Regardless of his reasons, the submitter didn't specifically stated he wasn't interested in illegal downloads.
Ummm, yes he did.
Since I'm not looking for illegal downloads or to hide what I'm doing, I'm less concerned about anonymity than I am about region restrictions, reliability, latency, and security of passwords and traffic through their network.
Oh it gets even better. I know the Gunderson's and have had the pleasure of looking over the hardware that Basil. The micro-controllers that run the motors and sensors are programmed in Java.
The main system board is running Slackware Linux 12.1. I expect a BIG religious war now.
But the wind resistance advantage is more or less nullified by the increased effort in climbing hills with recumberents. On a normal bike you can use your body weight to climb more efficiently, not so with a recumberent.
Have you ever ridden a recumbent?? After the first month or so of developing the proper muscles, a recumbent is no more difficult to climb hills with than a upright. And with the proper seat adjustment, you can actually actually generate even more torque by bracing your entire body against the peddles.
I moved up into management a few years ago and have found 2 basic rules to follow.
1) Take care of your people.
2) Get the job done.
If you don't take care of your people, you will NEVER be able to get the job done.
-Doug
The earlier study was of polished code, many iterations after release. This latest study is of an unpolished developers snapshot. I suppose that you might be able to divine some kind of wisdom about the development of open-source software-- Development branches shall be as stable as commercial code. Release branches shall be more so.
Although one can say that Apache v2.1-dev is nothing more than a few iterations after it's initial release. That is why I said in a different post that using a pre-v1.0 release might be a better choice for this. I don't think using a development branch is really a good choice at all. Dev branches are just that, development, not intended for normal, every day use (except by the very brave).
The metrics report does mention the version number (dev-1/31/03), though the fact that this is development code is not explicitly noted No mentions is made who commissioned this study. Perhaps the company is simply fishing for clients.
I agree. It was a press release. I guess it just rubs me the wrong way.
It says pretty clearly that they purposely chose a less mature sample of open source software than they did last time. The point is, does open source software start out bug free or do the bugs get worked out with age?
I said at "first glance" it seems to be a case of FUD. When I think of a "less mature sample of open source software" I normally don't think of Apache (even version 2.x). I would have chosen somthing in a pre 1.0 state myself. Apache v2.1 is build on top of previous versions. I think that alone would make it harder to know if it started out bug free or had the bugs worked out with age.
But here's the kicker: the vast majority runs Apache on either BSD or Linux. All of this code, from the kernel to the library that tells Apache how to use PHP, is open source. Every hacker on the planet has full access to the code - which means that they can review it and find vulnerabilities in it. Not many people have access to Windows or IIS code. So why does IIS and Windows come out as far less secure, and is exploited so much more?
Why does IIS and Windows come out as far less secure? That is easy. It is less secure by design. Or should I say security was not a factor (or at least not a critical factor) is the design of Windows. Over the years MS has tried to add security to an inherently insecure system.
I once heard Bruce Schneier say "you can't build a secure system on an insecure foundation" (at a DefCon some years ago). He was talking about ALL OS's, not just Windows. Linux, BSD and Windows are all inherently insecure.
What little I know of IIS suggests that it was designed on the assumption that the security in Windows would be enough. Oviously it isn't enough.
Why is IIS and Windows exploited so much? Well, it seems that the vast majority of exploits are done by script kiddies. Script kiddies and the ones who make the scripts seem to go after the easiest targets. Linux and BSD are also inherently insecure, but are tougher nuts to crack than Windows.
Essentially, a Software company wanted to check it's development against an open source project and found out that a certain error rate was about the same, which seems likely given that they were looking at essentially were syntax errors not design flaws or anything else more complicated to look at.
I would say it is more likely that Reasoning is just using this "study" as a marketing tool.
I found it interesting that they used a 1/31/03 version of Apache 2.1-dev. This wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article- either that it was a development version or that their analysis was of a development-level piece of software 5 months ago.
It would be interesting to see how far 2.1 has progressed since then.
After reading the review I came a way with the impression that the reviewers were trying to hide this very fact. No mention this is a development version of Apache. No mention of what the "several commercial equivalents" are. Not much to back up their claim "Apache http server V2.1 code has defect density rate similar to the average found within commercial applications - Findings differ from previous Open Source Study".
