Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Post "Good Google," Who Will Defend the Open Web?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the eff-and-fsf-should-be-on-the-team dept.

The Internet 133

psykocrime writes "The crazy kids at Fogbeam Labs have started a discussion about Google and their relationship with the Open Web, and questioning who will step up to defend these principles, even as Google seem to be abdicating their position as such a champion. Some candidates mentioned include Yahoo, IBM, Red Hat, Mozilla, Microsoft and The Wikimedia Foundation, among others. The question is, what organization(s) have both the necessary clout and the required ethical principles, to truly champion the Open Web, in the face of commercial efforts which are clearly inimical to Open Source, Open Standards, Libre Culture and other elements of an Open Web?"

cancel ×

133 comments

Which Organizations Have the Clout and Principles? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236377)

There aren't any. /thread

Re:Which Organizations Have the Clout and Principl (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43236779)

Did you not read the fucking summary!?!

Some candidates mentioned include Yahoo, IBM, Red Hat, Mozilla, Microsoft and The Wikimedia Foundation, among others

It was clearly over four minutes before you posted. Pretty much everyone here would scoff at MS.

What's left is pointless discussions of opinion about "Oh, I think THIS large multinational corporation which is utterly devoid of any conscience, as they all are, is lately acting better than this OTHER one, so we should root for them instead."

We may as well skip right to godwining. (Insert the name of the company you think is evil) is basically (insert inappropriate historical bad guy here).

Re:Which Organizations Have the Clout and Principl (0)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#43236853)

Slashdot is basically Rasputin. ... Am I doing it right?

Re:Which Organizations Have the Clout and Principl (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237117)

I think so.

In Pre-Soviet Russia, mystic advisors slashdot you!

Re:Which Organizations Have the Clout and Principl (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#43237453)

If you read the text of the actual Fogbeam blog post, the writer only brings up Microsoft to immediately disqualify them.

I think the historical pattern is pretty clear - companies support openness and interoperability when they have a very small share of the market, because it lets them potentially claim a bigger share. Once they own a big share of the market, it's in their interest to break interoperability and close down options, because it lets them lock competitors out of the market. Google has passed into the second category when it comes to social networking, maps, and RSS.

Google has not reached the point where closed is better than open with Android, and given the open source nature of Android it's possible they can't ever reach it. If Android 6 is proprietary, many companies may decide to fork Android 5 and work from that. That's a good thing, but I'm not sure if any of it came from altruistic planning on Google's behalf, or just the reality in 2006 that if they didn't adopt a very open platform, Android would have never gained marketshare.

Still, I think overall Google's lockdown is beneficial, it wakes up people clinging to the delusion that Google would put "Don't Be Evil" ahead of its business model.

Does Vint Cerf still work at Google? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236387)

Because I would have thought a dude with the title "Chief Internet Evangelist" would have something to say about this.

Re:Does Vint Cerf still work at Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237065)

"There was a debate on this subject and it was resolved." - Vint Cerf on Real Names
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/05/us-google-names-idUSBRE9240HS20130305

Re:Does Vint Cerf still work at Google? (0)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#43237271)

Yeah, I think he still works there; but it feels more like he's on an advisory marketer post than anything, and like any power he has within Google is dwarfed or obviated by Larry Page and the Real Name nuts [slashdot.org] . As far as I can tell, (re?)opening a YouTube account would require a Google- profile, and even if that doesn't require a Real Name at all it would unnecessarily tie social media to the service to inflate its perceived influence and success, the same way Microsoft ties IE to Windows. (One more reason to Baby Bell Google.)

Re:Does Vint Cerf still work at Google? (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year ago | (#43237311)

Well, I don't think real names imposed by one service are a real threat to the open web anyway.

Re:Does Vint Cerf still work at Google? (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43237573)

He sleeps well on a big ass pile of cash. He'll get back to you once the ski lift has been installed so he can get off his pile of money.

Slashdot Socialists Be Warned (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236403)

Open Web? Have you idiots heard of this thing we call the internet?

Which one of you bought this thing? Who owns this thing?

Free? Lickspittle, I am the only free man on this train. The rest of you are cattle.

Re:Slashdot Socialists Be Warned (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#43237403)

No, I AM the only free man on this train. The rest of YOU are cattle!

Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236407)

Oops, I meant Slashdotted. The link was Slashdotted.

Only HOST file can defend you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236409)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

INCONTROVERTIBLE FEEDBACK PROVIDING ESTABLISHED PROOF OF ALL MY POINTS:

--

That was amazing. - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948073 [slashdot.org]

--

My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41835161 [slashdot.org]

--

Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948579 [slashdot.org]

--

put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40950023 [slashdot.org]

--

Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946259 [slashdot.org]

--

He's done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone in the "do it right and set up a firewall" crowd ever could. - http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

Can I have some of what you're on? - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40947587 [slashdot.org]

--

this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954565 [slashdot.org]

--

oh come on.. this is hilarious. - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40955479 [slashdot.org]

--

I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40961339 [slashdot.org]

--

Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954251 [slashdot.org]

--

As mentioned by another AC up there, the troll in question is actually a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

It's actually a very clever parody of APK - http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40944229 [slashdot.org]

--

Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40944603 [slashdot.org]

--

$20,000 to anyone providing proof of Alexander Peter Kowalski's death. - http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40958289 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40958429 [slashdot.org]

--

And here I was thinking I was having a bad experience with a Dr. Bronner's bottle. - http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952247 [slashdot.org]

--

Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954673 [slashdot.org]

--

I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40956187 [slashdot.org]

--

Does anyone know if OpenGL has been ported to Windows yet? - http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956781 [slashdot.org]

--

golfclap - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40900827 [slashdot.org]

--

The Truth! wants to be Known! - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897389 [slashdot.org]

--

DNS cube? - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897493 [slashdot.org]

--

KUDOS valiant AC. - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897777 [slashdot.org]

--

Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40899171 [slashdot.org]

--

You made my day, thanks! - http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40896469 [slashdot.org]

--

Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40893381 [slashdot.org]

--

truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=41041795 [slashdot.org]

--

It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967209 [slashdot.org]

--

Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40969175 [slashdot.org]

