBA but saying you don't need a DVD drive to watch DVDs because you can just rent them from iTunes - wow that was good. Especially with those exorbitant prices.

Re:I see a lot of Apple hate... (2, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522704)

If you see a lot of Apple hate among these comments then why didn't you post your message as a reply to one of them? Oh, maybe because there isn't a lot of Apple hate here. This just goes to prove what we have all been saying about you: you're paranoid!

Persecution troll feels persecuted. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522830)

As of this posting, I count two posts being critical of apple; and one is a reply to you. Which means that when you posted this, there was anywhere between 0 and 1 post being critical of apple. Mod parent troll.

KDE 4.0 and KDevelop 4 (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522382)

KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version, and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be, and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product. Things are better with KDE 4.later, but, KDE 4.0, wow, you are rough. Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still doesn't work, and has been eclipsed by, well, Eclipse.

Re:KDE 4.0 and KDevelop 4 (0)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522632)

KDE 4 is the reason all of my users boot into XCFE by default.

(Shudder)

#83 isn't lame, it's accurte. (5, Insightful)

pthisis (27352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522456)

From TFA:

83. And Taco Bell was never a taco company.
In an interview with the New York Times conducted in the wake of Yahoo’s decision to outsource its search features to Microsoft, Yahoo boss Carol Bartz says that Yahoo has “never been a search company.”

Carol Bartz is correct--Yahoo started out as a link collection, then a hierarchical directory (basically like http://www.dmoz.org/ [dmoz.org] then added a lot of portal services (including email, stock quotes, etc).

The thing that they never had, until 2004, was a search engine; Yahoo put other company's searches on their site (including Inktomi for a while, and then Google up until 2004). Doing that with Bing is just returning to what they've done historically.

#88 (2, Funny)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522512)

Slashdot Idle

Google C&Ding CyanogenMod (1)

pocopoco (624442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522550)

I'm surprised that Google sending a C&D letter to CyanogenMod didn't make the list. Google had been trying to market its cell phone OS, Android, as an open platform that welcomed innovation and contributions. Then they decided to threaten an immensely popular third party rom that did wonders for Android's performance.

The official distribution at the time had many issues. Performance degraded the longer you went without a reboot. You couldn't install apps on SD cards, only the tiny internal storage space, so quickly ran out of room for apps. CyanogenMod provided a great option for frustrated or highly technical users to get the performance and bleeding edge features they wanted.

Meanwhile Microsoft actually has a good reputation for turning a blind eye to people making roms for Windows Mobile. Google actually managed to make themselves look less open than Windows on this one. They also angered a lot of technical users who could have become Android evangelists.

IMO the lamest moment in tech is (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522564)

the Linsux fanbois who still keep claiming that Linsux will be coming into its own soon. Give it up losers. You lost.

Make fun of Microsoft all you want but for all of it's flaws it's still at the top and that's no accident.

Or maybe you'll just continue to caw on about the same shit for another 2 decades?

AOL Search Logs? (2, Interesting)

a0schweitzer (1702404) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522596)

No mention of the publicly available AOL search logs [somethingawful.com] ? I thought that was fantasticly funny. Stupid, but funny.

Intel making Microsoft lower specs (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522624)

42. They should have stuck with the "Windows Vista Inadequate" ones.
In the face of Vista's delays, Microsoft encourages PC manufacturers to slap "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on XP machines. The stickers turn out only to mean that the computer can run the lower-end versions of Vista, and don't guarantee they're able to use the new OSes' signature Aero interface. Legal hijinks ensue, and internal Microsoft documents suggest the company knew it had a problem on its hands even as it was egging on consumers to buy cheap XP machines with Vista in mind.

I thought it was Intel that pressured Microsoft to reduce the requirements for Vista so that their most popular graphics chip (I can't remember which) which was currently shipping in millions of computers wouldn't be deemed inadequate for running the new operating system?

If true, then had Microsoft refused then they wouldn't have got themselves into this mess but they didn't and it just went to show that Microsoft is actually Intel's bitch.

Lamest Moment #88.... (0, Redundant)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522672)

Ummm, can we make this article Moment #88?

Developer Developer Developer Developer (1)

pacificleo (850029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522680)

nothing beats that IMHO

7. Audrey heartburn (1)

Rick Richardson (87058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522708)

7. Audrey heartburn

Bought two for my kids. Sold them on ebay *three years* later. I made $30 on the deal!

ebay rocks!!!!!

Twitter (4, Informative)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522804)

##. Twitter

Nothing else need be said.

? multipage web articles without 1 page option? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30522854)

eom

Thanks to the Y2K heavy lifters! (3, Insightful)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522862)

I for one want to celebrate the anniversary of the Y2K Bug's passing by thanking all the people who's hark work kept it from being far far worse than the few mild annoyances we experienced. The word I saw was some gas pumps that were locked up, and it could have been far worse if a whole lot of coders and analysts hadn't spent a ton of time pouring over reams of old code and fixing problems. Double thanks to all the Grampa Geeks who came out of retirement to show the kids how COBOL was done and why it's still so important even ten years later. A nod goes even to the suits at the top who looked beyond next quarter's numbers and funded the stitch in time would save nine.

Meta-answer (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522884)

#88 - the point when every news organization feels compelled to make really long lists of the top ____ of the last decade. It's like the annual "top ____ of the year" lists, only 10 times as lame.

re #39,hard to pronounce names (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 4 years ago | (#30522890)

from the article: 39. Unpronounceable but catchy. At the Consumer Electronics Show, Intel gets Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, and Danny DeVito to help it roll out Viiv, a new platform for media-savvy home PCs. Consumers have trouble figuring out what it is (and how to say it); PC vendors don’t jump on the bandwagon with great abandon. By 2007, the press is referring to it in the past tense. I've long suspected that unpronounceable names (merkur from ford) are really bad for a product.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?