One more thing I forgot. About your gcc example. You know that this happens all the time in Open Source.
Think of the following: Python, Perl, Ruby, Velocity, Cocoon, Apache Jakarta projects etc. All of these languages / projects do as they please and implement what they think is necessary. They do not attempt to find a standard since it is NOT necessary. They code and adapt as they need to.
Well I am not saying write bad code. What I am saying is that why should JBoss adhere that tightly to the J2EE spec. Use the parts of J2EE that make sense and then do what you think is right.
Wait, there are standards and then there are standards. The standards I am referring to are API's not protocols. The fact that the Apache HTTPD is compliant to the HTTP spec is because that is the primary function of the HTTP server.
HOWEVER, beyond that it does not need to compliant to the spec and does what it wants to.
Now about Tomcat being a reference implementation of a servlet container, that is not entirely true. YES it is compliant to the servlet spec, but a developer can use many interesting tomcat features to get more out of their servlet. Many people would say oh, but do not do that since you will make your servlet work only with Tomcat. My answer is, SO WHAT! Tomcat is open source and it works who cares if I use Tomcat specifics....
Here is why JBoss is neat, but a bit misguided (hence why I like Apache Jakarat more).
Ok lets consider the argument. You have compliance testing so that you can write an app to the spec and have it work on different containers. Ok, sounds good. Why do you want to use different containers? because different containers have different implementations and strenghts. Ok, sounds fair...
BUT, with Open Source you have the sources and you can do what you want with them. This is why there are X number of attachments to Apache HTTPD server and Jakarta Tomcat. In other words api compliance is not the issue in Open Source since you do not need to be compliant to other implementations (hence the success of the Apache projects)
So now please answer why JBoss needs to be compliant other than allowing legacy to run?
Well there are two ways to look at this. In the context of MacDonalds maybe you do not care. But let me push your button a bit.
Hmmm, you know the Indian programmers are better and cheaper. So get with the times and quit your job as a programmer since you are obselete already. Again nobody is "Actively" destroying your job or plotting to destroy your job. It is just that Indian programmers are better and that the companies that make use of them are companies who like a cheap, easy, better programmer...
People are wondering about business models, etc. But lets look at what is happening here. Yes they are probably creating closed source products. But the fact of the matter is that they have an open development process. This is a totally new twist to building software.
I truly find this interesting, especially with your twist of suggestions from the slashdot community...
Yes I use LinNeighborhood as well. But it is nowhere near as easy as Windows explorer. You have to know how to mount properly, know root usage, etc, etc, etc....
Ok, if you know your stuff LinNeigbour is a godsend. (I use it to generate mount scripts). But this needs to be simple. Sort of like the Redhat 8.0 Packagage manager.... Or the Redhat 8.0 Network device control manager. THAT is easy.... Or in general Redhat 8.0.
[sarcasm]This has been a paid advertisement for Redhat 8.0[/sarcasm]. Seriously thought Redhat 8.0 goes a long way towards making Linux easier to use.
Have you not heard that this is a better way of distributing applications?
I mean, why bother to make sure that you write the "shared" library correctly since you can distribute it whenever you want. Code, compile and distribute, oh yeah I forgot, to test... No problem I can send out that DLL again. Ooops security leak, no problem I can send out that DLL again...
You see with static libs, oops DLL's, you save bandwidth because static apps require full compile and larger distribution foot prints..... And we all want to do our part on saving bandwidth....
Re:Something Smarter Is Needed
on
Cornucopia of Spam
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The only reason why the SPAM is coming from the US is because right now there are no legal ramifications. Just like how there was Napster and then Kaaza. Napster was State side, shut down and now Kaaza is NOT state side.
Once laws start up the SPAMMERS will move offshore. Just like the guy who lives in Detroit. This SPAMMER lives in the US, but does not send the SPAM via the US.
I agree with you. I read the article and looked at how it is proposing things. You know nice idea for SMALL databases. The problem of databases is not individual accesses. The problem is when you have 8000 people accessing the database AT THE SAME TIME. This is not simple and requires some really smart code. This is what you pay MS or Oracle or even IBM for.
I also find it interesting how this guy is moving the querying code from the database to the Jakarta Commons project. Nice idea again, but it assumes that the database is complete. The problem is that the database will not be complete since it will be distributed across several clustered machines. And this again brings in the locking issues.