--

APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967137 [slashdot.org]

--

You got that right. I think. - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972239 [slashdot.org]

--

Michael Kristopeit, is that you? - http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40972377 [slashdot.org]

--

ROFL! :) (Now the sick bastard will follow me again) - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41429251 [slashdot.org]

--

I miss Dr Bob. - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41432027 [slashdot.org]

--

Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41432951 [slashdot.org]

--

Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509273 [slashdot.org]

--

That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41514107 [slashdot.org]

--

I am intrigued and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3164403&cid=41555345 [slashdot.org]

--

1. You philistine, that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832599 [slashdot.org]

--

What? - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832673 [slashdot.org]

--

I don't know if it is poorly-thought-out, but it is demented because it is at the same time an APK parody. - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832905 [slashdot.org]

--

It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41841251 [slashdot.org]

--

er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41843313 [slashdot.org]

--

performance art - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847089 [slashdot.org]

--

it's apk, theres no reason to care. - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847097 [slashdot.org]

--

Seems more like an apk parody. - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847661 [slashdot.org]

--

That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847101 [slashdot.org]

--

Oh, come on. Just stand back and look at it. It's almost art, in a Jackson Pollock sort of way. - http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41868923 [slashdot.org]

--

Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41864711 [slashdot.org]

--

I can has summary? - http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861327 [slashdot.org]

--

I'd have a lot more sympathy if you would log in as APK again instead of AC. - http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228991&cid=41868133 [slashdot.org]

--

If [apk] made an account, it would be permanently posting at -1, and he'd only be able to post with it twice a day. - http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228991&cid=41869409 [slashdot.org]

--

DAFUQ I just look at? - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41869085 [slashdot.org]

--

Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41869353 [slashdot.org]

--

We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869305 [slashdot.org]

--

Do you know about the shocking connection between APK and arsenic? No? Well, your innocence is about to be destroyed. - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3472971&cid=42939965 [slashdot.org]

--

Send bug reports to 903 east division street, syracuse, ny 13208 - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483339&cid=42972783 [slashdot.org]

--

Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981977 [slashdot.org]

--

Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42984521 [slashdot.org]

--

In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [thorschrock.com]. Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42983119 [slashdot.org]

--

You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42989683 [slashdot.org]

--

"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028403 [slashdot.org] http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028425 [slashdot.org]

--

I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43029495 [slashdot.org]

--

Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43037445 [slashdot.org]

--

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43048291 [slashdot.org]

--

Best. Troll. Ever. - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044811 [slashdot.org]

--

I like monkeys. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051505 [slashdot.org]

--

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43052263 [slashdot.org]

--

lul wut? - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3510265&cid=43057839 [slashdot.org]

--

I admire this guy's persistence. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063797 [slashdot.org]

--

It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063881 [slashdot.org]

--

Tabloid newspapers have speculated for years that APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. Too bad we didn't believe them sooner! - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063893 [slashdot.org]

--

Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [slashdot.org] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43064383 [slashdot.org]

--

I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43069271 [slashdot.org]

--

^ Champion Mod parent up. - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43067371 [slashdot.org]

--

I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094565 [slashdot.org]

--

The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43097221 [slashdot.org]

--

AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522219&cid=43097215 [slashdot.org]

--

Don't hate the player, hate the game. - http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3526293&cid=43110679 [slashdot.org]

--

If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115215 [slashdot.org]

--

">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115337 [slashdot.org] http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115363 [slashdot.org]

--

No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43116855 [slashdot.org]

--

The thirteenth link is broken. Please fix it. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115361 [slashdot.org]

--

Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216431 [slashdot.org]

--

Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216225 [slashdot.org]

--

YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN. - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43236143 [slashdot.org]

--

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

Disproof of all apk's statements:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040729&cid=40949719 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040697&cid=40949343 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040597&cid=40948659 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40947927 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040425&cid=40946755 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40942439 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3024445&cid=40942207 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40942031 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038601&cid=40942085 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040803&cid=40950045 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040867&cid=40950563 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40950839 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041035&cid=40951899 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952169 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041091&cid=40952383 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40952991 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954201 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956625 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897177 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40894889 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40886171 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40959497 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042547&cid=40960279 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042669&cid=40962027 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965091 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965087 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967049 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972117 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972271 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40972313 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045349&cid=40973979 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046181&cid=40978835 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046211&cid=40979293 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3050711&cid=41002319 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118863&cid=41341925 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3131751&cid=41397971 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41429005 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146511&cid=41469199 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146549&cid=41469495 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509255 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3164403&cid=41555261 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832417 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41846971 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861263 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41866351 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228683&cid=41866627 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228991&cid=41866737 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868513 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868567 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869275 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229765&cid=41872927 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3472971&cid=42939773 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483339&cid=42972349 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981835 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42988415 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3500483&cid=43026797 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028205 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033535 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3504883&cid=43040365 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044767 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507727&cid=43048175 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507873&cid=43049019 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051385 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3509683&cid=43054221 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3510265&cid=43056879 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063711 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43066627 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43066843 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094323 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521669&cid=43094855 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521797&cid=43096277 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43096733 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522219&cid=43097179 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522851&cid=43101761 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3523181&cid=43103421 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3526293&cid=43109809 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3526893&cid=43114659 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115059 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528811&cid=43116535 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216155 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569095&cid=43234975 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569109&cid=43235533 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43209405 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43236007 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=0020721&cid=43236047 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569235&cid=43236165 [slashdot.org]
AND MANY MORE

--

* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts I practice.

Re:Only HOST file can defend you (0)

CrzyP (830102) | about a year ago | (#43236499)

You, sir, need a life.

Re:Only HOST file can defend you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236657)

What? Hosts files seem to have something to do with every discussion out there (didnt you know).

Someone is either a massive troll. And/or a massive idiot.

If a troll then he will never give up because he gets off on it.
If a 'true believer' he will never give up because he must let his word be know to the heathens.

Either way he will never give up. Best stuff is is the -1 troll/offtopic land for him.

Re:Only HOST file can defend you (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#43236961)

Best stuff would be for Slasdot to provide a RegExp filter, even if it had to run on client-side in JavaScript. It would be nice to improve the signal to noise ratio, even if just a bit.

