Well, they also say that 75% of all statistics are made up...
Joking aside, there's something to be said for ethics. Sure, I know tons of passwords. But I would never use them without permission or for a reason other than what they were given to me for.
Here's an alternate scenario: Apple had been receiving a little bit of flak from tech sites and consumers about the 3G problems. Not a whole lot, but enough to raise a few eyebrows among the management if they happened to read those news sources almost exclusively. They might have put the update on their phones, noticed no problems, and then immediately insisted on pushing the update. But we really don't know what happened, and probably never will.
It's pretty sad that the 3G iPhone is running into problems. Especially since it has such high visibility due to everyone wanting one.
But the real kicker is that this is Apple's own hardware. I can understand when Microsoft's updates fail (at least to some extent) because of the multitude of different machines trying to run the software. But Apple owns the specs and built the machines. To me, failed software updates from them are inexcusable, but likely the fault of the bean-counters with MBA's (I like that expression for some reason, but I can't remember who to attribute it to) pushing out the update too fast.
Based on other comments, I get the impression that this news is a little outdated, and I know that anti-Apple statements are a sure-fire way to get modded down. But please: consider all the factors of Apple products, especially if Apple insists on preventing other companies from writing OSes for their devices.
I ask, "to whom?". The ISPs are not the only ones who want (to use a generalization) the traffic of subscribers to be monitored. I think you overestimate the power of the consumers in this case.
FYI: the scheduler is part of the OS kernel which decides which process/thread to run next.
Sorry...the first post wasn't specific enough and I read it as a scheduler for processes i.e. cron.
A better analogy: suppose Microsoft implemented ext2 in Windows, but not fsck. Is it Linux's fault that you can't use volumes from a hard drive that Linux did not mount properly?
The point I'm trying to get across is that, for example, there is a big difference between Linux wanting to use NTFS and Windows wanting to use ext2. The NTFS spec is a trade secret, and all work that has been done with ntfs-3g has been essentially hacking around a black box. The reason why there is not a chkdsk implementation in Linux is because that box is so secretive in the way it handles internal corruption (which is the nature of file systems, I know) and fixes itself that we can only chip away at it, hoping to get lucky and consistent. If Microsoft wanted to use ext2, then it's much easier: the spec is open, the code is open. Anyone could port fsck at will to Windows in that case if Microsoft didn't do it for them (and if Microsoft decided to close the source for its implementation of ext2, it definitely wouldn't be Linux's fault).
I know this is Linux's problem, but certainly not the developers' fault. If you really want an analogy, think of it as trying to crack the trade-secret recipe for Coca-Cola. You can get close, but without knowing the exact ingredients and processes...you get the idea. If Microsoft opened up NTFS your arguments would hold, but until then...
The code for Linux is open sourced, so if you insist on using the scheduler on Windows, there's no need to blame the community. Port it yourself, wait, or shut the fuck up. Since you're just being a smart-ass, I recommend the third option.
And if you're talking about cron, use Cygwin. If it's something else, see the above.
Not Microsoft's problem...Microsoft's mistake. Or, more likely, its clever ploy. Since the filesystem is locked down to a Microsoft operating system in the event of an improper shutdown, NTFS becomes a terrible system to work with when using Linux. If they actually were encouraging interoperability as they like to claim they are, then this wouldn't even be an issue. But they don't release anything to help with the chkdsk issue, and so this persists.
It is Linux's problem, but Microsoft's fault. As usual.
Ubutnu hangs whenever I try to force the mounting of a "dirty" ntfs volume (ie window didn't shut down correctly) with ntfs-3g through truecrypt.
That's technically a Microsoft thing. While Ubuntu should probably handle the error better and anticipate that sort of thing, NTFS is designed not to mount if chkdsk has not been run after a bad restart from the Windows side, and no substitute for chkdsk has been developed (that I know of). This could easily be avoided by removing all of the important data from your Windows partition and and deleting that partition:).
No, I mean it's time to do with this information what was done with the DVD key a while back. I believed this was a simple enough jump that it did not require an explanation. I had not planned on you and whoever modded you "insightful" not understanding the reference.
That's the problem. Everyone on Slashdot knows that, but many other people couldn't begin to tell you how a DVD stores data and is read, except for knowing that scratching the thing up is probably a bad idea.
