adekok

50 ms·

451.
by adekok 10y ago
If you read the conversation you linked to, you'll see that I advocate for banning people who violate the rules. There is no reason for you to be surprised at this. You don't seem to understand my position. I'll explain usin
452.
by adekok 10y ago
> I know it may come as a surprise, but it's not about you. It's about harassment. Well.. proof would be nice. i.e. proof that Milo instigated and/or coordinated a campaign of harassment against her. The only evidence bei
453.
by adekok 10y ago
No smoking gun. But, he holds opinions which are anathema to the people who implement Twitters censorship policy. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/twitters-new-safety-cou... FTA: > They think their right ne
454.
by adekok 10y ago
> I'd love to see an explanation for not supporting client authentication. My guess? They don't use it in their applications, so they don't think anyone else uses it, either. TLS client authentication is widely used in 80
455.
by adekok 10y ago
The solution for that is to ban the person.
456.
by adekok 10y ago
> Have you considered creating an FAQ? For me, we have a FAQ, "man" pages, on-line web documentation, and documentation in the config files. There will always be some idiot who is incapable of reading any documentation. My p
457.
by adekok 10y ago
Banned from the mailing list, and from github.
458.
by adekok 10y ago
Yes, I charge for support and consulting. But the Open Source side has huge value. Even if that includes the occasional whiner. The good people contribute features, bug reports, bug fixes, documentation, etc. The project wouldn't be
459.
by adekok 10y ago
Having maintained an Open Source project for almost 20 years now, there are some ways to deal with bad users. One is to not take it personally. Annoying people should get ignored or banned. They're just not worth the effort. Two, is
460.
by adekok 10y ago
Once a code base gets mature (i.e. tested mature), static analysis becomes less useful. In my experience, though, it's worth still running it, just to catch issues with new code. Every release of FreeRADIUS ( http://freera
461.
by adekok 10y ago
e.g. Spyglass vs Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc . The deal stipulated that Spyglass would receive a base quarterly fee for the Mosaic license plus a royalty from Microsoft's Internet Explore
462.
by adekok 10y ago
> You have invested in an experimental 'organization' that is defined by the contract that is its code. Greed trumps contracts.
463.
by adekok 10y ago
My guess is that teams which have members with high sensitivity didn't do well, either. If you're afraid of speaking up because someone will get upset at you, you're only a superficial member of the team. Both of these crite
464.
by adekok 10y ago
Gawker's attitude seems contradictory: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-why-i... Or a shorter summary: http://imgur.com/gallery/CQ5qgvu
465.
by adekok 10y ago
Both. The neutrino flux can be large. Even if the gamma rays don't get you, the neutrinos will. Supernovas convert a substantial part of a solar mass to neutrinos. That's a lot of neutrinos.
466.
by adekok 10y ago
FYI about Supernovas: https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/ --- Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina: 1) A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the E
467.
by adekok 10y ago
> The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct determination, Judges are supposed to use some digression. I doubt very much that the litigants losses for a $40 printer are $30K. Especially since he convenientl
468.
by adekok 10y ago
> What has occurred between 710 and 720 is change. As you note, the changes should be minimal. i.e. the versions should be compatible. By changing the names, you are creating massive change, in order to bludgeon users of your library
469.
by adekok 10y ago
You're unwilling to give constructive criticism yourself. I suspect because you know that by your standards, any negative criticism can be labeled as "mean and rude". You've been given multiple opportunities to give
470.
by adekok 10y ago
> Again, your outlook is toxic to newcomers. I disagree. > you should be capable of crafting that criticism in a way that isn't mean spirited and rude. As I suggested, perhaps you could give some positive criticism of your own,
471.
by adekok 10y ago
Let's say that my application uses your library. Great! I code it, it works, and I release it for public consumption. It get popular, so that Ubuntu packages the application and your library. Millions of people use it. Now what happ
472.
by adekok 10y ago
Sure. Did he include the typedefs in his code? Not that I can see (on a quick scan). So the only way to use his library is to create your own wrapper functions. And update them every time he updates his library. Thanks, but no thanks.
473.
by adekok 10y ago
Because saying someone looks 16 is an insult?
474.
by adekok 10y ago
If you're afraid of negative feedback, you will never do anything, and you will never learn anything. In this case, I'm astonished at just how many bad practices the author has engaged in. Do most software projects have structs
475.
by adekok 10y ago
The best response to a technical review of software is an ad hominem. Good to know.
476.
by adekok 10y ago
I wrote code when I was 16. There's nothing wrong with being that age. What is wrong is not learning from others. This library follows many practices which are well known as "worst practices" in the industry.
477.
by adekok 10y ago
The documentation is viewed via an embedded frame. So you can't save URLs to the documentation. This is a known bad practice for web sites. The API changes with every release. WTF? struct lfds710_freelist_element; Really? Just...
478.
by adekok 10y ago
> This is called dogma, Then you don't know what the word "dogma" means. What I said was "In my experience." i.e. practice learned over time. This cannot be interpreted by any reasonable person as "blobs ar
479.
by adekok 10y ago
> You do not need to repeat the steps to produce the first machine to produce the second machine. You can simply clone the first machine, and Docker makes this very easy to do. That's nice for cloning, it's not reproducability.
480.
by adekok 10y ago
> You don't need to reproduce that working state: The work has already been done! My background is physics, and the philosophy there is "If you can't reproduce it, it doesn't exist." In my experience with softwar

More ›