Greasemonkey junkie, that funky monkey (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43237205)

Best stuff would be for Slasdot to provide a RegExp filter, even if it had to run on client-side in JavaScript

You could always prototype this as a script for an augmented browsing environment such as Firefox with Greasemonkey.

Re:Only HOST file can defend you (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43236987)

Alright, this is retarded. I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues... but I actually think he's honest about them. He really thinks the hosts file is a reasonable security measure, and he's just trying to explain this brilliant design to the world.

This, though, is purely offensive. Besides derailing conversations, it's mocking someone else's opinion (sane or not) without provocation. As a parody, it was funny once. Now it's just sad.

Re:Only HOST file can defend you (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43237249)

He really thinks the hosts file is a reasonable security measure, and he's just trying to explain this brilliant design to the world.

APK, if you're reading this, I'm willing to give you some space on my wiki to explain how to protect a computer with such a DNS blacklist.

The best company on the planet... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236433)

Samsung!

Re:The best company on the planet... (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year ago | (#43237879)

Microsoft!
Ever after their journey to Damascus they never were quite the same again.

Like Politics (5, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | about a year ago | (#43236435)

Even if such a mythical company existed, you can't pick that one because ideas change; people change; companies change. For the same reason, you can't grant party X the power to do M, because party Y will use that power to do N. What may seem "good" now will never remain that way.

Re:Like Politics (1)

Linsaran (728833) | about a year ago | (#43236591)

Wish I had mod points, +1 insightful all the way.

Re:Like Politics (5, Interesting)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year ago | (#43236677)

The EFF has been pretty consistent over the years. Perhaps they lack the clout, but they certainly have remained pretty steadfast for a long time now.

Re:Like Politics (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43237279)

Perhaps they lack the clout, but they certainly have remained pretty steadfast for a long time now.

That's because they lack clout. The old thing about the camel going trough the eye of a needle applies here too. Power does not come cleanly.

Re:Like Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237333)

They are steadfast because they lack clout. Political power corrupts all who attain it.

Re:Like Politics (4, Interesting)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year ago | (#43236709)

Companies always act in their own interests, it's just that some are more ethical than others.

Why do we need a Champion, when we could have a Hall of Heroes?

Re:Like Politics (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43237129)

Free Market companies have one overriding interest; to make profits for their shareholders, that is the only reason they exist. To try to paint them as activists or expect that they "do the right thing" or anything altruistic is "doing it wrong". I'm frequently shocked by the number of otherwise intelligent users on this board who seem to believe that companies MUST have altruism in their mission statements. A little activist philosophy is fine until it gets in the way of the main function of business institutions. An enterprise's sole function is to make profits as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Rule by committee is incredibly inefficient for the profit goal, but it works great for regulation; this is why the federal government's main function (should be) regulatory matters. Governments by definition cannot make a profit, this is not the function of government. What they do is regulate, and they do it well.

A consortium of various interests (as has been the way, more or less) would seem to me to be the best way to go here. Leave businesses to make profits, this is what they must focus on. Instead let them have representitives on an open standards committee, as well as anyone else who has an interest in the open web. This is how its been done up to now, and its a good system. No one for-profit org should be in charge of this.

USA was making a surplus (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43237391)

An enterprise's sole function is to make profits as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Unfortunately, once an enterprise becomes publicly traded by speculators with a 90-day or shorter window, "quickly" often begins to eclipse "efficiently".

Governments by definition cannot make a profit

USA was making a surplus in the closing years of the Clinton government.

Re:USA was making a surplus (0)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43237517)

Ok, puit it this way; they aren't supposed to. If they do, then they have no justifiable reason to confiscate their citizen's money as taxes.

Re:USA was making a surplus (1, Informative)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43237541)

USA was making a surplus in the closing years of the Clinton government.

Clinton never pulled the nation out of debt. What you refer to as a surplus just means that the government pulled in more revenue than it spent for the year--NOT that there was no national debt. The national debt increased by $2 T over Clinton's administration, overall.

Re:USA was making a surplus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237849)

That was also by claiming SS as income and not into the fund it had been for years.

Clinton and Gingrich pulled off some major accounting trickery to do it.

Only way to fix it is slash the 3 sacred cows and raise taxes (both are unpopular by specific segments of the population). No other way at this point. Do one or the other and we will be back where are 10 years from now.

Re:Like Politics (2)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#43237203)

You think wisely.

The companies listed aren't going to be champions of anything but shareholder returns, and whatever gets shareholder return will be their cause du jour.

It's the organizations that make up openness, whether the cranky people doing debian, the actual coders at IBM, Mark Shuttleworth's chauffeur, that is to say, actual people and their organizations rather than the corporate bodies that are charged with making money from this stuff.

The folks at Linux.org, various champions of FOSS, maker-peeps, these are the champions of things: open.

Sponsorship? Few of the captionposted companies are actual sponsors, and at least a couple are actual antagonists to open stuff.

Heros? Got plenty. Hero Corporations? Not quite, but close to an oxymoron.

Re:Like Politics (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43237235)

Companies always act in their own interests, it's just that some behave more closely like I would than how someone else would.

FTFY

Re:Like Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237193)

Which is why monopolies are bad. Even with good intentions, if there are no one around to keep check/oppose, the whispers of the 'force' dark side become too strong.

Look for and support other potential Google competitors in their market space. That'll give Google the incentives to compete and provide better service than their competitors. Same for another other markets. As long as there are strong competitors, the incentive to be (to show) one as better will keep evil in check ;-)

Re:Like Politics (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43237325)

Thats why should be a non-profit organization, not a for-profit company. No money nor power must be involved if you want fairness, else even if the organization goals are good people wanting power/money will try to get there to take decisions to benefit them or 3rd parties that will benefit them. Look at what happens at governments, the "voice of the people", or other organizations where money or some kind of power is involved.

A lot of organizations (ISOC, W3C, ICANN, *NIC, ITU, etc) could have commercial/political interest groups affecting decisions.

EFF could be a good example of such organization, or at least as member with weight of a bigger organization with that goal (that should include too i.e. Mozilla and Wikimedia Foundations).