I dare say that at first glance this this seems to be a case of FUD.
No, Bush says filtering software should be used in public places (not your home) where there would be a certain expectation of safety for a child.
Yes, but what is the definition of "a certain expectation of safety for a child"? What ever definition you come up with, it is NOT universal! Someone will say is does not go far enough, others will say it goes to far.
Case in point. Yes, I would like to keep my child from ending up on a domain with a name like "xxx-breasts.com". But, that should not prevent her from searching for information on puberty and what type of breast changes she can most likely expect. Every type of filtering software currently out falls flat on its face when dealing with this.
Say she decides to goto Planned Parenthood to look for information on this subject. Most of the filtering software will prevent her from doing so. Why, because someone OTHER THAN ME decided that Planned Parenthood is a "Danger" to MY CHILD!
In this case I'll use Senator Jesse Helms for the person saying the filtering is not going far enough, and I'll use myself for person saying it's going to far (I'm only using Helms for an example, he didn't actually say this).
Helms: This filtering software doesn't go far enough. Any computer that is funded with Government money should filter out any web site that has the word "Breast" on it. WE must protect our children, even if this means preventing someone from finding needed medical information.
Me: I will decide what my child should or should not read/see. As she matures, I will trust her to ask questions and respect my wishes. Besides, she can get around ANY filtering software you put up. Just ask her how. Oh, and that Government money is Taxpayer money, and I am a Taxpayer. Remember, you work for me, you are not my Lord!
This is just an example, but I hope it gets the point across. Since it is not possable to get a universal definition or even a majority of people to agree on a definition of "a certain expectation of safety for a child", the government should just butt out!
In fact, Bush mirrors your earlier comments when he says: "The best weapon is the off-on button, and paying attention to your children and eating dinner with them."
Well, of those three, only paying attention to your children is the important one. You can't decide to use the off-on button if you don't pay attention. And eating dinner with them helps, but only if you actually pay attention.
Even so, I'll only give him partial credit, since he didn't say anything about communicating with your children, which is also needed.
Just to put my bias up front, I'm the father of a six year old daugher, and I say the following from that prospective.
When did we (collective USA population) give up our self-responsibility and self-reliance? And WHY?
I, as a parent, am responsable for teaching my child right from wrong, and for protecting my child against harm. I decide what is right and wrong, based on my upbringing, ethics and values. And I decide what is the best way to protect my child. What I consider right, others may consider wrong. And what others may consider harmful, I may consider worth knowing about.
It is also my responsibility to know what my child is doing (not at all times, as that is simply not possable), and to take responsibility for what she does, until she is mature enough to take the responsibilities on her self.
As a result, if she is on the net, then I'm damn well going to be there to help guide her and answer questions for her. A piece of filtering software can't do these things. Expecially when the user of the software is not allowed to know EXACTLY what is being filtered and WHY!
With this said, Bush is says that when my child is online, I should forget about all of these responsabilities and turn it over to a piece of software, that will make the decisions as to what my child my read/see and not read/see. The decisions will be a one size fits all based on who knows what.
Gore's ideas are better, but I'm afraid that his ideas will just be a stepping stone to Bush's form of filtering.
Also, the idea that my child has to come home to look for information, because the libraries have been prevented from providing it, is just plane bad! The idea of a library is to provide a central place to find information. If we allow filtering to happen, then we might as well close the libraries down.
There's a reason GWB (disclaimer:yes, he's a moron) is proposing a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans - the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes, by even the most conservative estimate. Even left-leaning economists are
beginning to concede that the wealthy are being disproporionately and perhaps unfialry taxed.
Is this really disproportional? I have seen statistics (you know, the things you "LIE" with) that put as much as 90% of the US's wealth in the hands of less 1% of our population. If this is true (and I know we may never REALLY know if it is) then I feal it isn't.
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
Or not.
Lets remember that the USA is the ONLY true capitalistic republic on the planet (that I know of, and don't get me started on the use of the word "Democracy" in reference to a Republic). Every other economic powerhouse country uses either a form of economic socialism coupled with the republic form of government, or use capitalism under a non-republic form of government.
Each of the other forms have built in limits to keep the wealth in the hands of only a few. Our form of economy/government doesn't have such limits (yet).
I would say that rather than being a result of policy, it is more a fluke. Putting our form of republic together with things like the GI Bill, and our historical "Can Do" attitude provided everything needed to allow for a burst in wealth.
