I have a lot of years experience doing C/C++ and am digging into some simple encryption.
An IV (Initalization Vector) should always be a fresh number for each encryptor/decryptor correct?
Jeremy
Re:Why does google get a slashdot-patent-pass?
on
Google's Search Appliance
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think one could argue that ease if use is part of what makes their results so useful.
If it was too complex to use for the average computer user to pull the data they need I doubt they could stay profitable. Currently its the best, not only for the results, but how the end user interacts with their system.
Its amazing how often the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button gets exactly what your looking for.
It is horribly ineffecient, I have written a chat system using a database for the message storage interface.
I used a hidden frame that contained some JavaScript. The script updates every so often, say 15 seconds. Every 15 seconds the hidden frame, acting as a crude socket, updates and queries the database to see if there are any new messages to display for a particular user. It grabs any new messages and rewrites layer/frame for that user.
Thats a query every 15 seconds for a user, and EVERY message sent generates a database write. Every user coming or going generates yet another write.
Granted with a high number of users there are still probably going to be more reads than writes, it is still quite write and read intensive. 10 users generate 10 queries every 15 seconds, or 40 queries a minute, PLUS any writes they do which just add to the mess.
This is not even a realtime chat system, and its a pain making it work with HTTP. Its a real-time (every 15 seconds)tm system.
Could you imagine writing an instant messaging system with even half a percent of AIMs daily message load? You are talking tens of thousands of reads and writes per second. It quickly becomes very ineffecient and silly.
DISCLAIMER: I am finishing up a book on PHP 4.1, I might be biased.
Consider this. The book is aimed at the beggining programmer to the intermediate programmer looking to learn a few good tricks and have a decent reference, yet not a complete reference. Just enough to jog your memory so the book is more of a practical guide and tutorial.
Most non-hardcore geeks/programmers don't like it as sharp and concise as K&R "The C Programming Langauge". Yet as you say, you don't like a 1200 page behemoth either. The trick is finding a medium balance where you can teach the subject material and basic concepts of programming while covering your language specifics. You may think its easy to keep it concise... but there is SO much to cover. It's not easy. You have to appeal to a wide range of audiences and make your book sellable to more than the hardened programmer who can read code like documentation.
Believe me I tried to keep things short and sweet, but topics and considerations about my audience keep coming up that force explanations for this and that.
Tech books typically go from proposal to the shelves in such a short time its difficult to get the elegance of a "The C Programming Language".
I am being dragged from my desk so must cut this short;).
Its easy to just go on and on about a topic. With such short book release cycles (to stay competitive) it can be tough to get elegance in a book, versus raw content that is still useful.
I hope this provides a little insight into the way things are.
*snicker* no. The fact that he is essentialy a executive non-programmer running a software company is what makes it funny. That is like our president sending an email to our dev list saying "Awesome guys, but I want you to know I can writer slicker tighter code."
I could give a care in the world if hes rich or a pauper.
Think about it for just a minute. He is probably the most influential commercialized software person out there, people listen to what he says and do what he says to do.. that makes him a leader to me.
I never factored his money into it, just his position in the world.
(and no I am not a Microsoft employee, I work for a small start up)
Hey. I would take the chance to bust ass for three or four years for permanent financial stability.
To each their own, I guess.. but to have created some of the best games, and geeked out on FPS every day and make 600Gs+ a year, it don't sound like to bad a deal for a programmer/graphics person.
Its obviously a tease, sheesh. Gates probably does not code much, John does every day. If you ask me (not that you did) it shows that Mr. Gates has a pretty good sense of humor. Yeah he may have billions in the bank but its an obvious jest. Heh, I would feel pretty good if the leader of the commercialized software world complimented me so.
I think that this is one of the reasons Microsoft must really be careful to not use its monolopy to gain an unfair advantage over competition dependant on related portions of its technology. For Microsoft to be completely fair it must sell its product, AND not do anything to screw over their competitors, such as iCEBOX. If they can, its well and fine if they are a monopoly... may the best product win. This is what people need to see. What usually happens is Microsoft uses its ubiquity to stifle its comeptition, even when their products are technically and price wise superior.
Of course, the same logic applies to SETI@Home and RC5 etc. You have to trust these programs the same. They all sit on a system and are possibly capable of grabbing anything the user is doing and transmitting that data.
I would just like to say how thankless a task writing can really be. Writing involves tremendous amounts of work, especially technical books. The pressures on a writer of a technical topic are incredible. The amount of time it takes for a technical book to go from inception to print is usually a lot less than most other types of books. The turn around time must be minimal because technology evolves so quickly. I have found such a profound admiration for good books, and for the people who dedicate large chunks of their lives to sharing their knowledge.
A truly well written book is such a blessing when you wish to learn the subject matter. It is difficult to fully appreciate it unless you have written a a book, or parts of one. So, good luck with the rest of your book Chromatic, I look forward to a book by a fellow/.er.