So nice idea, but been there, done that got the t-shirt....
Trolltech can do whatever they please. That was not my point. I am simply stating that at 1500 USD per developer this is not something that I as a "shareware", opensource, consultant is willing to use. Trolltech can demand all the money they want, but there is reality.
NOW, here is an interesting thing. Why is it that their SDK for handhelds happens to be 150 USD? COULD it be because 1500 USD is simply too high? MAYBE... And could it be maybe that some of the OEM vendors said, sure we will use QT as a library so long as you bring down your price. In other words my argument wins.... (Take a look at their website you will see that they price their libraries very differently depending on the platform...)
Thank-you for pointing out the fact of VC++ and Windows 2000.
The way I see it is that is that I am a shareware author and small time developer. I can go the Windows route pay less for a larger market.... OR pay more for a smaller market using QT....
My end result though is that I use Linux with SlickEdit and GTK.... Which works really nicely on Windows as well.
Cost of doing business? The problem of QT is that I just do not need a SDK and I am away to the races. I need an IDE, etc.
And guess what I do buy IDE's. I use Visual SlickEdit. But it only costs 299 USD. So are you telling me QT is worth than the work that SlickEdit did? I do not think so and that is my problem.
Now about the project being having to be worth it? I happen to be a shareware author and that price is simply too steep to swallow.
While GNOME has its issues there are a couple of things. (ironic because last night at the LUGS Linux User Group Switzerland, we talked about this)
1) KDE looks nice, but it has X different messy icons, GNOME or in my case BlueCurve tries to keep things simple and consistent 2) Can I write a closed source program in KDE without having to pay QT 1500 USD? NOT LIKELY....
I like KDE, but because of the fact you have to pay big money to write closed source is a reason I always avoid KDE. It is not that I am going to write closed source myself, but when I consult client I have to lay down the options. These days that kind of cash is hard to get, for what is essentially only a set of API's!!! Which comes for free on most platforms....
Folks, whether we like it or not this is a plot to legalize software patents.
Think about it. Legalize patents and for the first ten years it will be hell because there are simply too many invalidated patents. HOWEVER, with time the patents will begin to stick since the prior art is another patent.
And during that time you just accept one patent after another. The lawyers will clean up the mess in the mean time.
In other words we are just caught in the ramp up of software patents. Remember though this is what the patent office sees and has nothing to do with what is good or bad for society....
Ok the plane is big and the people have to herded in. BUT, imagine like how planes are routed along certain times the amount of traffic at customs?
HOLY MOLY! In the mornings (Europe) or afternoons (America) there is going to be a whole slew of people moving through customs. Make the security checks look like a walk in the park....
How much did we know about the Arab world before 9/11? Not much! Why because we relied on technology to magically figure information out. We send satellites over the terroritory, take pictures from a distance and listen to telephone calls. But we do not inflitrate their organizations. It is as if you try to figure who I am by watching what I type and what I say in public.
Another approach that has gone out of favour by many more "advanced" spy operations is to use human contact. Using human contact people figure out what is really happening. The problem with human contact is that it is hard and can lead to double agents. But classical spy games is more effective.
What is currently happening is that governments of the world are thinking that by creating a huge database of information there will magically data appear. BEEP wrong answer. Do you know what will happen? Information glut! And to cope with that they will write programs to manage the glut. And guess what, those programs will be flawed from day 1. Programs are only as bright as their programmers. And programmers cannot predict actions since the actions of terrorists is a total surprise.
Here is an excercise for you. Sit down in front of a computer that anticepates surprises. Please write a comparison function that is not coded to known knowledge.
Here are your facts. Database acquires men that come into the country as students. Students stay in country coming from Egypt or Saudi Arabia. They live in places and train to be pilots. Egypt and Saudi Arabia sends information that students are "ok".
Can you from that information figure out that they are terrorists? No because the students kept a low profile. Do you know how they got a hint of something going on? A flight instructors saw that it was odd that one of the students did not want to learn how to land. Will this show up in the database? No, and that is the problem. This information cannot be gleaned from a huge database. Databases like this create police states and that disappoints me because we are the land of freedom and equality.