We will (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236491)

If the grassroots don't organize then all will be lost. There is too much money to be made closing it all up, overcommercializing it, and using it to extract maximum revenue from compliant consumers.

Unfortunately, I don't think we will. Too many people have been blinded by the merchants of "cool" to see the true cost in terms of freedom and privacy which come with drinking the Apple/Google kool-aid.

We have to stop doing business with those who close it up. That means a full boycott of DRM and paid content. That means eschewing privacy-stripping "app stores" on locked down platforms for sideloaded FOSS. That means running strict ad blockers to choke the funding stream and make being intrusive scumbags a bad business model.

The web is turning into a hybrid shopping mall/movie theater. Don't like it? Stop funding it. Stop being a source of revenue and eyeballs.

I'm sure many of those who read this post will complain about the direction of the web then head right back to the app store to buy something they don't need on a platform they don't control.

The "web" is no longer what is in a browser. It now extends to all Internet-connected services. Locked down paid apps on restricted, DRM-friendly platforms are going to replace open, standards-compliant pages, but only if we let them.

How is it funded? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43237411)

That means eschewing privacy-stripping "app stores" on locked down platforms for sideloaded FOSS.

In that case, who will finance the production of video games as free software and free cultural works?

Re:How is it funded? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43238425)

Honestly, who gives a rat's ass about video games. We're talking about something far more fundamental - the free exchange of knowledge, information, and interpersonal communication.

Yapping back "But games!" or "But Facebook!" is beside the point. If people treat the web as a shopping mall/movie theater then that is exactly what they will get - and the mall cops and ushers will never be on their side. They will be bought, sold, tracked, and DRMed into compliance.

The revolutionary nature of the web was not in technology. It was in that it allowed for two-way flow of information between individuals. This was unprecedented in human history, as our previous information delivery systems were one way, from established producers to consumers.

If the web becomes just another way to deliver produced content and crap for sale then its most fundamental innovation will be lost.

Vint Cerf and so many others did not pioneer a replacement for QVC. I honestly could care less if the latest time wasting game went by the wayside in the quest to keep information free and standards open. It is collateral damage. The war is for free information.

Re:We will (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43237651)

If the grassroots don't organize then all will be lost.

This is basically the fundamental principle of politics, especially democracy. If you don't defend your interests, no one else will. Even if other people are well intentioned, they will only have an imperfect understanding of your interests.

If the people don't get involved in politics, then the corporations that do will have all the power.

Re:We will (1)

thoth (7907) | about a year ago | (#43238343)

If the grassroots don't organize then all will be lost. There is too much money to be made closing it all up, overcommercializing it, and using it to extract maximum revenue from compliant consumers.

Oh my! So Ayn Rand's invisible for-profit free-market hand won't ensure proper stewardship of this resource?!?! How many arch-capitalists heads will explode I wonder.

The DoD (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236515)

DoD, and universities. Use Internet standards or we'll kick your...well, you won't get that contract renewal. It worked pretty well in the old days.

Re:The DoD (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | about a year ago | (#43237019)

That was back when that was the only source of money for the people inventing the standards. Now, the internet is more commercialized and there is plenty of money to be had.

Re:The DoD (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#43237421)

Then lets me a new internet of our own. With backjack, and hookers!

Re:The DoD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237605)

don't we pretty much already have blackjack and hookers...well at least the hookers

Nobody will (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about a year ago | (#43236579)

We will all go to hell.. It's ova. See ya!

There's only one company on that list... (4, Insightful)

k3vlar (979024) | about a year ago | (#43236607)

There's only one company on that list that seems qualified to me, and that would be Mozilla.

My reasoning (and this is based on my opinion, so mod how you will):

  • - Yahoo is slowly dying, having failed to gain a real foothold in the era of cloud computing
  • - IBM and Red Hat have enterprise customers they will put before "openness"
  • - Microsoft, despite it's attempts, still doesn't really understand (from a corporate perspective) what "openness" is, or how to use it
  • - The Wikimedia Foundation definitely doesn't have the clout

Mozilla has long championed open standards, and although they once toppled the "invincible" Microsoft, whether they still hold that kind of power remains to be seen...

Re:There's only one company on that list... (4, Funny)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year ago | (#43236899)

Their power has diminished, since the days of Netscape and the Two Trees. Arda is now a darker place.

Re:There's only one company on that list... (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#43237483)

The internet is veiled in darkness. The Pirate Bay servers stop, the DRM is wild, and the Wayback Machine begins to rot. The users wait, their only hope, an About box....

Adobe Photoshop v. X.0
(C) 200X Adobe
H4X3D by Wizlab [wikipedia.org]
'When the internet is in darkness Four Wizards will come....'

After a long LAN party, four bearded programmers arrive, each holding a LAPTOP.

Re:There's only one company on that list... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236919)

I would say the Wikimedia Foundation has about the same clout as Mozilla.

i.e. none at all.

Re:There's only one company on that list... (5, Funny)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | about a year ago | (#43236947)

Yahoo will rise again. They clearly grasp the significance of cloud computing, which is why they've collected all their employees in one place.

Re:There's only one company on that list... (2, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#43237881)

Yahoo will rise again. They clearly grasp the significance of cloud computing, which is why they've collected all their employees in one place.

Oh my god. You have figured it out. Yahoo is planning a mass suicide.

Re:There's only one company on that list... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43237251)

The defense of the web will come not through corporate two-faced goons but through technologies like RSA, SSL, & PGP.

Re:There's only one company on that list... (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#43237435)

And when those corporate goons lobby to have those dangerous technologies made illegal if not registered and certified by proper authorities?

Re:There's only one company on that list... (1, Funny)

dpidcoe (2606549) | about a year ago | (#43237419)

There's only one company on that list that seems qualified to me, and that would be Mozilla.

We can have a pointless major new revision of web openness standards every week!

its definently not IBM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236609)

...not sure how we got on that list

Re:its definently not IBM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236655)

You're kidding right?