I have always found chromatic's writing here quite well thought. The philosophy and psychology behind online communities fascinating. I have also found slashcode to be much better than most people give it credit for, mainly because it is Perl. Anyhow.
It is not even my full time job duty. We are a small start up. My primary task is developing software. I spend maybe two hours a week reading logs and using the utilities provided by microsoft that *automate* determining of there are any new patches for vulnerabilities.
I am on NT Bugtraq and have been able to remain on top of the issues with some work up front automating the process, and a little work every week.
It really is possible to safely automate most of the system admin stuff on a NT/W2K box. I test the updates for a day on our development server and then deploy the new configuration to all of our systems. PS: I love the O'Reilly books on administering W2K. There are some real Gems in there.
Anyhow. I don't like W2K/NT and would prefer a *nix only environment, but I like my job and what I do.
I know this will get some dissenting responses, but I feel I should say it.
I have administered WindowsNT 4 and Windows 2000 systems. I have *NEVER* been cracked, hacked, or otherwise seen any ill effects from the security flaws that do exist in any of the Microsoft products we use on our server platforms.
I have written WSH scripts that automatically update and spread any updates to all of my systems. All I have to do is approve the update, which is done after I test it. I stay on top of their security patches and simply followed their recommended guidelines for locking down a server. I also disabled several things I know are exploitable.
The funny thing is, I end up doing the same thing with the latest and greatest from RedHat. They make it a little easier out of the box to keep up with the updates etc. I have to turn off services I don't want and follow the "common sense" guide of things like turning off services I don't need.
I am not saying my boxes are uncrackable, or that I am all knowing, or even that great at securing systems.... Anyways.
Thats the thing, you can call it slamming, but it isnt really. If it is a technically sound paper that proves why, and does so in a professional manner, its all good. I would like to think of that as "education".
Slashdot Mirror
It would work better with the larger number first ;)
Slashdot age = Delta(max_slash_id/your_slash_id)
Jeremy
But if your going to carry both a PDA and a cell phone almost always...
Jeremy
They can probably get their own without bidding on Amazon :)
Just curios here,
I have a lot of years experience doing C/C++ and am digging into some simple encryption.
An IV (Initalization Vector) should always be a fresh number for each encryptor/decryptor correct?
Jeremy
I think one could argue that ease if use is part of what makes their results so useful.
If it was too complex to use for the average computer user to pull the data they need I doubt they could stay profitable. Currently its the best, not only for the results, but how the end user interacts with their system.
Its amazing how often the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button gets exactly what your looking for.
How is Counter-Strike these days. No more 90210?
:)
It is horribly ineffecient, I have written a chat system using a database for the message storage interface.
I used a hidden frame that contained some JavaScript. The script updates every so often, say 15 seconds. Every 15 seconds the hidden frame, acting as a crude socket, updates and queries the database to see if there are any new messages to display for a particular user. It grabs any new messages and rewrites layer/frame for that user.
Thats a query every 15 seconds for a user, and EVERY message sent generates a database write. Every user coming or going generates yet another write.
Granted with a high number of users there are still probably going to be more reads than writes, it is still quite write and read intensive. 10 users generate 10 queries every 15 seconds, or 40 queries a minute, PLUS any writes they do which just add to the mess.
This is not even a realtime chat system, and its a pain making it work with HTTP. Its a real-time (every 15 seconds)tm system.
Could you imagine writing an instant messaging system with even half a percent of AIMs daily message load? You are talking tens of thousands of reads and writes per second. It quickly becomes very ineffecient and silly.
Jeremy
DISCLAIMER: I am finishing up a book on PHP 4.1, I might be biased.
;).
Consider this. The book is aimed at the beggining programmer to the intermediate programmer looking to learn a few good tricks and have a decent reference, yet not a complete reference. Just enough to jog your memory so the book is more of a practical guide and tutorial.
Most non-hardcore geeks/programmers don't like it as sharp and concise as K&R "The C Programming Langauge". Yet as you say, you don't like a 1200 page behemoth either. The trick is finding a medium balance where you can teach the subject material and basic concepts of programming while covering your language specifics. You may think its easy to keep it concise... but there is SO much to cover. It's not easy. You have to appeal to a wide range of audiences and make your book sellable to more than the hardened programmer who can read code like documentation.
Believe me I tried to keep things short and sweet, but topics and considerations about my audience keep coming up that force explanations for this and that.
Tech books typically go from proposal to the shelves in such a short time its difficult to get the elegance of a "The C Programming Language".
I am being dragged from my desk so must cut this short
Its easy to just go on and on about a topic. With such short book release cycles (to stay competitive) it can be tough to get elegance in a book, versus raw content that is still useful.
I hope this provides a little insight into the way things are.
Jeremy
*snicker* no. The fact that he is essentialy a executive non-programmer running a software company is what makes it funny. That is like our president sending an email to our dev list saying "Awesome guys, but I want you to know I can writer slicker tighter code."