People who want to terrorize will not use sophisticated technology. And if those terrorists realize what is happening then they will adapt and shift their operations elsewhere. Do you really think airplane training needs to be taken in the US? And do you really think they will use airplanes again?
The governments of the world would be better off using more human contact and more effort on inflitration. In other words more classical spygames.... Like the good old days!
Personally what they are trying to do is the exact same thing as trying to block SPAM or viruses.
When figuring out whether or not there is a SPAM or viruses the logic has been to use case studies and then build routines on those case studies. This is the wrong approach because what it does is motivate the individual to go around what the system expects.
It is like speeding. If you know what the cop uses as an ideal place to catch speeders you can avoid the cop. It is only when cops use the element of surprise that you get caught.
Well I speed all the time, and I look for the typical signs. And luckily most cops are lazy and fall into the mould.
The better approach would not to have a mould at all and abstract the problem, into "how would a terrorist, SPAMMER or virsus think". And based on those thoughts create your detection routines.
Granted the SPAMMER or terrorist or virsus would attempt to figure you out, but you need to hold the element of surprise. You need to add "random" thoughts to your tactics.
The reason why I am thinking about this is that I am discussing with a friend on how to build a SPAM detector that cannot be circumvented by the SPAMMER. Since that fight is getting bad....
Nope it is not that rare.... And do you know why? Because my parent-in-laws are farmers. So what are you going to do? Lock up some farmers?
The point I am making is that profiling is based on pigeonholing somebody based on actions. Terrorists like these understand this and will make themselves fit into the mould.
Now you are saying the terrorists need to get there somehow. Why do they need to be quick? How long did the previous terrorists live in the US? These people do not act on the spur of the moment. They plan and use the element of surprise.
For example to get past what you are saying I would rob somebody and use their ID's. Even simpler, how would you track somebody like in the movie "The Jackal" (Bruce Willis and Richard Gere). He had multiple passports both legal and illegal. He had multiple disguises. And he drove into the US using plane, train and automobile.
Terrorists are whackos and it is sad that they have decided to pick on Americans. But these people will blend into the scenery and do everything to remain hidden. Remember that is their job! To blend in, to become part of a non-suspect pidgeon hole!
When will governments understand that Sept 11 was based on the premise of surprise. The nutters on the plane did not even have guns. They had little forks and knifes. They used the element of surprise to carry out their attack.
And when will governments realize that these terrorists DO NOT use technology. The problem is that when you use technology to figure out profiles, it assumes that others are using technology as well.
Of course the current administration cannot be blamed alone, the EU is going along lock stock and barrel.....
What I am amazed at is that in the history of Windows NT Dave Cutler was cut so little space. He was mentioned twice. Once at the beginning of the article and then in the timeline.
And from what I remember about the hoopla, etc. Dave Cutler was fairly important in the first version of Windows NT.
But you know it shows just how little MS remembers the people who got it there in the first place!
My point was not that Avril and Blink were the greatest examples, but at least we start a conversation?
You see I am not part of that scene. I am more part of the Techno, Dance, House scene. And mentioning some of the groups there would not aid the discussion.....
Is she a sellout? Fine, but at least we can discuss the issue, yes?
Fine I am geezer and like I did not pay attention to the latest name change. Well gee as if that never happened before?
You know I could name a few "hip" bands too. But that would mean discussing things from the Techno, Trance and House scene. Sadly though this is something only popular in Europe. Using Blink N and Avril was only as a reference so that you and I actually have something to discuss. It sets a reference point.
Now about this 3 degree thing. I remember when I was a teen and likewise with my brother. And no we did not grow up without tech. We grew up with VCR's, CD's and cellphones. The last thing I wanted was something that was sanitized by corporates. Ok I was not part of the "popular" crowd, more like head bangers, etc.
Selling 3 degrees is like selling Michael Jackson (ok these days he is a bit wierd). But there was a time when people thought he was SO COOL. Sorry, but Michael Jackson when he was cool was like 3 Degrees. They were corporate acts, which my crowd did not go for. Result? Michael Jackson was a pervert like we said....
Slashdot Mirror
One more thing I forgot. About your gcc example. You know that this happens all the time in Open Source.