Re:its definently not IBM... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43238351)

...not sure how we got on that list

you're not selling advertisements nor does ibm own content.

too bad ibm isn't in browser building business either.

microsoft (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236671)

my vote goes to microsoft to champion an Open Web. Past history has shown that they are staunch defenders of the principles which guide the Open Web initiative, and I would always trust them, when the time comes, to make a solid business decision which is in the best interests of an Open Web.

hahahahahahahahaa omgwtfbbq roflamo hahahaahahaha.....

Re:microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236771)

When you first wrote microsoft my mind read it as minecraft. It may be that my mind automatically corrects errors that it reads.

Why is MS mentioned as a candidate? (0)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43236683)

MS has never been about any open web, they have been trying to make their own standards since the beginning.

MS only cares about MS.

Duh (4, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | about a year ago | (#43236917)

Because this is a complete troll piece to begin with, and adding Microsoft to the list just makes it blatant. Nowhere is evidence given for Google "abdicating their position as such a champion," it's simply stated with the hope we accept it as a given. Then toss Microsoft into a list of "good guys".

Who owns Fogbeam Labs, anyway? They claim to be "Open Source 2.0" (what does that even mean?) and very new.

Re:Duh (2)

psykocrime (61037) | about a year ago | (#43237729)

Because this is a complete troll piece to begin with, and adding Microsoft to the list just makes it blatant.
Then toss Microsoft into a list of "good guys".

MS aren't seriously listed as "good guys" they are only on the list because it was initially written in something of a "stream of consciousness" fashion, listing companies that jumped to mind, pro or con and then sometimes (as in the case of Microsoft and Facebook) immediately disqualifying them from the "good guys" list.

Nowhere is evidence given for Google "abdicating their position as such a champion," it's simply stated with the hope we accept it as a given.

Anybody who reads the news and is paying attention to what has been going on lately realizes that Google has changed. Are they completely "evil" now? No, but it's quite clear that openness is less important to them than in the past. They've all but declared war on RSS, they never implemented OpenSocial in Google+, G+ doesn't support any of a whole raft of standards that you'd use when building a social network if you cared about openness, Android has *never* really be developed in the open... it's "open source" but Google do everything and then throw code over the wall to the world. Now, don't look a gift horse in the mouth and all, and I'd rather have an Android code dump than no Android code at all. But the point is that there is a pattern present, where Google are showing less and less interest in Open Web principles.

Who owns Fogbeam Labs, anyway?

I do, along with my cofounders.

They claim to be "Open Source 2.0" (what does that even mean?)

We do? If so, that's a mistake, if you'll point out where you saw that, I'll fix it. You're right "Open Source 2.0" is a meaningless term. OTOH, we DO mention producing "Open Source Enterprise 2.0" products, where "Enterprise 2.0" is a widely used term (I happen to HATE it, but it's out there and we don't have much choice but to go with the flow on this one) that sort-of means something to people in the Enterprise space.

and very new.

Yes, we're a startup. Most companies were at one time. :-) I however, as an individual, have been doing this stuff a long time. Go through my /. comment history if you don't believe me.

Re:Duh (4, Interesting)

oGMo (379) | about a year ago | (#43237969)

Anybody who reads the news and is paying attention to what has been going on lately realizes that Google has changed. Are they completely "evil" now? No, but it's quite clear that openness is less important to them than in the past.

I don't think this is really that much different. Mostly in that Google was never particularly open. They just happen to have finally killed a service that people actually care about (vs like Wave or Buzz or even iGoogle) in their Ahab-like (or Quixotic, depending on your view) pursuit of G+.

They've all but declared war on RSS, they never implemented OpenSocial in Google+, G+ doesn't support any of a whole raft of standards that you'd use when building a social network if you cared about openness, Android has *never* really be developed in the open... it's "open source" but Google do everything and then throw code over the wall to the world.

They never cared about RSS and it's obvious Reader was never anything but a back-shelf product people happened to like, because, well, Google. None of their (major) products have been developed "in the open"; the fact you can even get the source to Android is quite something. Where's the open development (or source code) for Web Search, Gmail, G+, calendar, etc? Locked up tight. Don't idealize Google; they were never an "open source" company.

But the point is that there is a pattern present, where Google are showing less and less interest in Open Web principles.

Screw the web. If you want to beat Google, don't do it on their playground. It's not even a very good one.

Who owns Fogbeam Labs, anyway?

I do, along with my cofounders.

Then it's very disingenuous of you to post the article as if you were a third party when you are not.

Re:Duh (1)

psykocrime (61037) | about a year ago | (#43238459)

Then it's very disingenuous of you to post the article as if you were a third party when you are not.

Disingenuous? I don't quite see that. At the end of the day, what I said stands or falls on its merits (or lack thereof)... who submitted it to /. is actually pretty irrelevant. Anyway, I'm not going to stop and take the time to create a whole new Slashdot account just to post something today, when I have one I've been using for years.

I suppose you could quibble that I could have used the word "we" in the article description, and that would be something of a fair point. But I just have a habit of writing in a detached, 3rd party voice like that. I don't remember where it came from, but it's the way I've tended to write when referring to organizations in general.

Re:Why is MS mentioned as a candidate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237529)

Not quite true. The main reason Microsoft was able to capture such an enormous market share back in the 1990s was that they allowed their software to be used with all sorts of third-party hardware, while Apple tried to keep the two linked together.

Of course, Windows 8 is clear proof that they have long since forgotten any lessons they should have learned coming out of that era.

Post "Good Google," Who Will Defend the Open Web? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236707)

What about 4chan?

Re:Post "Good Google," Who Will Defend the Open We (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236901)

+i, Fear for your future

Microsoft is the only Company (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236765)

Microsoft is the only company that cares or will defend the rights of the end user to ensure all software is secure, free, Open and meets all standards which the end user should be able to use, understand or knows of.

Microsoft has proven over the past 35+ years how much they do their best to meet the needs, requirements of all end users.

They are also very trust worthy and honest when it comes to doing what is right for the end user. For example, look at how IBM attempted to rip off end users with OS/2. Microsoft saw this for what it was, and worked on their own version called 'NT', which meet and surpassed OS/2 in every way.

Another example is Netscape and IE. Microsoft saw Netscape ripping off end users by selling something which could be giving away for free. Microsoft produced IE which was free, met all standards, and allowed end users to have secure, free and open access to the Internet. Without IE, the Internet would be locked down and owned by Netscape.

