Then you break backwards compatibility with all of the existing applications that call that API. Compiled code doesn't tend to work nicely when it expects 4 bytes on the stack and gets 8 bytes instead.
True; part of the problem though is that Microsoft doesn't seem to *design* APIs. They just publish the first interface that comes into their head, then when it turns out to be horribly broken, invent another one.
Re:Well... it started as a reply, before the rant.
on
Mozilla.org Relaunched
·
· Score: 1
Aside from a few errant copies of FrontPage floating around (you know who you are), the introduction of the stricter-formatted XHTML has given quality-concious designers something they can put faith in.
I find it hard to believe that many people are actually using XHTML, given that Internet Explorer doesn't support it in any real way.
I think you're right in that the web has started (ever so slowly) improving though.
No, what is happening in the UK today is that the cards are being upgraded to smart cards, and the PIN is replacing the signature which is frequently not checked well.
Folks by and large understand the "never give away your PIN" rule. Disclosing your PIN to a web site other than your banks would completely subvert this.
It does not address "cardholder not present" fraud.
"EVERY computer needs an uninterruptible power supply. EVERY one."
It depends on the quality of your power supply, to some degree. I would have thought I personally average about 5 years between mains power outs; that's likely more than the lifetime of the typical PC.
Adding a UPS is also adding another point of failure; I have seen a UPS fail and trip offline for no reason at all.
You're probably right, in that a lot of people run serious servers without a UPS, that could use one. Just not everybody.
I personally got no beef with people paying fees to support their leisure activities on public land. Not quite the same thing as saying I have to pay $xx/year for the right to drive my car
You can drive your car on your own land as much as you like, without a license.
The only people who can effect changes are people who do code, who don't accept this defeatist version of 'reality'. If everyone simply accepted it was unrealistic to be able to personally contribute to anything, well, this world would be a much worse place.
I think you're missing the point; even if you were a top coder, there just isn't enough *time* to get up to speed with more than a handful of projects.
We're not all Don Knuth, and can drop what we're doing for several years and go write a typesetting program because we're unhappy with the current available tools.
It makes no sense at all to think people should all act their way; it really isn't realistic. If (say) gcc blows up you you while you're hacking on a pet project it's just plain unproductive to try changing horses. Just file a bug (politely), move on, and hope that others extend the same courtesy to your efforts.
We do have a Bill of Rights (1689), prohibiting such things as 'cruel and unusual punishment', arbitrary use of royal powers, and establishing the principal of unconditionally free speech in parliament.
Granted, bits of it aren't in force any more, any more than all the wierd bits of the Magna Carta are. It's still an important historical landmark.
Becuase of the whole "innocent until proven guilty (unless a suspected terrorist)" thing, news sources don't say some has commited a crime in the UK, until they have been found guilty. By adding 'allegedly' the news source can't be sued by the person if they are later found innocent.
Also, the UK courts generally take the view that the right of the accused to a fair trial outweighs the freedom of the press (until the trial is over).
News media are always careful not to say anything that might prejudice a trial; even the police won't come right out and say they have caught the guilty party.
As much as we all hate SCO, unfortunately they are right this time. Solaris is built from the original Unix code. There is a direct descendence here, and SCO is absolutely within its rights to tell Sun that they can't sublicense it.
Assuming that they, not Novell, actually own the relevant rights.
But is XFree86 actually dumped? Surely their future work (even if it does come out slowly) will continue to be utilised by X.org.
I doubt it; the contributors will just submit their patches to X.org and get them directly into the mainstream that way. The extra effort required to get them checked into XFree86 is only worthwhile as long as XFree86 is perceived as the 'official' source (whatever that means). Plus X.org can't use just XFree86 code and strip the new licence off it anyway.
"which is an old (70's) system". As long as it's not 30-year-old hardware then the software should still be fine. Why does everyone think that simply because software was written in the past it is bad?
Sadly, it really is running on ~30 year old hardware, at least in part. I've spoken to some of the service engineers.
What an irony that the bbc doesnt carry up to date news about itself.
Some people meet to talk about copyright and licenses isn't really news, except for geeks. Announcing the intention to put the back catalogue on the Net was big news but that was months ago now.
It does not. It just says that the warranty provided and liability are the minimums local law permits. In some places, that may be just meaningless legal boilerplate; ask a local lawyer.
However, I can't see individual developers being held liable by any sane judge for anything short of deliberately malicious coding.