Think of the following: Python, Perl, Ruby, Velocity, Cocoon, Apache Jakarta projects etc. All of these languages / projects do as they please and implement what they think is necessary. They do not attempt to find a standard since it is NOT necessary. They code and adapt as they need to.
Well I am not saying write bad code. What I am saying is that why should JBoss adhere that tightly to the J2EE spec. Use the parts of J2EE that make sense and then do what you think is right.
Wait, there are standards and then there are standards. The standards I am referring to are API's not protocols. The fact that the Apache HTTPD is compliant to the HTTP spec is because that is the primary function of the HTTP server.
HOWEVER, beyond that it does not need to compliant to the spec and does what it wants to.
Now about Tomcat being a reference implementation of a servlet container, that is not entirely true. YES it is compliant to the servlet spec, but a developer can use many interesting tomcat features to get more out of their servlet. Many people would say oh, but do not do that since you will make your servlet work only with Tomcat. My answer is, SO WHAT! Tomcat is open source and it works who cares if I use Tomcat specifics....
Here is why JBoss is neat, but a bit misguided (hence why I like Apache Jakarat more).
Ok lets consider the argument. You have compliance testing so that you can write an app to the spec and have it work on different containers. Ok, sounds good. Why do you want to use different containers? because different containers have different implementations and strenghts. Ok, sounds fair...
BUT, with Open Source you have the sources and you can do what you want with them. This is why there are X number of attachments to Apache HTTPD server and Jakarta Tomcat. In other words api compliance is not the issue in Open Source since you do not need to be compliant to other implementations (hence the success of the Apache projects)
So now please answer why JBoss needs to be compliant other than allowing legacy to run?
Fair enough then. Then you are one of those people who are not hypocritical. Because I encounter many people who would not agree with my point.
Me personally I do not entirely agree with you, but again, at least you are not hypocritical!
Well there are two ways to look at this. In the context of MacDonalds maybe you do not care. But let me push your button a bit.
Hmmm, you know the Indian programmers are better and cheaper. So get with the times and quit your job as a programmer since you are obselete already. Again nobody is "Actively" destroying your job or plotting to destroy your job. It is just that Indian programmers are better and that the companies that make use of them are companies who like a cheap, easy, better programmer...
Yes? Globalization it is a double edged sword!
People are wondering about business models, etc. But lets look at what is happening here. Yes they are probably creating closed source products. But the fact of the matter is that they have an open development process. This is a totally new twist to building software.
I truly find this interesting, especially with your twist of suggestions from the slashdot community...
Yes I use LinNeighborhood as well. But it is nowhere near as easy as Windows explorer. You have to know how to mount properly, know root usage, etc, etc, etc....
Ok, if you know your stuff LinNeigbour is a godsend. (I use it to generate mount scripts). But this needs to be simple. Sort of like the Redhat 8.0 Packagage manager.... Or the Redhat 8.0 Network device control manager. THAT is easy.... Or in general Redhat 8.0.
[sarcasm]This has been a paid advertisement for Redhat 8.0[/sarcasm]. Seriously thought Redhat 8.0 goes a long way towards making Linux easier to use.
Have you not heard that this is a better way of distributing applications?
I mean, why bother to make sure that you write the "shared" library correctly since you can distribute it whenever you want. Code, compile and distribute, oh yeah I forgot, to test... No problem I can send out that DLL again. Ooops security leak, no problem I can send out that DLL again...
You see with static libs, oops DLL's, you save bandwidth because static apps require full compile and larger distribution foot prints..... And we all want to do our part on saving bandwidth....
The only reason why the SPAM is coming from the US is because right now there are no legal ramifications. Just like how there was Napster and then Kaaza. Napster was State side, shut down and now Kaaza is NOT state side.
Once laws start up the SPAMMERS will move offshore. Just like the guy who lives in Detroit. This SPAMMER lives in the US, but does not send the SPAM via the US.
I agree with you. I read the article and looked at how it is proposing things. You know nice idea for SMALL databases. The problem of databases is not individual accesses. The problem is when you have 8000 people accessing the database AT THE SAME TIME. This is not simple and requires some really smart code. This is what you pay MS or Oracle or even IBM for.
I also find it interesting how this guy is moving the querying code from the database to the Jakarta Commons project. Nice idea again, but it assumes that the database is complete. The problem is that the database will not be complete since it will be distributed across several clustered machines. And this again brings in the locking issues.
