The irony is this: games are generally fun because they are escapist.
<snip>
But this game... take it to its ultimate conclusion. It simply becomes a more and more accurate rendition of real life.
But... as this is a game I can be somebody else. I can even try being several different people. All without ruining my real life, of which there's only one.
I think a timeframe needs to be established. Those who find exploits in programs have a moral obligation to let the maintainers of the program know first and give them a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem.
But, by definition, if any of the "good guys" have found the problem, it's equally likely that any number of "bad guys" also have found the problem. With exploits in the wild. So telling everybody to be on the look-out, or even close down some services, could easily be the "Rigth Thing(tm)" to do. Look, for instance, on all the bad press Symantec drew for keeping info on Slammer to their own customers instead of alerting everybody.
Actually, this can be argued for ever. And what's rigth in one instance might be wrong in a different... so...
If you say that XP "somewhat ignores" testing, then I have no idea what you mean by testing.
Testing is an activity used to verify that the program performs according to the requirements. What XP does is verify the design. Which is fine. But it's not enough.
There's no architecture when you continously refactor. The hope is that an architecture gets refactored into the app, but that won't happen. Testing is also somewhat ignored. It's supposedly done by Test First, but that's a Design method. All it does it check that you code what you designed. Which is a very good idea, but it's not testing. This could be saved by the functional testing. But that's written and done by the customers who usually don't know what they want anyways. So... It doesn't help writing it down when your practises don't support it. And the XP practises doesn't include architecture and misses a lot of testing.
No, it's not. It's really very structured. The simple definition given above is one of the main reason XP-projects fail. Basically XP is a bunch (11 or 12?) of well known best practises taken all the way out (if code review is good, then more code review is better, so let's code review all the time). It's heavilly based on communication, so it will break down with large teams. It's also missing an architecture step, so large projects tends to fail, if you don't "cheat". And it's missing testing. But if the product is rather small, the people on the team communicate well, and your QA-team gets a go at the app occasionally, you'll be doing great. Probably the best thing about XP is that it brings back the fun in programming. Writing out-of-date documents isn't any fun.
Where I work we've recently adopted Test First Design
Just remember that TFD is a Design method, and really has nothing to do with testing as in testing the requirements. So it will check that you coded what you designed. Whether that has anything to do with what the customer wanted is another matter. Which should be checked by the functional testing, but that's written by the customer. And most customers don't know what they want...
Anti-patterns is about the most common way of doing things badly (Patterns are about the optimal way of doing things)
Patterns are about balancing and rearranging opposing forces in a design to achieve some wanted effect. All patterns have consequences. These usually must be dealt with by other patterns. And thus you have a pattern language. In this setting anti-patterns makes absolutely no sense at all.
Antipatterns is probably the dumbest word ever. It's supposedly showing how you do something the wrong way. Well, there are a gadzillion ways to do something the wrong way! Do we really want to focus on those?
Anyways, the book shows a bad way, then corrects it. Much like any "optimizing" books of the 1980's. It seems that the book with a little effort could provide patterns instead, mainly by focusing on the solutions instead of the problems.
While "Brook's law" might be a law, it's only useful in retrospect. Most software projects have no idea how far behind they really are. So basically, you can always add manpower, you're really only half way through anyways...
Check the web site license
on
Borland Backs Down
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Remember that the info on Borland's web pages is only for personal, non-commercial use. And you can only read the info on one machine. Don't believe me, see for yourself
So use your JOB info. What is there to 'compromise'? ... Why do you care that MS wants your non personal info?
The problem is that Passport will collect your surfing habbits, no matter what "non personal info" you give them. At some point, you will give some real info to a site you didn't think was associated with Passport, and boom. So you need very good control over your cookies. Usually, they are associated with the user (on the client machine). Meaning you have to use a different local account to surf Passport-sites (or at least MSDN), or a different browser. The latter is probably the easiest as Microsoft's sites usually "works best with IE", and nobody uses IE for real surfing, right?:*)
... Except, of course, that they fail to make any distinction between GPL and the rest of the OS licenses in their arguments. Sure, they describe the GPL, but they always name it "Open Source".
What I've read, they've always used the word "open source" except in the exact sentence where they trash GLP. There they'll use "GPL". They'll say something like "no-one has managed to make money off open source software. The viral (or cancer or whatever) nature of the GPL is intended to prevent just that". The transition is very smooth, so I think they've practiced a lot. And if you're not very clear on the distinction yourself, MS won't make it any easier.
And if you think they're just "confused" on the topic, there's a bridge in my hometown that I'd love to sell you
No, I don't think they're "confused". I think they've worked on this for a while and managed to come up with a scheme of intentional confusion (aka. FUD) to dispose of Linux. Though I think they've underestimated their opponents.
Do you understand the difference between porting a utility than porting that *stack*?
Yes, and I said so, or at least I tried. I was simply verifying that MS uses OSS code in Windows, even Windows NT.
And since one of the reasons GRC was able to block the initial DDoS attacks was because of the limited TCP/IP implementation of Windows, it seems obvious that the stack is their own.
C'mon people, this is rather misinformed. All Micros~1 has been doing is saying GPL is evil.
Probably because they can't take the code and use it themselves.
MS has been pretty good at keeping the distinction between GPL and the rest of the OS licenses in their arguments.
And this is not news either. We've discussed MS' use of BSD code on/. before.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah! I still have mine. With an original Elite tape as well as Mineshaft.
I started writing a word processor for it, but I got myself a Turbo XT (an Epson Equity I+) before I finished it. Elite on the Epson sucked.