Shimbo, NT is vulnerable - you're just completely wrong. You shouldn't post unless you have your facts straight.
MS04-011 is a consolidated patch fixing several serious vulnerabilities, including the LSASS vulnerability used by Sasser. However, if you drill down a bit in the bulletin, you will find it lists NT4 as not vulnerable.
It's a fad, like anything else. First it was text messages, then it was webbrowsing, now cameras.
There is a big difference; the text messaging craze was a bottom up, user driven thing, that completely took the vendors by surprise. The camera phone thing OTOH, looks like an desperate attempt by the mobile companies to try to earn more revenue, after they got burnt by bidding insanely high for 3G licences.
I think you misunderstand insurance. Either I am going to crash my car, or I am not going to crash my car. If I won't crash my car, then I don't need insurance.
If someone else crashes into your car, then claims it was your fault and tries to sue you for damages, you'll be glad that your insurance company will handle the case. In the same way, I think most of the "SCO has no case, so why insure?" arguments don't get it. We can't all afford IBM's legal team.
The GPL is about Free software and the "software freedoms" defined by the FSF. It is remarkably well-defined, even more well-defined than some closed-source EULAs. It doesn't say anything about advocacy or trademarks (yes, believe it or not, it doesn't say "GNU/Linux" ANYWHERE).
Well that would be kind of hard, seeing as the latest version of the GPL predates Linux. The LGPL, on the other hand, does say "GNU/Linux"
Slashdot Mirror
Then you break backwards compatibility with all of the existing applications that call that API. Compiled code doesn't tend to work nicely when it expects 4 bytes on the stack and gets 8 bytes instead.
True; part of the problem though is that Microsoft doesn't seem to *design* APIs. They just publish the first interface that comes into their head, then when it turns out to be horribly broken, invent another one.
Aside from a few errant copies of FrontPage floating around (you know who you are), the introduction of the stricter-formatted XHTML has given quality-concious designers something they can put faith in.
I find it hard to believe that many people are actually using XHTML, given that Internet Explorer doesn't support it in any real way.
I think you're right in that the web has started (ever so slowly) improving though.
isnt this whats happening in the UK now?
No, what is happening in the UK today is that the cards are being upgraded to smart cards, and the PIN is replacing the signature which is frequently not checked well.
Folks by and large understand the "never give away your PIN" rule. Disclosing your PIN to a web site other than your banks would completely subvert this.
It does not address "cardholder not present" fraud.
"EVERY computer needs an uninterruptible power supply. EVERY one."
It depends on the quality of your power supply, to some degree. I would have thought I personally average about 5 years between mains power outs; that's likely more than the lifetime of the typical PC.
Adding a UPS is also adding another point of failure; I have seen a UPS fail and trip offline for no reason at all.
You're probably right, in that a lot of people run serious servers without a UPS, that could use one. Just not everybody.
I personally got no beef with people paying fees to support their leisure activities on public land. Not quite the same thing as saying I have to pay $xx/year for the right to drive my car
You can drive your car on your own land as much as you like, without a license.
The only people who can effect changes are people who do code, who don't accept this defeatist version of 'reality'. If everyone simply accepted it was unrealistic to be able to personally contribute to anything, well, this world would be a much worse place.
I think you're missing the point; even if you were a top coder, there just isn't enough *time* to get up to speed with more than a handful of projects.
We're not all Don Knuth, and can drop what we're doing for several years and go write a typesetting program because we're unhappy with the current available tools.
It makes no sense at all to think people should all act their way; it really isn't realistic. If (say) gcc blows up you you while you're hacking on a pet project it's just plain unproductive to try changing horses. Just file a bug (politely), move on, and hope that others extend the same courtesy to your efforts.
we might not have a bill of rights
We do have a Bill of Rights (1689), prohibiting such things as 'cruel and unusual punishment', arbitrary use of royal powers, and establishing the principal of unconditionally free speech in parliament.
Granted, bits of it aren't in force any more, any more than all the wierd bits of the Magna Carta are. It's still an important historical landmark.
Becuase of the whole "innocent until proven guilty (unless a suspected terrorist)" thing, news sources don't say some has commited a crime in the UK, until they have been found guilty. By adding 'allegedly' the news source can't be sued by the person if they are later found innocent.
Also, the UK courts generally take the view that the right of the accused to a fair trial outweighs the freedom of the press (until the trial is over).
