Back in 90s, we used Linux not only because of open source, but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems — better multitasking, network power features like slirp and masquerading, free developer tools for many languages.
None of what you mention was a unique feature of Linux or even pioneered by it. All of what you talk about were already part of Unix systems that existed prior or was software that existed before Linux even existed and was already cross-platform.
It's easy to beat your chest about war and call other people weak when you're nothing but a keyboard warrior who doesn't have to be accountable for the consequences of a military action.
They have a responsibility to set honest expections to their superiors and if your superiors refuse to acknowledge the consensus of their underlings then the underlings should as a group, appeal to the next level up regarding the incompetence of the yahoo that expects the fucking pony.
And then you get fired for being a troublemaker. Thanks for your delusional postings. I'll be sure to pass them around to the rest of my team for a good laugh.
Developers ignore security reports and will mark most of the issues as false positive because they don't want to do defensive programming. They even will use years old outdated libraries, known to have security holes, to develop new features because they would have to learn the new APIs of the new versions and that would hinder their perceived development speed.
You act as if the developer has a choice in 99.9% of the cases. You must live in a wonderful alternate universe from the one where most programmers work.
If a programmer is even thinking a little about security, or is even informed what typical security problems are, then they start writing better code. But most programmers don't think about security at all.
And then the programmer wakes up into the reality of the fact that their manager demands that the product be done yesterday and far under budget leaving them next to no time to worry about such issues.
By that logic, there should be no automobile, construction, or medical device industries.
At least in the automobile and medical device industries, most of the players are huge megacorps who can afford the liability insurance and lawyers when it comes to lawsuits. Do you really want a software world where only the likes of companies like Oracle can play because they're the only ones who can afford the liability costs?
Not every company. Companies like Oracle/Microsoft/Apple/IBM would be able to afford it. But it would destroy basically almost all non-commercial open source software and most if not all small/medium software companies.
Basically the GPs idea would leave us ONLY with companies like Oracle being able to afford to write software.
Have fun having most open source software disappear since no one will be able to afford the equivalent of malpractice insurance. The only thing you'll be left with is megacorps writing software that will be able to afford to shield themselves.
As opposed to the ones that are taking it up the rump from Big Oil, and are rather obvious in their defense of the status quo?
That's an amazingly poor leap of logic. I own an EV so I'm hardly against them. I am against the Musk Defense Force that can't stand that anyone might dare to criticize their messiah.
I'm rather disappointed
Shall I call the waaahmbulance?
to see someone that styles themselves "Linux Nutcase" fail a bias check.
Yeah sorry. No. History doesn't actually bear out your story.
[quote]It sued Consumer Reports the following year, and although they would settle out of court eight years later, Suzuki probably came out looking worse. The problem was that a Suzuki internal memo from 1985 surfaced, saying "It is imperative that we develop a crisis plan that will primarily deal with the "roll" factor. Because of the narrow wheelbase, similar to the Jeep, the car is bound to turn over." The Pinto-like paper trail would have surely been even more damaging if Suzuki hadn't already pulled the vehicle out of North America. Suzuki would eventually admit to having knowledge of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries as the result of rollover, and would settle some 200 lawsuits.[/quote]
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's a joke. iamacat is just talking about things that could be done on almost any Unix system.
Back in 90s, we used Linux not only because of open source, but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems — better multitasking, network power features like slirp and masquerading, free developer tools for many languages.
None of what you mention was a unique feature of Linux or even pioneered by it. All of what you talk about were already part of Unix systems that existed prior or was software that existed before Linux even existed and was already cross-platform.
It's easy to beat your chest about war and call other people weak when you're nothing but a keyboard warrior who doesn't have to be accountable for the consequences of a military action.
A bidet isn't that advanced.
Alphabet didn't even exist when they started all of this.
No, I'm merely pointing out reality. You live in fantasy land.
They have a responsibility to set honest expections to their superiors and if your superiors refuse to acknowledge the consensus of their underlings then the underlings should as a group, appeal to the next level up regarding the incompetence of the yahoo that expects the fucking pony.
And then you get fired for being a troublemaker. Thanks for your delusional postings. I'll be sure to pass them around to the rest of my team for a good laugh.
There is no excuse for not using defensive programming.....
"It's not a business goal that will drive sales."
- Manager
Most of the time they do because they set the requirements and estimates.
Hahahahahaha. +5 funny. Yeah, you do live in a fantasy world.
Developers ignore security reports and will mark most of the issues as false positive because they don't want to do defensive programming. They even will use years old outdated libraries, known to have security holes, to develop new features because they would have to learn the new APIs of the new versions and that would hinder their perceived development speed.
You act as if the developer has a choice in 99.9% of the cases. You must live in a wonderful alternate universe from the one where most programmers work.
If a programmer is even thinking a little about security, or is even informed what typical security problems are, then they start writing better code. But most programmers don't think about security at all.
And then the programmer wakes up into the reality of the fact that their manager demands that the product be done yesterday and far under budget leaving them next to no time to worry about such issues.
By that logic, there should be no automobile, construction, or medical device industries.
At least in the automobile and medical device industries, most of the players are huge megacorps who can afford the liability insurance and lawyers when it comes to lawsuits. Do you really want a software world where only the likes of companies like Oracle can play because they're the only ones who can afford the liability costs?
Not every company. Companies like Oracle/Microsoft/Apple/IBM would be able to afford it. But it would destroy basically almost all non-commercial open source software and most if not all small/medium software companies.
Basically the GPs idea would leave us ONLY with companies like Oracle being able to afford to write software.
Have fun having most open source software disappear since no one will be able to afford the equivalent of malpractice insurance. The only thing you'll be left with is megacorps writing software that will be able to afford to shield themselves.
I'd just be happy with BuzzFeed going out of business.
You say "duh" and be glad you continued ad blocking? Why would anyone trust an advertiser?
213 deaths and 8200 injuries due to rollovers.
http://www.carbuzz.com/news/20...
As opposed to the ones that are taking it up the rump from Big Oil, and are rather obvious in their defense of the status quo?
That's an amazingly poor leap of logic. I own an EV so I'm hardly against them. I am against the Musk Defense Force that can't stand that anyone might dare to criticize their messiah.
I'm rather disappointed
Shall I call the waaahmbulance?
to see someone that styles themselves "Linux Nutcase" fail a bias check.
That isn't my handle.
Enjoy your STDs.
Probably not optimally since it's for scientific visualization not gaming.
Yeah sorry. No. History doesn't actually bear out your story.
[quote]It sued Consumer Reports the following year, and although they would settle out of court eight years later, Suzuki probably came out looking worse. The problem was that a Suzuki internal memo from 1985 surfaced, saying "It is imperative that we develop a crisis plan that will primarily deal with the "roll" factor. Because of the narrow wheelbase, similar to the Jeep, the car is bound to turn over." The Pinto-like paper trail would have surely been even more damaging if Suzuki hadn't already pulled the vehicle out of North America. Suzuki would eventually admit to having knowledge of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries as the result of rollover, and would settle some 200 lawsuits.[/quote]
http://www.carbuzz.com/news/20...
Cool story. So people should just buy completely blind on new car models? Yeah, that sounds real consumer friendly.
Because they're a far more reliable source of information than the people who fall over themselves to fellate Musk?
Or it merely means they are updating their rating as more data comes in? How horrible of them!
Wow what great legal analysis that is invalidated within seconds by a Google search.