Microsoft even fought Sun/Oracle on the Java front. Granted they lost, because they did not provide enough finical incentives to the US legal system, however they still stood up to Sun/Oracle to keep the Internet free from Java, which as we all know is a security risk and should never be used in DVD Players, Blu-Ray Players, nor even for server side Chat Room Programs.

Now Microsoft is taken on Apple and Google with their Windows RT and Windows 8. Will hope they win as they feel the sales of Windows RT and 8 tables and phones surpasses the sale of iOS and Android combined.

When Windows 8 was being developed, Microsoft wanted to reduce the source code size and the final binary size of Windows 8 to improve the performance for the end user. They removed the start button, which has increased the performance of Windows 8 and all other Microsoft products running on top of Windows 8.

Microsoft only cares about the end user, and will do whatever it takes to own to standards to keep the end user free and open.

As Mr. Gates said in an interview a few weeks ago, if we give Mr. Obama enough power to do what is right for the people of the US and the rest of the world, we will be free, and safe.

So lets all give Microsoft and Mr. Obama all the power they need to do what is right for everyone.
 

Re:Microsoft is the only Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236977)

Since when is sarcastic humor a "Troll"?
Someone take away Ballmer's mod points!

Re:Microsoft is the only Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237209)

Obama was mentioned in that post.

A mod got all butthurt that someone was mocking his stupid religion's stupid prophet.

Re:Microsoft is the only Company (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about a year ago | (#43237121)

Mental gymnastics keep some in shape. Looks like you need some mental physical therapy!

I will! (2)

jbeaupre (752124) | about a year ago | (#43236793)

Just send me loads of cash so I can quit my regular job and devote my efforts to your needs.

What was it you wanted again?

Oh Google Google... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236821)

I'm don't exactly disagree, Google is a corporation, and corporations will defend and support structures and principles like the Open Web as long as they percieve strategic benefit and fianacial gain, so clearly other organisations need to defend these structures and principles. But other for-profit companies like Yahoo, IBM, Microsoft? Seriously? Companies will defend and protect their interests only, our interests are users can only align with theirs, not be permenantly linked.

In fact, I still believe that Google 'gets' the web in ways that other companies, like some of those that are listed as alternatives, don't. This doesn't mean that they are 'good' but that they at least have a decent long-term interest in seeing some of the principles crucial to us as users be upheld. I've gone in deeper in this in an article on 'Our uneasy relationship with Google' [blogspot.co.uk] (resolutely ad-free and non-commercial, please don't kill this comment as spam).

But long-term and from an ideological viewpoint, the only organisations that you should have faith in for the big issues that will affect us and shape the future of the web, it'd have to an entity with no financial stake and no legal obligation to shareholders. There is simply no way around the fact that any corporation will retain and protect principles only as long it percieves them to be benefical to itself as a business.

The Web sucks, let it die (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#43236849)

Most of the interesting stuff I read on the Internet these days is on email lists, which are relatively hard to find and hence have a high signal to noise ratio from people who went out of their way to find them, while the web has mostly become a means of tracking people and pushing ads on them.

Re:The Web sucks, let it die (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about a year ago | (#43237087)

Most of the interesting stuff I read on the Internet these days is on email lists, which are relatively hard to find and hence have a high signal to noise ratio from people who went out of their way to find them, while the web has mostly become a means of tracking people and pushing ads on them.

Agreed.

I mean, hell, the only reason me and you came here was to renew our tracking cookies!

Not get other opinions and post our own completely ironic ones.

hosting providers and people, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43236967)

The solution is that hosting companies and FOSS developers see the light, that is start packaging already existing free software to provide self-hostable, portable environments that make it easy also for non-geeks to set up and use their own personal cloud. Details at http://stop.zona-m.net/?s=alternatives

The champoin will be us (2)

argoff (142580) | about a year ago | (#43236993)

In the end, there is no one foundation or company. We have to use technology to create p2p/distributed types of solutions that can bypass the state and proprietary controls, even assuming they have 100% control over the infrastructure.

both necessary clout & required ethical princi (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#43237003)

That's the problem right there. All power corrupts, absolute power etc.
Pick your example; MSFT, Google, Politicians, Catholic Church, in the end they all end up acting, overtly, covertly or usually both, to protect their positions.

History shows that you can't depend upon others, especially large organisations with power, to defend your interests.
(Although as pointed out above, the EFF has a good record; but they're hardly Google).
You have to do it yourself. Vote for politicians who support open standards, insist that your suppliers send you documents in open formats, educate your peers and customers about open alternatives.

Stop whining and get off your ass, basically.

Not really practical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237005)

Platforms, services, and applications for the web are changing faster than any one company can respond to, and have ever since Netscape released Navigator v2 in 1995 (which introduced Java applets, JavaScript, SSL, cookies, frames, etc). A standards organization such as W3C is helpful, but all they do is ratify what all the major players can agree on (b/c if a top commercial player rejects the standard, the world takes notice and the status of the standard is jeopardized). Besides, different segments of the market have drastically different needs and preferences regarding the rate of change, security, stability, localization, hooks for vendor customization, etc.

By the time the demand for change slows down enough for a body such as W3C to take effective control, the Web will be dead and the world will have moved onto something else.

If "for profit" then "hate open web" (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#43237017)

Any questions?

Huh (4, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year ago | (#43237037)

Extrapolation, much?

Evidence for abandonment of the "open web" - cancelling Reader and the CalDAV API. Evidence for support of the open web: Chrome, GWT, open sourced jscompiler, V8, tons of random libraries and developer tools, SPDY, extensions to SSL, HTML5 rich snippets in search, etc.

I will state right now that I'm a Google employee, so you may think that makes me biased, but employees are often the companies harshest critics (internally). Yet this is a ridiculous stretch. Yes, I love(d) Reader too. Cancelling a widely loved but ultimately niche tool for which there are many replacements is not "abandoning the open web", it's recognising that with a finite amount of resources not every product area can be tackled.

Re:Huh (2)

psykocrime (61037) | about a year ago | (#43237857)

OP here...