News media are always careful not to say anything that might prejudice a trial; even the police won't come right out and say they have caught the guilty party.
As much as we all hate SCO, unfortunately they are right this time. Solaris is built from the original Unix code. There is a direct descendence here, and SCO is absolutely within its rights to tell Sun that they can't sublicense it.
Assuming that they, not Novell, actually own the relevant rights.
But is XFree86 actually dumped? Surely their future work (even if it does come out slowly) will continue to be utilised by X.org.
I doubt it; the contributors will just submit their patches to X.org and get them directly into the mainstream that way. The extra effort required to get them checked into XFree86 is only worthwhile as long as XFree86 is perceived as the 'official' source (whatever that means). Plus X.org can't use just XFree86 code and strip the new licence off it anyway.
"which is an old (70's) system". As long as it's not 30-year-old hardware then the software should still be fine. Why does everyone think that simply because software was written in the past it is bad?
Sadly, it really is running on ~30 year old hardware, at least in part. I've spoken to some of the service engineers.
No, I think the writers still didn't quite understand quite how far off they were even if we're talking about 1996.
That is what the guy who built the thing said. I think you underestimate how massively parallel the original machine was.
Colossus would however easily crack Enigma codes quicker than your over-clocked P4.
Minor nit: Lorentz != Enigma.
What an irony that the bbc doesnt carry up to date news about itself.
Some people meet to talk about copyright and licenses isn't really news, except for geeks. Announcing the intention to put the back catalogue on the Net was big news but that was months ago now.
The GPL protects you for this sort of thing.
It does not. It just says that the warranty provided and liability are the minimums local law permits. In some places, that may be just meaningless legal boilerplate; ask a local lawyer.
However, I can't see individual developers being held liable by any sane judge for anything short of deliberately malicious coding.
Shimbo, NT is vulnerable - you're just completely wrong. You shouldn't post unless you have your facts straight.
MS04-011 is a consolidated patch fixing several serious vulnerabilities, including the LSASS vulnerability used by Sasser. However, if you drill down a bit in the bulletin, you will find it lists NT4 as not vulnerable.
I wonder what % of that is forced to move due to the unpatchability of NT4 against recent worms like Sasser?
Doh. NT isn't vulnerable to Sasser.
Strangely enough, Google will help you Go Ogle your porn!
I sense a demerger coming on. "Ogle" to index the porn, "Go" for the rest.
Or the judge who issued it?
It seems entirely reasonable to me, in the first instance, to rule in favour of the spammer.
Spammer: these guys are interfering with my business.
Spamcop: No, we're not.
Judge: Well, just lay off them a bit, while I think about it.
It's a fad, like anything else. First it was text messages, then it was webbrowsing, now cameras.
There is a big difference; the text messaging craze was a bottom up, user driven thing, that completely took the vendors by surprise. The camera phone thing OTOH, looks like an desperate attempt by the mobile companies to try to earn more revenue, after they got burnt by bidding insanely high for 3G licences.
I think you misunderstand insurance. Either I am going to crash my car, or I am not going to crash my car. If I won't crash my car, then I don't need insurance.
If someone else crashes into your car, then claims it was your fault and tries to sue you for damages, you'll be glad that your insurance company will handle the case. In the same way, I think most of the "SCO has no case, so why insure?" arguments don't get it. We can't all afford IBM's legal team.
Well, who is there to do it ? out coastgaurd (for you non-UK is actually called the RNLI which stands for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution)
You are misinformed; the Coastguard *is* a government agency. The RNLI is a fine charity but nothing to do with this story.
I can see the lawsuits now! Either one of these cones feels suicidal and it moves it's self into traffic only to get hit at high speed...
I can see great opportunities for a Robotic Psychiatrist to counsel suicidal and traumatized road cones.
The GPL is about Free software and the "software freedoms" defined by the FSF. It is remarkably well-defined, even more well-defined than some closed-source EULAs. It doesn't say anything about advocacy or trademarks (yes, believe it or not, it doesn't say "GNU/Linux" ANYWHERE).
Well that would be kind of hard, seeing as the latest version of the GPL predates Linux. The LGPL, on the other hand, does say "GNU/Linux"
Read a Microsoft EULA. You do not get a warranty.
You get an implied warranty of fitness for purpose in many juristictions, although that is likely to be limited to a refund.