The marketing people realize that people don't see data as something tangible. And so formats will continue to abound every time the industry wants a fresh load of cash from people buying the same stuff all over again.
I think it would take you a long time to make a complex change to the source code.
Well, yeah. It would take anyone a while if they were unfamiliar with a complex program.
A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting the "book" comment I made. I don't sit there reading a book, nodding my head every once in a while, and then claim knowledge of the subject. I learn by doing it. I see what concept the chapter is introducing and then write a program to test that concept and learn it firsthand.
But then again, I was never formally trained to program, so I have no preconceived notion that the only way to learn something is to have someone teach it to you and then get a degree in the subject. I don't claim to be an expert either. I just do the job I'm paid for.
This is why I said learning a new programming language was NOT like learning Japanese. True, legacy systems use older versions of a language. But there are still a limited number of commands which are well-documented.
I work with legacy systems a little (but not COBOL) and I say this from experience: deciphering someone's shitty programming style in an antiquated language sucks. But it's doable with little training in the language.
Why do people think it's so hard for a new person to learn COBOL? It's not exactly like learning Japanese: find a good reference book, write a few practice programs, and voila.
I personally haven't needed to learn COBOL, but I see no reason why that strategy I just described, which has worked for me with every programming language I've ever learned, can't be applied here.
What kind of programmer can't learn a language like COBOL and start figuring out how to fix the system?
As has been stated before, it's really all just politics. Of course any descent programmer can pick up any language at least well enough to modify existing code, even if the code is relatively obscured. But the general public doesn't know that, and so the controller is using it as a defense.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they also say that 75% of all statistics are made up...
Joking aside, there's something to be said for ethics. Sure, I know tons of passwords. But I would never use them without permission or for a reason other than what they were given to me for.
The new plan for Mozilla:
What could possibly go wrong?
Here's an alternate scenario: Apple had been receiving a little bit of flak from tech sites and consumers about the 3G problems. Not a whole lot, but enough to raise a few eyebrows among the management if they happened to read those news sources almost exclusively. They might have put the update on their phones, noticed no problems, and then immediately insisted on pushing the update. But we really don't know what happened, and probably never will.
We would let it outside on a leach during the summer usually.
I really, really hope you meant "leash".
It's pretty sad that the 3G iPhone is running into problems. Especially since it has such high visibility due to everyone wanting one.
But the real kicker is that this is Apple's own hardware. I can understand when Microsoft's updates fail (at least to some extent) because of the multitude of different machines trying to run the software. But Apple owns the specs and built the machines. To me, failed software updates from them are inexcusable, but likely the fault of the bean-counters with MBA's (I like that expression for some reason, but I can't remember who to attribute it to) pushing out the update too fast.
Based on other comments, I get the impression that this news is a little outdated, and I know that anti-Apple statements are a sure-fire way to get modded down. But please: consider all the factors of Apple products, especially if Apple insists on preventing other companies from writing OSes for their devices.
And say "No".
I ask, "to whom?". The ISPs are not the only ones who want (to use a generalization) the traffic of subscribers to be monitored. I think you overestimate the power of the consumers in this case.
How about killing Mao's minions? Or make a Bushinstein? Or Putinstein, or Chavezstein, or Obamastein...
If you have information on who Obama has killed, please inform the rest of us.
now.
Fortunately, though, it has since lost its original meaning, at least in the connotative sense. Like the word "sucks".
As far as I can tell, there's no program called NTFSCHECK in NTFSPROGS. There is NTFSFIX, but here's the description:
ntfsfix - Fix common filesystem errors and force Windows to check NTFS.
So it's not exactly a replacement, then...
FYI: the scheduler is part of the OS kernel which decides which process/thread to run next.
Sorry...the first post wasn't specific enough and I read it as a scheduler for processes i.e. cron.
A better analogy: suppose Microsoft implemented ext2 in Windows, but not fsck. Is it Linux's fault that you can't use volumes from a hard drive that Linux did not mount properly?