M.
Because it's not a location, it's a service. It would be like paying more money on a tollway to go in the fast lane.
Paying Telcos for a better "location" on the internet is then similar to paying the same government to operate a business within their country.
Somewhat, but it's paying for a service, and Amazon, Google, Microsoft and so on pays a *lot* for their fat lines.
M.
Because there is no real estate here? And besides, Google certainly pays for fat lines into their houses. This is all no-argument bullshit.
M.
M.
<snip>
But this game... take it to its ultimate conclusion. It simply becomes a more and more accurate rendition of real life.
But ... as this is a game I can be somebody else. I can even try being several different people.
All without ruining my real life, of which there's only one.
M.
Maybe you should patent it?
.NET has now surpassed J2EE on new projects here in Scandinavia. IOW. .NET is now *more* main stream than Java.
M.
The MasterCard joke was, yes, but the AmEx wasn't. See, it's two links up there... :*)
What is it exactly about this message that makes it relevant now?
The fact that AmEx sent a similar letter April 13, 2004.
All that's missing now, is a stylesheet that'll close all remaining security holes... :*)
But, by definition, if any of the "good guys" have found the problem, it's equally likely that any number of "bad guys" also have found the problem. With exploits in the wild. So telling everybody to be on the look-out, or even close down some services, could easily be the "Rigth Thing(tm)" to do.
Look, for instance, on all the bad press Symantec drew for keeping info on Slammer to their own customers instead of alerting everybody.
Actually, this can be argued for ever. And what's rigth in one instance might be wrong in a different... so...
M.
Testing is an activity used to verify that the program performs according to the requirements. What XP does is verify the design. Which is fine. But it's not enough.
M.
There's no architecture when you continously refactor. The hope is that an architecture gets refactored into the app, but that won't happen.
Testing is also somewhat ignored. It's supposedly done by Test First, but that's a Design method. All it does it check that you code what you designed. Which is a very good idea, but it's not testing. This could be saved by the functional testing. But that's written and done by the customers who usually don't know what they want anyways. So...
It doesn't help writing it down when your practises don't support it. And the XP practises doesn't include architecture and misses a lot of testing.
M.
No, it's not. It's really very structured. The simple definition given above is one of the main reason XP-projects fail.
Basically XP is a bunch (11 or 12?) of well known best practises taken all the way out (if code review is good, then more code review is better, so let's code review all the time).
It's heavilly based on communication, so it will break down with large teams. It's also missing an architecture step, so large projects tends to fail, if you don't "cheat". And it's missing testing. But if the product is rather small, the people on the team communicate well, and your QA-team gets a go at the app occasionally, you'll be doing great.
Probably the best thing about XP is that it brings back the fun in programming. Writing out-of-date documents isn't any fun.
M.
Just remember that TFD is a Design method, and really has nothing to do with testing as in testing the requirements. So it will check that you coded what you designed. Whether that has anything to do with what the customer wanted is another matter.
Which should be checked by the functional testing, but that's written by the customer. And most customers don't know what they want...
M.
Wow... And I still remember when the PC was 4.7 MEGAhertz... :*)
Patterns are about balancing and rearranging opposing forces in a design to achieve some wanted effect. All patterns have consequences. These usually must be dealt with by other patterns. And thus you have a pattern language. In this setting anti-patterns makes absolutely no sense at all.
M.
Anyways, the book shows a bad way, then corrects it. Much like any "optimizing" books of the 1980's. It seems that the book with a little effort could provide patterns instead, mainly by focusing on the solutions instead of the problems.
M.
While "Brook's law" might be a law, it's only useful in retrospect. Most software projects have no idea how far behind they really are. So basically, you can always add manpower, you're really only half way through anyways...
M.
Though this one is from May 1st...
M.
...
Why do you care that MS wants your non personal info?
The problem is that Passport will collect your surfing habbits, no matter what "non personal info" you give them. At some point, you will give some real info to a site you didn't think was associated with Passport, and boom. :*)
So you need very good control over your cookies. Usually, they are associated with the user (on the client machine). Meaning you have to use a different local account to surf Passport-sites (or at least MSDN), or a different browser. The latter is probably the easiest as Microsoft's sites usually "works best with IE", and nobody uses IE for real surfing, right?
M.
What I've read, they've always used the word "open source" except in the exact sentence where they trash GLP. There they'll use "GPL". They'll say something like "no-one has managed to make money off open source software. The viral (or cancer or whatever) nature of the GPL is intended to prevent just that". The transition is very smooth, so I think they've practiced a lot. And if you're not very clear on the distinction yourself, MS won't make it any easier.
And if you think they're just "confused" on the topic, there's a bridge in my hometown that I'd love to sell you
No, I don't think they're "confused". I think they've worked on this for a while and managed to come up with a scheme of intentional confusion (aka. FUD) to dispose of Linux. Though I think they've underestimated their opponents.
M.
BTW. What would I do with a bridge? :*)
Yes, and I said so, or at least I tried.
I was simply verifying that MS uses OSS code in Windows, even Windows NT.
And since one of the reasons GRC was able to block the initial DDoS attacks was because of the limited TCP/IP implementation of Windows, it seems obvious that the stack is their own.
M.
A simple
find "Regents" C:\WinNT\System32\FTP.exe
should do it.
You could, of course, argue that this is only programs using the existing TCP/IP stack, but it still means MS is using BSD code.
M.
MS has been pretty good at keeping the distinction between GPL and the rest of the OS licenses in their arguments.
And this is not news either. We've discussed MS' use of BSD code on /. before.
M.