Indians are more efficient at technical jobs like software engineering
Really? I suppose it depends on the target industry sector you're talking about, and how much you care about the quality of the end product. While India enjoys a reputation for low cost development in terms of outsourced hourly rates, that reputation does not extend to the quality and usability of the systems produced in many cases. Thus, the actual delivery time and total project cost winds up being grossly miscalculated at the outset.
Note that this doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, but it does have a lot to do with communication barriers with customers (a problem not reserved for Indian firms; it's common to projects outsourced to other nations as well). Unfortunately, that's a tough problem to solve, as it's not merely technical in nature.
Incidentally, I find your assertion that Indians are inherently "better" at software engineering to be rather racist.
You seem to be largely agreeing with me on the major points here and extending their premise, but I'll expand on a couple of points.
To bottom line it, people need to be educated about how all this "stuff" works. When they start to understand that they have zero control and are basically being treated like 4-year olds with their property, I expect change will come then.
This depends on people caring to learn about the platforms they use every day. Unfortunately, most folks won't bother, and will complain at every turn when things don't work the way they want on platforms designed to allow them the luxury of "not worrying about managing them."
Finding some way of making learning about a platform an appealing idea, or at least making it profitable for other organizations outside the primary vendor to learn about it and support it (and the data that resides on it) would go a long way toward mitigating the risks you've described.
I'd love to see an open platform, perhaps built on Linux or BSD and running truly open userland software, that offered the same type of services the major players in the market now seem to have a stranglehold on. I don't see how this will play to the network operators' ongoing aspirations toward sharing total control over platform with primary device vendors, but one can hope for better options in the future. If enough market demand were present, it would happen rapidly. Unfortunately, my first expanded point seems to make that rather unlikely.
Sounds like a good reason to back up unencrypted copies of your data. I don't put a lot of faith in software on any platform, which is why backups are important. Then there's the hardware failure side of things, which further bolsters the need for backups; what if you dropped your phone in the toilet?
I just take the old-fashioned approach of thoroughly cleaning my shower from overhead to deck. Oh, wait... that's the Navy approach;). I guess some habits are worth something.
You're right; upon further consideration, I consider the number of apps available in the App Store pretty impressive considering their attitude regarding platform control (impressive in the "wow, I can't believe so many people actually jumped through all those hoops" sense).
Apple cares as much about control over the application development platform as they do about the number of apps in their store. Look, I don't hate Apple or anything (hell, I'm posting this from a new MacBook Pro), but the truth is the truth.
It's good to see some progress being made in the formalization of standards for accepting electronic signatures. I'm reminded of the issues with conventional legal guidelines surrounding hand-written signatures, and look forward to cryptographically verifiable alternatives.
won't someone think of the viruses? I'm going to pen a letter to the Amercian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Microscopic Organisms That May Or May Not Be Alive immediately!
If no one from Microsoft wants to maintain it, then the code is going to be dropped from the kernel.
You apparently assume entirely too much. I'm quite familiar with "common practices" for kernel development; I've been using and developing for Linux and BSD-based systems since 1996. Frankly, I don't care if their code is "up to standards" or not; if it isn't, it'll get dropped, and I'm fine with that.
Let's have a little positive reinforcement for doing the right thing, even in light of the circumstances. This can go a long way toward encouraging developers within Microsoft to push open source initiatives in the company, whereas lambasting them at every opportunity does nothing but reinforce stereotypes about "crazy open source people" in their community.
Frankly, I don't care if the code only benefits Microsoft customers. I choose to use Linux on my servers, along with Linux and MacOS X on the desktop. That doesn't mean open source code targeted at my platforms is any more "worthy" than code targeted at Windows. To believe otherwise is simply naive. People use what they believe best fits their needs; I encourage open behavior on any platform.
I have to admit, that's one of the funniest ways I've heard such a process described:). All the same, they have released the code. This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it certainly won't be the last. I'd just like to see more positive reinforcement, lest their devs lose any inclination to release code voluntarily in the future.
I don't get it. Microsoft donates code to the community, licensed under the GPL. Anyone is free to do whatever they like with this code (well, within the constraints of the license), and people are actually bitching about this? I've released quite a few pieces of software under various OSI licenses, and I don't actively maintain the code. If somebody else wants to, fine. Would everyone be happier if Microsoft weren't releasing anything at all?
I use Debian for almost all my server needs, and I'm a big fan of Ubuntu on the desktop. That said, I'm certainly not going to bitch at someone or some company because they aren't slaving away maintaining code I got free of charge.
Until I can determine otherwise, I've got to retract my statement that this is fixed in Debian. I can't find any noise on any lists about this particular CVE with respect to Debian. I'll keep watching it, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You had sex with Barry White?
Indians are more efficient at technical jobs like software engineering
Really? I suppose it depends on the target industry sector you're talking about, and how much you care about the quality of the end product. While India enjoys a reputation for low cost development in terms of outsourced hourly rates, that reputation does not extend to the quality and usability of the systems produced in many cases. Thus, the actual delivery time and total project cost winds up being grossly miscalculated at the outset.
