71–80 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem is that our discoverability mechanisms on the internet now massively favor monetized content. I for one would happily use an 'indie' search engine that favors lightly monetized/non-monetized content.
How would this work? Who/what decides who gets into the index?
You can still blog in 2019, obviously, on LJ or elsewhere. But your friends aren't going to read it. That's why LJ worked: it was both a blogging platform and an aggregated feed of your LJ friends' blog posts, and you all had a more or less equal ability to comment and respond to each other. Crucially, LJ had enough marketshare to make it feasible that you might have a reasonable number of friends that used it too -- but it wasn't designed to make it trivial for your coworkers or neighbors to find you on there.
LJ felt like a quiet corner of the internet, shared by myself and a few dozen friends.
Broadly speaking that's obviously kind of what Facebook and other social networks do as well. But they do it an extremely noisy, public, and algorithmically-distorted way that... well, to put it diplomatically, winds up being something quite different. Those platforms have their uses, but if you attempt to use them as a relatively noise-free blogging platform you are really attempting to ice-skate uphill.
Of today's social platforms, Twitter probably comes the closest to providing some of what was cool about LJ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there were some reasons for dissent, but still most people chose to migrate to Facebook, and not to Dreamwidth or Blogspot, which were closer alternatives to LJ.
If i remember correctly nobody advertised those platforms at that time in Russia, so most people had a simple choice, you leave LJ because it sucks and you choose most popular alternative with sane audience, for most ex LJ users it was Facebook imho
Over time, I posted on Facebook more and more and LJ less and less. It got to the point where I'd go months and eventually years without touching LJ.
I think the last time I posted anything was in 2009. The last time I touched it at all was in 2011 or so when I had a phone interview with someone, and the interviewer said he saw my LJ and he made jokes about it. So after the call, I found a script to mark every post on my entire LiveJournal as friends-only, ran it, and threw a line in my bio saying that everything in there is years out of date, and that was that.
Blogging has transformed and moved. Twitter is a kind of blogging--only more concise, and consequently, much easier. Facebook, as well as Linkedin, may scratch the same itch as blogging. And, the bonus is that your content is much more visible and accessible. Even if you post a link to your blog on linkedin, maybe 5-10% of people will click it, from my experience. This is mostly a response to the comments, saying tha…
Even if you post a link to your blog on linkedin, maybe 5-10% of people will click it, from my experience.
The latter of those two aspects (and the fact that it was aggregated with the former) is what made it unique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux kernel has a good presence on the mobile through Android but the Linux ecosystem aka GNU/Linux does not. And it seems that Google has plans to swap Linux with Fuschia in the long term.
Linux is the kernel. The rest of it is... not Linux. It's almost like RMS had a point with the rant that he gets mocked for.
The Nokia N900 wasn't a GNU system at all—the userland was a mix of a non-GNU libc and BusyBox—but it still felt like a Linux distro because the UI used X11 with GTK+ and Qt, it had a terminal with all your familiar *nix command-line utilities (thank you, BusyBox!), and app distribution was done through an apt frontend. A good many apps for the N900 were straight-up ports of existing Linux apps, too... the ecosystem was almost entirely FOSS.
Android goes out of its way to hide the terminal, the GUI is based on nothing from the desktop, and it has its own packaging and package distribution format.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of what actually runs in userland on a desktop and even server isn't GNU. Sure, you got the glibc, bash and coreutils and a bunch of other shell tools. A lot of it is just a matter of preference and/or tradition; there is nothing making a lot of these tools unique and you could supplant a lot with alternatives e.g. from the BSDs. But your modern desktop is probably Gnome or KDE or similar or something like i3 or…
It seems reasonable to use the term "GNU/Linux" to refer to a system based on Linux and the GNU C library and utilities. You could also just call it "Linux", but with the term "GNU/Linux" you distinguish it from Android and BusyBox-based systems (with some other, smaller C library, such as musl), which are also "Linux". Certainly, you'd expect most of the CPU time to be spent in application software, but we're talkin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux is the kernel. The rest of it is... not Linux. It's almost like RMS had a point with the rant that he gets mocked for.
Yes, sounds kind of funny to me. If you're building an embedded system with busybox, it's proper GNU/Linux, because busybox is GNU. But once you replace it with Toybox, it becomes not-quite-Linux.
It's GPL, sure, but being released under the GPL doesn't make it GNU.
The guy just used archive.org and posted a version with broken css as if it was a regular past screenshot of the site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems reasonable to use the term "GNU/Linux" to refer to a system based on Linux and the GNU C library and utilities. You could also just call it "Linux", but with the term "GNU/Linux" you distinguish it from Android and BusyBox-based systems (with some other, smaller C library, such as musl), which are also "Linux". Certainly, you'd expect most of the CPU time to be spent in application software, but we're talkin…
The platform nowadays is heavily dependent on systemd and either GTK+ or Qt, none of which are GNU.
