No, if you write beautiful, maintainable code then you won't get replaced by someone who prefers to hack together something that just works. Decent employers recognize excellence, especially when the project's lifespan is measured in months or years, not days or weeks.
I'm psyched about the I300 because it's smaller and lighter than my Palm VIIx, but manages to squeeze in a color screen and a real TCP stack (the lack of which pisses me off about the VIIx). I know that it won't hold a candle to the VIIx as far as battery life is concerned, but I'm one of those people who recharges my devices religiously anyway.
Of course, the color doesn't really matter all that much to me- I use the Palm mostly for Address/DateBook/AvantGo/Vindigo, none of which use color (at least not effectively). The only bonus I found with color on my IIIc was that the games are all cooler than their mono equivalents.
We do (well, we will Real Soon Now). Check out the Samsung I300.
Why are we still milking the mono LCD market for them?
Because with mono screens our devices are smaller, cheaper, and our batteries last longer. By all means, if you want a big, heavy, expensive device with a short battery life, ignore Palm and go for a PocketPC.
Microsoft would never be able to get away with this?
Consider Windows.
It starts off initially as a program that runs on top of DOS to let you run programs with a consisten GUI. Then they turn it into an operating system, so you can't have the DOS without the Windows. Then they install all this other software like a web browser with it and make it impossible to rid yourself of that browser. Then they release a new version of Windows that stores your authentication information with Microsoft, and they start linking that information to every piece of data that they or their partners collect about you.
No, you don't have to worry about Gator. You have a choice there. Gator doesn't install itself, you install it.
You do have to worry about Microsoft, because it's darn near impossible to make a comfortable living these days without having to interact with them in one way or another.
You have been owned.
Re:And it goes marching on
on
Shirky On P2P
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the firewall? Besides some sanity checks, firewalls are designed to block the flow of data to unwanted hosts and/or ports.
Yes. That's why I used "properly". Everything that firewalls do can be done better by applying the policy where it belongs (i.e. the router or host), so the only way to "properly" configure one is to open it up.
Apache and IIS support using multiple language to develop apps while my homemade
webserver only supports C++. Does this mean my webserver is of higher quality than Apache or IIS?
Wasn't trying to imply that Intel's compiler was of higher quality than GCC (since we haven't settled on a metric for quality yet, have we?). Just that it probably produces more efficient code for the P4 than GCC does. Regarding the webservers, I'm gonna guess that yours has less overhead (and therefore perhaps higher performance) than IIS and Apache.
not because of any nebulous concept as
compiler bloat.
Very well, "compiler bloat" is a nebulous concept. I simply observed that you were measuring compilers based on their output, in response to a post accusing GCC of being bloated in comparison to Intel's compiler. I tried to point out that perhaps that original poster's claim that Intel's compiler might produce faster code due to its single-minded focus implies that he considers the lack of focus in GCC to be "bloat" that Linus referred to. So the original poster seemed to have a very clear, albeit implied, definition of compiler bloat, and you seemed to agree with him to some extent based on your metric for compiler quality, in a message titled "Bloated compiler?". That, sir, was my point. My apologies for not being more clear to begin with.
I'm not exactly sure what
compiler bloat is supposed to mean since what matters is the assemby the compiler generates
Yeah, just like I don't know what word processor bloat is since what matters is what the document looks like [Word]. Or what's text editor bloat since what matters is the text generated [Emacs] (/me ducks). And what is language bloat [C++] since what matters is the implementation of the compiler? [g++] Oh hey, no wonder they've had such a hard time producing a good compiler... wonder if it's bloated like some of the languages it compiles?
Point is, I'm betting that a compiler written for a specific chip and specific language (i.e. Intel's compiler) will perform better (i.e. produce better code) than a "compiler collection" wuth multiple pluggable front- and back-ends, all other things being equal. (Not that all other things necessarily are equal in this case (Go GNU!).)
P.S. I don't think your trolling will help to improve the quality of the posts on Slashdot.
i prefer none of the above- it was just a reference to the HumanML story posted earlier today.
the idea of haxxors marking up their irc comments using xml just strikes me as hilarious. before long it will spread to teens using IM, then to Islamic men divorcing their wives over SMS.
GameCube debunks GameSphere! GameSphere is stupid and evil!
(if you don't get it then just move along. there's nothing to see here, folks.)
Re:And it goes marching on
on
Shirky On P2P
·
· Score: 1
if DHCP and DNS is configured properly, the client can update the DNS server, so the DNS server is kept up to date.