Note that this doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, but it does have a lot to do with communication barriers with customers (a problem not reserved for Indian firms; it's common to projects outsourced to other nations as well). Unfortunately, that's a tough problem to solve, as it's not merely technical in nature.
Incidentally, I find your assertion that Indians are inherently "better" at software engineering to be rather racist.
Are you fully aware of where you're posting?
To bottom line it, people need to be educated about how all this "stuff" works. When they start to understand that they have zero control and are basically being treated like 4-year olds with their property, I expect change will come then.
This depends on people caring to learn about the platforms they use every day. Unfortunately, most folks won't bother, and will complain at every turn when things don't work the way they want on platforms designed to allow them the luxury of "not worrying about managing them."
Finding some way of making learning about a platform an appealing idea, or at least making it profitable for other organizations outside the primary vendor to learn about it and support it (and the data that resides on it) would go a long way toward mitigating the risks you've described.
I'd love to see an open platform, perhaps built on Linux or BSD and running truly open userland software, that offered the same type of services the major players in the market now seem to have a stranglehold on. I don't see how this will play to the network operators' ongoing aspirations toward sharing total control over platform with primary device vendors, but one can hope for better options in the future. If enough market demand were present, it would happen rapidly. Unfortunately, my first expanded point seems to make that rather unlikely.
Sounds like a good reason to back up unencrypted copies of your data. I don't put a lot of faith in software on any platform, which is why backups are important. Then there's the hardware failure side of things, which further bolsters the need for backups; what if you dropped your phone in the toilet?
caused by someone uploading and selling content that they didn't possess the rights to
That's kind of the point of public domain works. Nobody (everybody) owns the rights to them.
You're right and you're wrong. Modern torpedoes will nail just about anything, including said cigar boat.
Nice one... "there are two classes of naval vessels: submarines and targets."
You must have been surface fleet ;).
I just take the old-fashioned approach of thoroughly cleaning my shower from overhead to deck. Oh, wait... that's the Navy approach ;). I guess some habits are worth something.
You're right; upon further consideration, I consider the number of apps available in the App Store pretty impressive considering their attitude regarding platform control (impressive in the "wow, I can't believe so many people actually jumped through all those hoops" sense).
Apple cares as much about control over the application development platform as they do about the number of apps in their store. Look, I don't hate Apple or anything (hell, I'm posting this from a new MacBook Pro), but the truth is the truth.
I believe you meant "to eat one's own dog food."
My guess is approximately zero seconds, as Apple is sure to kill this.
It's good to see some progress being made in the formalization of standards for accepting electronic signatures. I'm reminded of the issues with conventional legal guidelines surrounding hand-written signatures, and look forward to cryptographically verifiable alternatives.
won't someone think of the viruses? I'm going to pen a letter to the Amercian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Microscopic Organisms That May Or May Not Be Alive immediately!
What if a spacecraft fails to launch properly and lands on your car while you're in it?
If no one from Microsoft wants to maintain it, then the code is going to be dropped from the kernel.
You apparently assume entirely too much. I'm quite familiar with "common practices" for kernel development; I've been using and developing for Linux and BSD-based systems since 1996. Frankly, I don't care if their code is "up to standards" or not; if it isn't, it'll get dropped, and I'm fine with that.
Here's an "Uncomfortable Truth" for you: probably a hell of a lot less than the number of lives saved worldwide because of his works.
Let's have a little positive reinforcement for doing the right thing, even in light of the circumstances. This can go a long way toward encouraging developers within Microsoft to push open source initiatives in the company, whereas lambasting them at every opportunity does nothing but reinforce stereotypes about "crazy open source people" in their community.
Frankly, I don't care if the code only benefits Microsoft customers. I choose to use Linux on my servers, along with Linux and MacOS X on the desktop. That doesn't mean open source code targeted at my platforms is any more "worthy" than code targeted at Windows. To believe otherwise is simply naive. People use what they believe best fits their needs; I encourage open behavior on any platform.
Yeah... I'm kind of impressed that my original post is still moderated above zero.
I have to admit, that's one of the funniest ways I've heard such a process described :). All the same, they have released the code. This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it certainly won't be the last. I'd just like to see more positive reinforcement, lest their devs lose any inclination to release code voluntarily in the future.
I don't get it. Microsoft donates code to the community, licensed under the GPL. Anyone is free to do whatever they like with this code (well, within the constraints of the license), and people are actually bitching about this? I've released quite a few pieces of software under various OSI licenses, and I don't actively maintain the code. If somebody else wants to, fine. Would everyone be happier if Microsoft weren't releasing anything at all?
I use Debian for almost all my server needs, and I'm a big fan of Ubuntu on the desktop. That said, I'm certainly not going to bitch at someone or some company because they aren't slaving away maintaining code I got free of charge.
Until I can determine otherwise, I've got to retract my statement that this is fixed in Debian. I can't find any noise on any lists about this particular CVE with respect to Debian. I'll keep watching it, though.
Yeah, I did grab the wrong USN page. I cross-referenced the recent local privilege escalation issue by mistake.