Evidence for abandonment of the "open web" - cancelling Reader and the CalDAV API.

AND abandoning OpenSocial, not implementing any relevant open standards in G+, not developing Android in an open fashion, and probably a few dozen other examples that I can't remember offhand.

Evidence for support of the open web: Chrome, GWT, open sourced jscompiler, V8, tons of random libraries and developer tools, SPDY, extensions to SSL, HTML5 rich snippets in search, etc.

Yeah, nobody is saying that Google haven't done some amazing things in the past. Or even that they don't still do *some* good things. That's what makes this whole situation even more disturbing! When an organization that you have trusted and looked up to for a very long time begins displaying behavior which suggest that it can no longer be trusted, it is very troubling. And ever since the big re-org at the top and since the advent of G+, Google have definitely been displaying markedly different behavior.

In the end, this is less about Google per-se, than it is about being a warning and a "call to action". As many posters on this thread have said, and as I said in the blog post... at the end of the day, the ultimate defender of the Open Web is US. All of us. A motley collection of individuals, small companies, big companies, medium companies, standards bodies, non-profits, etc. But WE, as in grassroots activists, solo hackers, startup founders, etc., need to pull our heads out of our collective bums and start making a lot more noise and taking action, or we'll wind up with a Web which is good for nothing but shoveling ads and government propaganda down our throats and spying on us.

Re:Huh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43238575)

Cancelling a widely loved but ultimately niche tool for which there are many replacements is not "abandoning the open web", it's recognising that with a finite amount of resources not every product area can be tackled.

I disagree. For several reasons:

1) Although you're right that Reader was a niche product, it catered to a _particular_ niche which should be relevant to Google: geeks, webmasters, internet power users... Making this "niche" pissed off at you == not smart;

2) It's not like Reader required that much maintenance or development (code-wise)... it was pretty much good as it was. And, please... don't tell me it was such a huge bandwidth hog for a behemoth like Google (it was "niche", after all, right?);

3) From an economical point of view, keeping people's eyeballs on Google's websites/products/apps should be seen as good, for Google... Reader users are probably going to spend less time looking at Google Ads now...

4) Even from a purely data/analytics point-of-view, Reader was probably a useful asset in itself, providing insight on what RSS feeds are more followed (or, even more practical profiling data, to better improve your ad-selection algorithms);

5) Removing Reader ain't gonna make anyone start using G+. Trust me. It actually has the _opposite_ effect. Law of unintended consequences is fun, uh?

So... you're going to go with the "oh, but we can't have too many products, or we'll lose focus/money/whatever" defense? That's fine... it's your corporate choice. Just don't be surprised if people decide it's not worth it to unnecessary "invest yourself" (i.e. your time/privacy) on using Google apps that might stop existing overnight, because *insert random crap excuse*. I mean... I thought the whole _advantage_ of Google was that it was agile and able to provide a whole range of products covering most online needs... that it DIDN'T need to just focus on one product at a time.

Next step, terminate Gmail please. That way, 95% of the Internet stops having a reason for maintaing a Google Account (people still use Google Search and YouTube, but that works perfectly fine without an account).

Wikimedia hath no clout? (4, Interesting)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about a year ago | (#43237053)

Those who say Wikimedia is powerless, I completely disagree. They're a non-profit concerned with sharing the largest quantity of the most accurate knowledge with the most people. They control several of the most popular websites on earth with few commercial interests and have representatives in MANY languages.

Their largest subset (or was it them too? wp and wm?) also showed their willingness to shutdown completely for a day to demonstrate principles. Google would have taken quite a hit monetarily if they completely shut down (they just posted links and warnings).

What a dumb question... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about a year ago | (#43237145)

None of these organizations, except IBM, has the clout with the federal government to be more than a buzzing mosquito in the ears of our elected representatives. And, that being said, why would IBM want to put themselves out?

If it's not IBM, Intel, Google, Amazon, PayPal, eBay, Facebook, Oracle, or Microsoft, you aren't going to get the ear of anyone other than the Congresspeople representing the area where your corporate headquarters is located. And even then, you'll need more than your one Representative and two Senators to get any changes in place - that would take lobbyists... many, many lobbyists. And your other suggestions don't have the juice for that.

The notion that the internet will be managed for anything other than evil in the upcoming years is laughably naive, unless you can get the corporate giants to fight among themselves to make that happen.

Really, (1, Interesting)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43237151)

The entire list is irrelevant and has no influence.

Aside from that the real question is, does the Internet need to be open?

I believe most people are falsely lulled into accepting that the moment you put open in front of something it must, by rights, be better then the alternative. Open Web is obviously better then the un-Open Web (really, what do you call the alternative), but who exactly is crippled by the current state of the Internet? Is there someone or some organization out there fundamentally unable to use the Internet because its not "open".

It can't be about expense because its is ridiculously inexpensive to host a website these days. Yes maybe running something like Wikipedia is arguably expensive, but then again, if Wikipedia had any influence on web standards and innovation they would have invented a cheaper way to run a massive web services.

It also can't be about access because while I agree there is a huge layer of telecom interfering with web access, fundamentally it is easy and relatively inexpensive to find and access web services. You may not always have blistering fast speeds or unlimited downloads, but there are internet service providers offering internet for as little as a few dollars a month making it virtually affordable by anybody that cares to go online.

So I don't exactly know how the current un-Open Web is interfering with people's ability to access, communicate, socialize, and even, shudder, profit from the Internet?

The fact is that the Internet as we know it is slowly dying, instead morphing into a services platform to back native applications. Argue all you like about native apps vs web app, but a considerable amount of internet traffic these days is through an app running on a device. Netflix accounts for a huge portion of internet traffic and a significant portion of that is through a device, NOT a browser. Our TVs, phones, tablets, refrigerators, thermostats, even light bulbs will account for more internet traffic in the near future then people hopping onto a web page through a web browser on a "computer". And again, has the un-Open Web interfered with our ability to webify devices? I can buy Raspberry Pi or Arduino and have a device online in minutes, open devices using un-Open Web.

I think it comes down to nothing more then senseless idealism that something so fundamentally ubiquitous as the Internet should also be fundamentally "open". But sometimes advocates of a cause can't see past the cause, and thus don't realize how pointless it is. Put on your orange bracelet and lets all support the Scause!