While this is true, I've never seen a network with DHCP and DNS configured to do this (and I've been lots of places with DHCP). Hence my inclusion of it in my tirade.
Heck, one could argue that if your firewall is configured "properly", then all traffic can pass through it in both directions. But I haven't seen any firewalls configured that way, either.
And it goes marching on
on
Shirky On P2P
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I never cease to be amazed by how much effort is put into creating new ill-conceived technologies to work around old ill-conceived technologies. For example,
because we chopped up the IP address space based on byte boundaries rather than bit boundaries, an artificial scarcity was created that led (in part) to the widespread use of DHCP and NAT
DHCP and NAT arguably broke DNS and prevented people from running traditional server processes on their boxen so we created P2P software
due to the numerous security problems that surface (due primarily to misconfigurations) we invent firewalls that block traffic
due to firewalls blocking everything but HTTP, we invent a whole new protocol stack on top of HTTP (i.e. SOAP)
and so on and so on... I'd include the push of XML to "fix" the problem of differing binary data formats, and the creation of XML Schemas to make up for the lost type information in all those mismatching DTDs and so on. But you all get the point.
I do admit that the ultimate goal of the web services vision is admirable, but it seems to me to be just a bloated (UDDI+WSDL+SOAP+XMLSchema+HTTP(+P2P?)) version of what many software agent research groups have been after for years. Come on people, stop the insanity! There's gotta be a better way!
(and no, I didn't read the whole article, i had to stop and release the built up rant pressure before the insanity blew my head open. go ahead and mod me down for being an offtopic troll now.)
YOU SHOULD CONSIDER SSH TO BE EFFECTIVELY EQUIVALENT TO NO ENCRYPTION AT ALL.
Well, not exactly. See, I don't really care if people can recover the English text that I type in an ssh session, since it's generally email which will be sent out unencrypted anyway. But I do care that they don't recover my password. And since my password isn't English, it has more than 1.2 bits of entropy per character. (let's see, upper+lower+num+puct... about 6 bits per character).
So while I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is a serious attack, I don't agree that it reduces the security of ssh to that of telnet.
Where does it say the overflow was not exploitable?
On the line of text immeadiately following what you quoted, it says "* Update: Turns out that this was not exploitable in any of the software included in OpenBSD 2.6."
By fudging OpenBSD's security record by redefining it when there's an issue, they lull themselves into a false sense of security.
When have they redefined it? (No, really, I'm curious.) I don't see a track record of them trying to cover up security problems. For example, the front page of their web site used to say "Two years without a local root exploit" but along came a local root exploit and instead of changing what "local root exploit" meant, they dropped the claim.
"Making it purtier" is hardly a Next Big Thing. In any case, my desktop is already great looking.
Um, yeah. And Windows 95 was pretty when it came out, compared to Windows 3.1. Or KDE 1.0 was pretty compared to, say CDE.
Enlightenment has consistently been the "purtiest" window manager out there, and much of the beauty on the linux desktop today is due to imitations of E's innovation. It's looking like E17 will once again set the standard that everyone else aspires to.
Hey guy- people were doing alpha blending and altialiasing long, long before OS X came out. Believe me, "display PDF" is not the origination of those concepts. Further, Raster was demonstrating early working concepts of how alpha and antialiasing would work in E17 long before OS X was available.
Um, you got a source to cite for that one? According to the OpenBSD web site the buffer overflow in RSAREF (which is what I assume you're talking about) was not exploitable on OpenBSD.
So I'm curious to see where your info came from, because if it's true, then I'm sure the good folks who manage the OpenBSD site will update it. Hell, if you really find an exploit, I'll setup a box with an unpatched 2.6 install to test it on.
AMD is currently shipping the processors, and expects widespread availability in systems in conjunction with the launch of Microsoft's Windows XP operating system, which is set for Oct. 25, AMD says.
and not
AMD is currently shipping the processors, and expects widespread availability in systems in conjunction with the launch of Linux kernel 2.4.12, which is set for Oct. 25, AMD says.
I mean, come on, AMD, what has Microsoft done for you lately? Linux users are your true fans, your true friends. Tell us what we want to hear!
Slashdot Mirror
No, if you write beautiful, maintainable code then you won't get replaced by someone who prefers to hack together something that just works. Decent employers recognize excellence, especially when the project's lifespan is measured in months or years, not days or weeks.