The point I'm trying to get across is that, for example, there is a big difference between Linux wanting to use NTFS and Windows wanting to use ext2. The NTFS spec is a trade secret, and all work that has been done with ntfs-3g has been essentially hacking around a black box. The reason why there is not a chkdsk implementation in Linux is because that box is so secretive in the way it handles internal corruption (which is the nature of file systems, I know) and fixes itself that we can only chip away at it, hoping to get lucky and consistent. If Microsoft wanted to use ext2, then it's much easier: the spec is open, the code is open. Anyone could port fsck at will to Windows in that case if Microsoft didn't do it for them (and if Microsoft decided to close the source for its implementation of ext2, it definitely wouldn't be Linux's fault).
I know this is Linux's problem, but certainly not the developers' fault. If you really want an analogy, think of it as trying to crack the trade-secret recipe for Coca-Cola. You can get close, but without knowing the exact ingredients and processes...you get the idea. If Microsoft opened up NTFS your arguments would hold, but until then...
The code for Linux is open sourced, so if you insist on using the scheduler on Windows, there's no need to blame the community. Port it yourself, wait, or shut the fuck up. Since you're just being a smart-ass, I recommend the third option.
And if you're talking about cron, use Cygwin. If it's something else, see the above.
Not Microsoft's problem...Microsoft's mistake. Or, more likely, its clever ploy. Since the filesystem is locked down to a Microsoft operating system in the event of an improper shutdown, NTFS becomes a terrible system to work with when using Linux. If they actually were encouraging interoperability as they like to claim they are, then this wouldn't even be an issue. But they don't release anything to help with the chkdsk issue, and so this persists.
It is Linux's problem, but Microsoft's fault. As usual.
Ubutnu hangs whenever I try to force the mounting of a "dirty" ntfs volume (ie window didn't shut down correctly) with ntfs-3g through truecrypt.
That's technically a Microsoft thing. While Ubuntu should probably handle the error better and anticipate that sort of thing, NTFS is designed not to mount if chkdsk has not been run after a bad restart from the Windows side, and no substitute for chkdsk has been developed (that I know of). This could easily be avoided by removing all of the important data from your Windows partition and and deleting that partition :).
No, I mean it's time to do with this information what was done with the DVD key a while back. I believed this was a simple enough jump that it did not require an explanation. I had not planned on you and whoever modded you "insightful" not understanding the reference.
I hope so. It's Digg time!
I found this in about a minute: The COBOL Center. The IBM Bookshelf seems like it would be pretty good.
I'm not sure if they have physical books, though.
It's just data, and everybody knows that.
That's the problem. Everyone on Slashdot knows that, but many other people couldn't begin to tell you how a DVD stores data and is read, except for knowing that scratching the thing up is probably a bad idea.
The marketing people realize that people don't see data as something tangible. And so formats will continue to abound every time the industry wants a fresh load of cash from people buying the same stuff all over again.
I think it would take you a long time to make a complex change to the source code.
Well, yeah. It would take anyone a while if they were unfamiliar with a complex program.
A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting the "book" comment I made. I don't sit there reading a book, nodding my head every once in a while, and then claim knowledge of the subject. I learn by doing it. I see what concept the chapter is introducing and then write a program to test that concept and learn it firsthand.
But then again, I was never formally trained to program, so I have no preconceived notion that the only way to learn something is to have someone teach it to you and then get a degree in the subject. I don't claim to be an expert either. I just do the job I'm paid for.
This is why I said learning a new programming language was NOT like learning Japanese. True, legacy systems use older versions of a language. But there are still a limited number of commands which are well-documented.
I work with legacy systems a little (but not COBOL) and I say this from experience: deciphering someone's shitty programming style in an antiquated language sucks. But it's doable with little training in the language.
Why do people think it's so hard for a new person to learn COBOL? It's not exactly like learning Japanese: find a good reference book, write a few practice programs, and voila.
I personally haven't needed to learn COBOL, but I see no reason why that strategy I just described, which has worked for me with every programming language I've ever learned, can't be applied here.
More than a thousand words, a human life.
If a picture is worth a human life, it must either be a very worthless life or a very expensive picture.
Is the picture really worth a thousand words? I think the summary is more than enough.
What kind of programmer can't learn a language like COBOL and start figuring out how to fix the system?
As has been stated before, it's really all just politics. Of course any descent programmer can pick up any language at least well enough to modify existing code, even if the code is relatively obscured. But the general public doesn't know that, and so the controller is using it as a defense.
The company has now decided that it might be a good idea to encrypt the data in their systems.
Then they've clearly hired the wrong people for the job. But since when is news like this anything new?