So nice idea, but been there, done that got the t-shirt....
Trolltech can do whatever they please. That was not my point. I am simply stating that at 1500 USD per developer this is not something that I as a "shareware", opensource, consultant is willing to use. Trolltech can demand all the money they want, but there is reality.
NOW, here is an interesting thing. Why is it that their SDK for handhelds happens to be 150 USD? COULD it be because 1500 USD is simply too high? MAYBE... And could it be maybe that some of the OEM vendors said, sure we will use QT as a library so long as you bring down your price. In other words my argument wins.... (Take a look at their website you will see that they price their libraries very differently depending on the platform...)
Thank-you for pointing out the fact of VC++ and Windows 2000.
The way I see it is that is that I am a shareware author and small time developer. I can go the Windows route pay less for a larger market.... OR pay more for a smaller market using QT....
My end result though is that I use Linux with SlickEdit and GTK.... Which works really nicely on Windows as well.
Cost of doing business? The problem of QT is that I just do not need a SDK and I am away to the races. I need an IDE, etc.
And guess what I do buy IDE's. I use Visual SlickEdit. But it only costs 299 USD. So are you telling me QT is worth than the work that SlickEdit did? I do not think so and that is my problem.
Now about the project being having to be worth it? I happen to be a shareware author and that price is simply too steep to swallow.
While GNOME has its issues there are a couple of things. (ironic because last night at the LUGS Linux User Group Switzerland, we talked about this)
1) KDE looks nice, but it has X different messy icons, GNOME or in my case BlueCurve tries to keep things simple and consistent
2) Can I write a closed source program in KDE without having to pay QT 1500 USD? NOT LIKELY....
I like KDE, but because of the fact you have to pay big money to write closed source is a reason I always avoid KDE. It is not that I am going to write closed source myself, but when I consult client I have to lay down the options. These days that kind of cash is hard to get, for what is essentially only a set of API's!!! Which comes for free on most platforms....
Folks, whether we like it or not this is a plot to legalize software patents.
Think about it. Legalize patents and for the first ten years it will be hell because there are simply too many invalidated patents. HOWEVER, with time the patents will begin to stick since the prior art is another patent.
And during that time you just accept one patent after another. The lawyers will clean up the mess in the mean time.
In other words we are just caught in the ramp up of software patents. Remember though this is what the patent office sees and has nothing to do with what is good or bad for society....
Ok the plane is big and the people have to herded in. BUT, imagine like how planes are routed along certain times the amount of traffic at customs?
HOLY MOLY! In the mornings (Europe) or afternoons (America) there is going to be a whole slew of people moving through customs. Make the security checks look like a walk in the park....
Yeah, but using the MS approach we would have all the buzzwords necessary.
Open, XML, DRM, control access, etc....
Oh yeah they forget to say, it is open so long as you pay to look at it.
Sorry, ok lets play it this way.
How much did we know about the Arab world before 9/11? Not much! Why because we relied on technology to magically figure information out. We send satellites over the terroritory, take pictures from a distance and listen to telephone calls. But we do not inflitrate their organizations. It is as if you try to figure who I am by watching what I type and what I say in public.
Another approach that has gone out of favour by many more "advanced" spy operations is to use human contact. Using human contact people figure out what is really happening. The problem with human contact is that it is hard and can lead to double agents. But classical spy games is more effective.
What is currently happening is that governments of the world are thinking that by creating a huge database of information there will magically data appear. BEEP wrong answer. Do you know what will happen? Information glut! And to cope with that they will write programs to manage the glut. And guess what, those programs will be flawed from day 1. Programs are only as bright as their programmers. And programmers cannot predict actions since the actions of terrorists is a total surprise.
Here is an excercise for you. Sit down in front of a computer that anticepates surprises. Please write a comparison function that is not coded to known knowledge.
Here are your facts. Database acquires men that come into the country as students. Students stay in country coming from Egypt or Saudi Arabia. They live in places and train to be pilots. Egypt and Saudi Arabia sends information that students are "ok".