Maybe Google stopped championing open web because they have come to the conclusion that it is a completely irrelevant concept.

Re:Really, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237535)

who exactly is crippled by the current state of the Internet? Is there someone or some organization out there fundamentally unable to use the Internet because its not "open".

I don't exactly know how the current un-Open Web is interfering with people's ability to access, communicate, socialize, and even, shudder, profit from the Internet?

It is fairly open; we'd like it to stay that way.

Re:Really, (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#43237569)

the un-Open Web (really, what do you call the alternative)

You mean the closed web?

who exactly is crippled by the current state of the Internet? Is there someone or some organization out there fundamentally unable to use the Internet because its not "open".

These are two separate questions, and one does not lead into the other. To answer the first, no one in the free world really is crippled at the moment, because the web is still open. The answer the second, you can look at all the places where the web is closed. China, Iran, Syria, Australia, etc. But instead of government, you can replace it with corporations. Corporations telling you what you can put online and what you can't, what you can say online and what you can't, which sites are deemed acceptable and which ones aren't.

So for starters, any whistleblowing site would be blacklisted. Counter-culture sites (e.g. 4chan), dissident sites, and yes, even piracy sites. Hell, Google wouldn't be able to continue indexing the web and offering search results because they'd risk violating somebody's TOS somewhere. You'd send the internet back to the AOL, Prodigy, Compuserv days of closed, managed content. Which is good for nobody, except corporations and powerful monied interests.

As for Netflix being the majority of internet traffic, it's true Netflix uses most of the bandwidth, but that's only because video content requires high-bandwidth. I'll bet there are more content requests by users to Wikipedia and YouTube than to Netflix a day. In fact, YouTube just hit their 1 Billion unique users in a month milestone. Netflix and all the app traffic in the world isn't even close.

Re:Really, (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43237671)

anyone can code a web browser.
what this is talking about is that would change if there was mandatory drm and every friggin newssite etc would start using it.

you know what they would use it for? displaying ads. DISPLAYING ADS SOLD BY GOOGLE. this is why google producing a popular web browser has it's downsides. and that is the real reason why google doesn't give a fuck about the open web, their crawlers would still crawl the drm'd portions too.

it's not irrelevant concept, because it would be good that new entries could enter the marketplace which they couldn't once the drm cerfticationing of the web browsers steps in..

Re:Really, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43238179)

Tell me the web is open the next time you have it in your mind to host your own web server.

Everything, from the IANA and ICANN on down, has a vested interest in keeping you from doing what you want on the Internet.

None of the above (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237153)

None of those Corporations can be what we wanted Google to be, in fact it was inevitable that Google would not be what we want it to be. The informational problems inherent to hierarchical organizations demand that the customer conform to the business model and not the other way around (because the business model can't change rapidly enough in a typical Corp to conform to consumer needs). Any corp that has a board/CEO/whatever dictating policy from the top will eventually oppose Open Anything, because they can't control it.

On the other side, we have... (1)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#43237285)

The big problem is that almost everybody in US "mobile", telephony, and cable already has a "walled garden". From Comcast to Apple, everybody in that space has a tight grip on their users. Most "apps" are really just a form of DRM.

This is a US thing, though. In Europe, and most of the rest of the world, everybody uses interchangeable GSM phones. The carriers have less control over handsets.

"good" google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237301)

I'd like to remind everyone here that google is an ad company first and foremost.

They may have been "good" as a whole for awhile, but at their core, they never were.

Google still is... somewhat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237373)

I would say that Google is still carrying the flag of Open Web.. to a point. Ever heard of Android? You know, the most commonly used mobile operating system. You could make a program and put it on the Android today if you wanted to, because it's pretty liberal about allowing a lot of programs out there, thinking that the better programs would be rated more highly and rise to the top anyways and so the crap ones wouldn't be that big of a deal to be on there. Meanwhile, in Apple-land, there's about 100 programs on there and most of them are from the mothership. Google is still kind-of carrying the flag of open computing, they're just not doing it as much these days.

DARE to be congestion avoidant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237451)

One of the dirty little secrets of IETF working groups is the phenomena of ballot stuffing where "rough consensus" can be achived by mobs of outsiders with no domain knowledge or history of prior WG participation chiming in at opportune moments in the process.

Google for example deserves a ban from the tcpm working group for continuing to push protocol extensions with overly aggressive characteristics which are good for them and bad for everyone else.

It's time for another version of http ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43237765)

Learning the last decade of commercialization and enforcement of the http protocol, it's now the time to do another one with much clear case of what can be and waht cannot be over it.

Open sure.
Private sure.
Anonymous sure.
Create by the user for the user, sure.

Sign me up. Another protocol, another standard sets, another browser set for another thing. The thing that everyone want to be in and that nobody can grab for his own. Now dreamer of today, let's manifest our wet internet dream of tomorrow.

AC

Wrong Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43238203)

The real question is what company stands to benefit from a free and open net.

You see when you get to the real world it becomes about money, and if there is no money to be made, companies will stop working towards those goals.

If you want a corporate entity to work and push for something, they need to see a good ROI on that investment, or they will simply focus on other things. Only if it is important to their business will they really put effort into it. I'm sure that Google will step up when they see a threat that will hurt their business, but otherwise they don't really care, and they shouldn't really care, unless it impacts them.

If you simply want advocacy, go to the EFF, they've been quite effective.

Let's create the closed web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43238275)

I would be happy if all the big-media content companies created a big walled garden and bricked themselves up inside it. Why can't we create a web for them and lock it down so they can't ever get out of it? I have no interest in pop culture, pop music, celebrities, movies, advertising, or any of that stuff. I think it would be fantastic if the MPAA and RIAA member companies had their own web with their own DRM walled garden where people had to pay to access it. We could throw expertsexchange and all the rest in with them. The real web could go back to what it was in 1991, with a few FTP sites and comp.lang.c. If other people want to spend money on pop culture, let them. What would be nice is to have a Google like it was in 2008, before they started crippling their search engine with sloppy, inexact results and ruined their design.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...