I'm psyched about the I300 because it's smaller and lighter than my Palm VIIx, but manages to squeeze in a color screen and a real TCP stack (the lack of which pisses me off about the VIIx). I know that it won't hold a candle to the VIIx as far as battery life is concerned, but I'm one of those people who recharges my devices religiously anyway.
Of course, the color doesn't really matter all that much to me- I use the Palm mostly for Address/DateBook/AvantGo/Vindigo, none of which use color (at least not effectively). The only bonus I found with color on my IIIc was that the games are all cooler than their mono equivalents.
Now if only they came out with a GPRS version...
Um, how do you intend to do routing then, when you have things like mobile devices that move from one network to another?
not legally. well, not in the US at least.
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."
Microsoft would never be able to get away with this?
Consider Windows.
It starts off initially as a program that runs on top of DOS to let you run programs with a consisten GUI. Then they turn it into an operating system, so you can't have the DOS without the Windows. Then they install all this other software like a web browser with it and make it impossible to rid yourself of that browser. Then they release a new version of Windows that stores your authentication information with Microsoft, and they start linking that information to every piece of data that they or their partners collect about you.
No, you don't have to worry about Gator. You have a choice there. Gator doesn't install itself, you install it.
You do have to worry about Microsoft, because it's darn near impossible to make a comfortable living these days without having to interact with them in one way or another.
You have been owned.
Point is, I'm betting that a compiler written for a specific chip and specific language (i.e. Intel's compiler) will perform better (i.e. produce better code) than a "compiler collection" wuth multiple pluggable front- and back-ends, all other things being equal. (Not that all other things necessarily are equal in this case (Go GNU!).)
P.S. I don't think your trolling will help to improve the quality of the posts on Slashdot.
i prefer none of the above- it was just a reference to the HumanML story posted earlier today.
the idea of haxxors marking up their irc comments using xml just strikes me as hilarious. before long it will spread to teens using IM, then to Islamic men divorcing their wives over SMS.
don't you mean:
<laughing volume="out loud">On slashdot?</laughing>
(if you don't get it then just move along. there's nothing to see here, folks.)
Heck, one could argue that if your firewall is configured "properly", then all traffic can pass through it in both directions. But I haven't seen any firewalls configured that way, either.
- because we chopped up the IP address space based on byte boundaries rather than bit boundaries, an artificial scarcity was created that led (in part) to the widespread use of DHCP and NAT
- DHCP and NAT arguably broke DNS and prevented people from running traditional server processes on their boxen so we created P2P software
- due to the numerous security problems that surface (due primarily to misconfigurations) we invent firewalls that block traffic
- due to firewalls blocking everything but HTTP, we invent a whole new protocol stack on top of HTTP (i.e. SOAP)
and so on and so on... I'd include the push of XML to "fix" the problem of differing binary data formats, and the creation of XML Schemas to make up for the lost type information in all those mismatching DTDs and so on. But you all get the point.I do admit that the ultimate goal of the web services vision is admirable, but it seems to me to be just a bloated (UDDI+WSDL+SOAP+XMLSchema+HTTP(+P2P?)) version of what many software agent research groups have been after for years. Come on people, stop the insanity! There's gotta be a better way!
(and no, I didn't read the whole article, i had to stop and release the built up rant pressure before the insanity blew my head open. go ahead and mod me down for being an offtopic troll now.)
Doh! Sorry, forgot to take into account the whole hive mind thing.
Hey read the /. writeup. It was michael, not CmdrTaco.
So while I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is a serious attack, I don't agree that it reduces the security of ssh to that of telnet.
If it's for the record, then you ought to say TLS (not TSL), unless of course you're trying to throw "them" off track!
Actually, I was seeking a source for the claim that OpenBSD 2.6 had "a remotely exploitable root exploit."
Sorry for the confusion.
Enlightenment has consistently been the "purtiest" window manager out there, and much of the beauty on the linux desktop today is due to imitations of E's innovation. It's looking like E17 will once again set the standard that everyone else aspires to.
Hey guy- people were doing alpha blending and altialiasing long, long before OS X came out. Believe me, "display PDF" is not the origination of those concepts. Further, Raster was demonstrating early working concepts of how alpha and antialiasing would work in E17 long before OS X was available.
So I'm curious to see where your info came from, because if it's true, then I'm sure the good folks who manage the OpenBSD site will update it. Hell, if you really find an exploit, I'll setup a box with an unpatched 2.6 install to test it on.