Why are they porting to "Red Hat" Linux??
on
ClearCase for Linux
·
· Score: 1
I've noticed a disturbing trend of commercial software being ported to specific distributions of Linux. I run both Red Hat and Debian, and will be setting up a Slackware before much longer. I would prefer that any port of Rational's software be for "Linux", not a specific distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Slackware does run on ARM. You will find the official port at http://www.armedslack.com. Getting it up and running on the Pi doesn't take much.
Which version of Virtualbox? I am running 13.37 with no problems on mine.
Regardless of his reasons, the submitter didn't specifically stated he wasn't interested in illegal downloads.
Ummm, yes he did.
Since I'm not looking for illegal downloads or to hide what I'm doing, I'm less concerned about anonymity than I am about region restrictions, reliability, latency, and security of passwords and traffic through their network.
No, the largest American brewer is Boston Beer Company, makers of Samuel Adams. That other stuff is no longer American.
Oh it gets even better. I know the Gunderson's and have had the pleasure of looking over the hardware that Basil. The micro-controllers that run the motors and sensors are programmed in Java.
The main system board is running Slackware Linux 12.1. I expect a BIG religious war now.
It would have been nice if someone had linked to a reliable source, like SF Gate instead of a gossip rag's wet dream.
But the wind resistance advantage is more or less nullified by the increased effort in climbing hills with recumberents. On a normal bike you can use your body weight to climb more efficiently, not so with a recumberent.
Have you ever ridden a recumbent?? After the first month or so of developing the proper muscles, a recumbent is no more difficult to climb hills with than a upright. And with the proper seat adjustment, you can actually actually generate even more torque by bracing your entire body against the peddles.
Or Ponies!!!!
I moved up into management a few years ago and have found 2 basic rules to follow. 1) Take care of your people. 2) Get the job done. If you don't take care of your people, you will NEVER be able to get the job done. -Doug
The earlier study was of polished code, many iterations after release. This latest study is of an unpolished developers snapshot. I suppose that you might be able to divine some kind of wisdom about the development of open-source software-- Development branches shall be as stable as commercial code. Release branches shall be more so.
Although one can say that Apache v2.1-dev is nothing more than a few iterations after it's initial release. That is why I said in a different post that using a pre-v1.0 release might be a better choice for this. I don't think using a development branch is really a good choice at all. Dev branches are just that, development, not intended for normal, every day use (except by the very brave).
The metrics report does mention the version number (dev-1/31/03), though the fact that this is development code is not explicitly noted No mentions is made who commissioned this study. Perhaps the company is simply fishing for clients.
I agree. It was a press release. I guess it just rubs me the wrong way.
FUD??? Gimme a break.
It says pretty clearly that they purposely chose a less mature sample of open source software than they did last time. The point is, does open source software start out bug free or do the bugs get worked out with age?
I said at "first glance" it seems to be a case of FUD. When I think of a "less mature sample of open source software" I normally don't think of Apache (even version 2.x). I would have chosen somthing in a pre 1.0 state myself. Apache v2.1 is build on top of previous versions. I think that alone would make it harder to know if it started out bug free or had the bugs worked out with age.
Why does IIS and Windows come out as far less secure? That is easy. It is less secure by design. Or should I say security was not a factor (or at least not a critical factor) is the design of Windows. Over the years MS has tried to add security to an inherently insecure system.
I once heard Bruce Schneier say "you can't build a secure system on an insecure foundation" (at a DefCon some years ago). He was talking about ALL OS's, not just Windows. Linux, BSD and Windows are all inherently insecure.
What little I know of IIS suggests that it was designed on the assumption that the security in Windows would be enough. Oviously it isn't enough.
Why is IIS and Windows exploited so much? Well, it seems that the vast majority of exploits are done by script kiddies. Script kiddies and the ones who make the scripts seem to go after the easiest targets. Linux and BSD are also inherently insecure, but are tougher nuts to crack than Windows.
I would say it is more likely that Reasoning is just using this "study" as a marketing tool.
After reading the review I came a way with the impression that the reviewers were trying to hide this very fact. No mention this is a development version of Apache. No mention of what the "several commercial equivalents" are. Not much to back up their claim "Apache http server V2.1 code has defect density rate similar to the average found within commercial applications - Findings differ from previous Open Source Study".