Can you from that information figure out that they are terrorists? No because the students kept a low profile. Do you know how they got a hint of something going on? A flight instructors saw that it was odd that one of the students did not want to learn how to land. Will this show up in the database? No, and that is the problem. This information cannot be gleaned from a huge database. Databases like this create police states and that disappoints me because we are the land of freedom and equality.
People who want to terrorize will not use sophisticated technology. And if those terrorists realize what is happening then they will adapt and shift their operations elsewhere. Do you really think airplane training needs to be taken in the US? And do you really think they will use airplanes again?
The governments of the world would be better off using more human contact and more effort on inflitration. In other words more classical spygames.... Like the good old days!
Personally what they are trying to do is the exact same thing as trying to block SPAM or viruses.
When figuring out whether or not there is a SPAM or viruses the logic has been to use case studies and then build routines on those case studies. This is the wrong approach because what it does is motivate the individual to go around what the system expects.
It is like speeding. If you know what the cop uses as an ideal place to catch speeders you can avoid the cop. It is only when cops use the element of surprise that you get caught.
Well I speed all the time, and I look for the typical signs. And luckily most cops are lazy and fall into the mould.
The better approach would not to have a mould at all and abstract the problem, into "how would a terrorist, SPAMMER or virsus think". And based on those thoughts create your detection routines.
Granted the SPAMMER or terrorist or virsus would attempt to figure you out, but you need to hold the element of surprise. You need to add "random" thoughts to your tactics.
The reason why I am thinking about this is that I am discussing with a friend on how to build a SPAM detector that cannot be circumvented by the SPAMMER. Since that fight is getting bad....
Nope it is not that rare.... And do you know why? Because my parent-in-laws are farmers. So what are you going to do? Lock up some farmers?
The point I am making is that profiling is based on pigeonholing somebody based on actions. Terrorists like these understand this and will make themselves fit into the mould.
Now you are saying the terrorists need to get there somehow. Why do they need to be quick? How long did the previous terrorists live in the US? These people do not act on the spur of the moment. They plan and use the element of surprise.
For example to get past what you are saying I would rob somebody and use their ID's. Even simpler, how would you track somebody like in the movie "The Jackal" (Bruce Willis and Richard Gere). He had multiple passports both legal and illegal. He had multiple disguises. And he drove into the US using plane, train and automobile.
Terrorists are whackos and it is sad that they have decided to pick on Americans. But these people will blend into the scenery and do everything to remain hidden. Remember that is their job! To blend in, to become part of a non-suspect pidgeon hole!
When will governments understand that Sept 11 was based on the premise of surprise. The nutters on the plane did not even have guns. They had little forks and knifes. They used the element of surprise to carry out their attack.
And when will governments realize that these terrorists DO NOT use technology. The problem is that when you use technology to figure out profiles, it assumes that others are using technology as well.
Of course the current administration cannot be blamed alone, the EU is going along lock stock and barrel.....
What I am amazed at is that in the history of Windows NT Dave Cutler was cut so little space. He was mentioned twice. Once at the beginning of the article and then in the timeline.
And from what I remember about the hoopla, etc. Dave Cutler was fairly important in the first version of Windows NT.
But you know it shows just how little MS remembers the people who got it there in the first place!
My point was not that Avril and Blink were the greatest examples, but at least we start a conversation?
You see I am not part of that scene. I am more part of the Techno, Dance, House scene. And mentioning some of the groups there would not aid the discussion.....
Is she a sellout? Fine, but at least we can discuss the issue, yes?
Fine I am geezer and like I did not pay attention to the latest name change. Well gee as if that never happened before?
You know I could name a few "hip" bands too. But that would mean discussing things from the Techno, Trance and House scene. Sadly though this is something only popular in Europe. Using Blink N and Avril was only as a reference so that you and I actually have something to discuss. It sets a reference point.
Now about this 3 degree thing. I remember when I was a teen and likewise with my brother. And no we did not grow up without tech. We grew up with VCR's, CD's and cellphones. The last thing I wanted was something that was sanitized by corporates. Ok I was not part of the "popular" crowd, more like head bangers, etc.
Selling 3 degrees is like selling Michael Jackson (ok these days he is a bit wierd). But there was a time when people thought he was SO COOL. Sorry, but Michael Jackson when he was cool was like 3 Degrees. They were corporate acts, which my crowd did not go for. Result? Michael Jackson was a pervert like we said....