I could give a care in the world if hes rich or a pauper.
Think about it for just a minute. He is probably the most influential commercialized software person out there, people listen to what he says and do what he says to do.. that makes him a leader to me.
I never factored his money into it, just his position in the world.
(and no I am not a Microsoft employee, I work for a small start up)
Jeremy
Hey. I would take the chance to bust ass for three or four years for permanent financial stability.
To each their own, I guess.. but to have created some of the best games, and geeked out on FPS every day and make 600Gs+ a year, it don't sound like to bad a deal for a programmer/graphics person.
Jeremy
Its obviously a tease, sheesh. Gates probably does not code much, John does every day. If you ask me (not that you did) it shows that Mr. Gates has a pretty good sense of humor. Yeah he may have billions in the bank but its an obvious jest. Heh, I would feel pretty good if the leader of the commercialized software world complimented me so.
Jeremy
*snicker* I wrote that entire post so tongue in cheek its not funny..
I think that this is one of the reasons Microsoft must really be careful to not use its monolopy to gain an unfair advantage over competition dependant on related portions of its technology. For Microsoft to be completely fair it must sell its product, AND not do anything to screw over their competitors, such as iCEBOX. If they can, its well and fine if they are a monopoly... may the best product win. This is what people need to see. What usually happens is Microsoft uses its ubiquity to stifle its comeptition, even when their products are technically and price wise superior.
Oh well...
we can dream.
Jeremy
I know.. *sigh* how stupid do I feel? Don't ask.. pretty frickin dumb :)
Jeremy
Doh! I am dumb. DUMB. Ok.. anyways... *wanders back to his cave* Do'h. I just got out of a math test, sorry. :(
Jeremy
Mb = Megabits.
MB = Megabytes.
He was quite within the reasonable limits of cablemodem technology.
Every time an article discussing DSL or cablemodem comes up there is someone who misses this!
Jeremy
Slashdot has funny HTTP headers as well :)
Of course, the same logic applies to SETI@Home and RC5 etc. You have to trust these programs the same. They all sit on a system and are possibly capable of grabbing anything the user is doing and transmitting that data.
Anyways..
I would just like to say how thankless a task writing can really be. Writing involves tremendous amounts of work, especially technical books. The pressures on a writer of a technical topic are incredible. The amount of time it takes for a technical book to go from inception to print is usually a lot less than most other types of books. The turn around time must be minimal because technology evolves so quickly. I have found such a profound admiration for good books, and for the people who dedicate large chunks of their lives to sharing their knowledge.
/.er.
A truly well written book is such a blessing when you wish to learn the subject matter. It is difficult to fully appreciate it unless you have written a a book, or parts of one. So, good luck with the rest of your book Chromatic, I look forward to a book by a fellow
I have always found chromatic's writing here quite well thought. The philosophy and psychology behind online communities fascinating. I have also found slashcode to be much better than most people give it credit for, mainly because it is Perl. Anyhow.
Jeremy
It is not even my full time job duty. We are a small start up. My primary task is developing software. I spend maybe two hours a week reading logs and using the utilities provided by microsoft that *automate* determining of there are any new patches for vulnerabilities.
I am on NT Bugtraq and have been able to remain on top of the issues with some work up front automating the process, and a little work every week.
It really is possible to safely automate most of the system admin stuff on a NT/W2K box. I test the updates for a day on our development server and then deploy the new configuration to all of our systems. PS: I love the O'Reilly books on administering W2K. There are some real Gems in there.
Anyhow. I don't like W2K/NT and would prefer a *nix only environment, but I like my job and what I do.
Jeremy
No :-)
I just can't bring myself to go that low. FreeBSD+qmail for the platform and MTA.
Jeremy
I am trying to not be arrogant because I realize I am not perfect, I just used my common sense.
Jeremy
I know this will get some dissenting responses, but I feel I should say it.
I have administered WindowsNT 4 and Windows 2000 systems. I have *NEVER* been cracked, hacked, or otherwise seen any ill effects from the security flaws that do exist in any of the Microsoft products we use on our server platforms.
I have written WSH scripts that automatically update and spread any updates to all of my systems. All I have to do is approve the update, which is done after I test it. I stay on top of their security patches and simply followed their recommended guidelines for locking down a server. I also disabled several things I know are exploitable.
The funny thing is, I end up doing the same thing with the latest and greatest from RedHat. They make it a little easier out of the box to keep up with the updates etc. I have to turn off services I don't want and follow the "common sense" guide of things like turning off services I don't need.
I am not saying my boxes are uncrackable, or that I am all knowing, or even that great at securing systems.... Anyways.
Thats the thing, you can call it slamming, but it isnt really. If it is a technically sound paper that proves why, and does so in a professional manner, its all good. I would like to think of that as "education".
Jeremy
GAIM explicitly included a trademark in their name (IE: AIM).
This case, while not very strong on the Lindows peoples part, is not quite so clear cut.
Jeremy