I dare say that at first glance this this seems to be a case of FUD.
Yes, but what is the definition of "a certain expectation of safety for a child"? What ever definition you come up with, it is NOT universal! Someone will say is does not go far enough, others will say it goes to far.
Case in point. Yes, I would like to keep my child from ending up on a domain with a name like "xxx-breasts.com". But, that should not prevent her from searching for information on puberty and what type of breast changes she can most likely expect. Every type of filtering software currently out falls flat on its face when dealing with this.
Say she decides to goto Planned Parenthood to look for information on this subject. Most of the filtering software will prevent her from doing so. Why, because someone OTHER THAN ME decided that Planned Parenthood is a "Danger" to MY CHILD!
In this case I'll use Senator Jesse Helms for the person saying the filtering is not going far enough, and I'll use myself for person saying it's going to far (I'm only using Helms for an example, he didn't actually say this).
Helms: This filtering software doesn't go far enough. Any computer that is funded with Government money should filter out any web site that has the word "Breast" on it. WE must protect our children, even if this means preventing someone from finding needed medical information.
Me: I will decide what my child should or should not read/see. As she matures, I will trust her to ask questions and respect my wishes. Besides, she can get around ANY filtering software you put up. Just ask her how. Oh, and that Government money is Taxpayer money, and I am a Taxpayer. Remember, you work for me, you are not my Lord!
This is just an example, but I hope it gets the point across. Since it is not possable to get a universal definition or even a majority of people to agree on a definition of "a certain expectation of safety for a child", the government should just butt out!
In fact, Bush mirrors your earlier comments when he says: "The best weapon is the off-on button, and paying attention to your children and eating dinner with them."
Well, of those three, only paying attention to your children is the important one. You can't decide to use the off-on button if you don't pay attention. And eating dinner with them helps, but only if you actually pay attention.
Even so, I'll only give him partial credit, since he didn't say anything about communicating with your children, which is also needed.
When did we (collective USA population) give up our self-responsibility and self-reliance? And WHY?
I, as a parent, am responsable for teaching my child right from wrong, and for protecting my child against harm. I decide what is right and wrong, based on my upbringing, ethics and values. And I decide what is the best way to protect my child. What I consider right, others may consider wrong. And what others may consider harmful, I may consider worth knowing about.
It is also my responsibility to know what my child is doing (not at all times, as that is simply not possable), and to take responsibility for what she does, until she is mature enough to take the responsibilities on her self.
As a result, if she is on the net, then I'm damn well going to be there to help guide her and answer questions for her. A piece of filtering software can't do these things. Expecially when the user of the software is not allowed to know EXACTLY what is being filtered and WHY!
With this said, Bush is says that when my child is online, I should forget about all of these responsabilities and turn it over to a piece of software, that will make the decisions as to what my child my read/see and not read/see. The decisions will be a one size fits all based on who knows what.
Gore's ideas are better, but I'm afraid that his ideas will just be a stepping stone to Bush's form of filtering.
Also, the idea that my child has to come home to look for information, because the libraries have been prevented from providing it, is just plane bad! The idea of a library is to provide a central place to find information. If we allow filtering to happen, then we might as well close the libraries down.
Is this really disproportional? I have seen statistics (you know, the things you "LIE" with) that put as much as 90% of the US's wealth in the hands of less 1% of our population. If this is true (and I know we may never REALLY know if it is) then I feal it isn't.
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
Or not.
Lets remember that the USA is the ONLY true capitalistic republic on the planet (that I know of, and don't get me started on the use of the word "Democracy" in reference to a Republic). Every other economic powerhouse country uses either a form of economic socialism coupled with the republic form of government, or use capitalism under a non-republic form of government. Each of the other forms have built in limits to keep the wealth in the hands of only a few. Our form of economy/government doesn't have such limits (yet).
I would say that rather than being a result of policy, it is more a fluke. Putting our form of republic together with things like the GI Bill, and our historical "Can Do" attitude provided everything needed to allow for a burst in wealth.
I've noticed a disturbing trend of commercial software being ported to specific distributions of Linux. I run both Red Hat and Debian, and will be setting up a Slackware before much longer. I would prefer that any port of Rational's software be for "Linux", not a specific distribution.