As other folks have said, the code names are all rivers in Oregon.
The "release" name Pentium was created by some marketing name-creating droid, the same fine folks who gave us Agilent et. al. Penta evokes "5" (the 586) while the "ium" supposed to evoke an elemental ingredient, like plutonium.
The reason for this was the old AMD and Cyrix vs Intel disputes. Intel used to use them as external fabs, they had access to designs and such. When the 486 came out, Intel wanted to bring stuff back in-house, and also distance with the other guys, make them sound cooler. So, they tried to trademark i486, for the real Intel blessed 486. Judge laughed, you can't trademark numbers. Next time around, they came up with a trademarkable name, the Pentium. That begat the 5x86 and 6x86 from Cyrix, and Athlon and Duron, cause now all the cool kids had to have names.
Make sure benchmarks or apps have optimized code for the processor they are running on, and make sure the setup is the same for both processors.
Even this isn't enough. In the case of PowerPC vs. Intel, because of the AltiVec unit, the problem set can be chosen to be better on one system vs. another.
The entire thing right now I think some folks miss seeing in the race to have the best is that 99% of stuff out there will do what most folks need. I had a friend (thanks to Intel Inside-eous marketing) ask me if his 800Mhz Celeron would let him surf the Internet faster. Umm, Idunno if libpr0n has been optimized for MMX, but I'd say yeah.
On another note with 'optimized' benchmarks. I remember some story of some UNIX vendor a long time ago that rewrote their compiler so that it would detect a certain canned benchmark. If would then "optimize" it to become nothing but a giant no-op loop. You can go through a loop pretty fast if it does nothing. For some reason they always won that benchmark test. Though they obviously violated the spirit of the benchmark, thoy could honestly claim they were the fastest through that code. Be careful what you're testing.
I've been following this a little bit, and one point that was brought up (by ICANN I believe) and not mentioned is that this is essentially creating a domain only for web use. The law talks about surfing, but it never addresses other services. Would there be limitations on mailing lists set up from that domain, who would police that.
Though I don't like them all that much (don't hate them either) I kinda feel sorry for ICANN. The world thinks they're too allied with the US and US government, and our government thinks they're not like a rubber stamp enough.
I'm a programmer. We like to call ourselves engineers but most of us are still a bit far away from that. This work was caused by a stack smash exploit, a buffer in a local variable. Put too much stuff in it, and you scribble over the stack, and maybe you get a shell. In this case, it got permissions, and was programmed to spread itself.
The problem is that these happen all too often. We're building complex systems, but our tools are not up to the task, at least at the security end. This was a stack smash, the multiple telnet vulnerability is a stack smash (there's some keyword expansion in the buffer, and that wasn't accounted for), the (in)famous Morris worm was a stack smash. There are exploits for environment variables of unchecked length, there are exploits for using a supplied string for a printf or sprintf ( printf(a) instead of printf("%s", a), which causes problems if a is evil-user supplied). Why are these still happening? These are all known problems, with easy solutions. C tends to be our language of choice, but is insecure. Where are the additional tools though that can secure it? A sort of SecureLint? These bugs and worms are causing economic damage. Isn't it worth a portion of this money to try to make tools to clamp these down?
And that's just the base stuff, sacrificing security for perceived ease of use or speed to market is a topic for someone elses rant.
It is a bad idea to click on executable attachments from people you do not know...
This wasn't an email virus. This was a self-spreading worm. Took advantage of an unchecked buffer to do standard stack smash exploit. The only error was not applying IIS system patches as soon enough.
Ironic. I read an article on ZdNet on how Microsoft was not only gonna pull it's JVM, but was going to disable some Java applets because it viewed them as a security risk. I wondered aloud whether this would have disabled Outlook, IIS, IE (ActiveX vulnerabilities) and.vbs files.
Microsoft Outlook: Making the Goodtimes virus real.
And they helped out in our revolution, but then they invaded Mexico so they could align with the Southern States in our Civil War. I guess they wanted the Louisiana Purchase back.
If you bothered to see other articles on his site you'd see. He has written software, being a big part of writing VBA for Excel and dealing with the Juno client.
I've looked at some of the other articles on his site - I had a link to the homepage for a while now and I read this article yesterday. He's a pretty smart guy, a few good ideas. I don't necessarily agree with the article - I think it applies more for large complex systems (Notes, NT, unfortunately Word) but a Notepad style editor that takes 10 years is a bit much.
Much like Rick never saying "play it again Sam" and Al Gore never saying he invented the Internet, Sagan never said "Billions and Billions". He just accented billions so heavily it became a catchphrase and it morphed into "billions and billions".
Surprisingly enough, a company that spent $140 to deliver $100 worth of groceries went under.
Many of the dotcoms (I worked for one, and I speak of what I want through) felt all of the old business models were invalid. Well, the rules bent when new companies were flooded with what seemed to be an unending supply of capital, but when that bubble burst, a lot of folks got bit in the ass. Webvan raised $375million in it's IPO, only to crash 2 weeks later. And this was before the big bubble burst on Wall Street.
Groceries are a tough business. You get maybe a 4% margin on things. It's almost better to put your money in a passbook and draw 2% or 3% at zero risk.
All the ads I see have some woman with a smile, and a hint you can put the ad "anywhere" or for "fun". Isn't clandestine taping of someone without they're knowing about it illegal? At least in places with an expectation of privacy? Could they be held accountable for encouraging ilegal activity?
Probably not. The ads are probably subtle enough (well not subtle, but they don't explicitly state anything illegal) that nothing could happen because of that.
I wish I could get the link, but I remember some site online with a license agreement so wordy and fraught with legalese that it was held unreasonable for a person to wade through all of that garbage.
Also, there are times you can't get to the EULA. Ever have a wrapped CD where the flap has some "by breaking this seal you agree to the EULA", and the EULA is a file on the CD? So I'm agreeing to something I haven't read?
I said they write it, not necessarily followed it....;^)
Jokes aside, they have large complex systems, changing all the time based on marketing whims. They added XML and Internet hooks into every product that they own. They can turn on a dime if they want to, and one of the tradeoffs they make is code quality. Not great for blue screens, but hasn't hurt them in the poicketbook, which suits Billy Boy just fine.
Like it or not, Mickeysoft has some good programmers. I don't like Microsoft, but even I can admit the programmers there are pretty damn smart. Ever read any of their books? Writing Solid Code has many good ideas on writing bug free and easily debugged code.
What sets Microsoft apart from all other programming companies is their singleminded need to dominate every market it touches. I don't think Billy can sleep at night knowing somebody out there is turning on a PC or a toaster and he's not getting a couple shekels off of it. Unfortunately, this market dominance manifests itself quite often in apps rushed to the market, too many features (which MS semi-admitted in W2K by having menus hide unused features) which add to possible defects and bugs, and Microsoft giving you what it wants you to have instead of what you want/need (damn paperclip).
Yes, some of their stuff is shit (ever wade through MFC headers or source? it's ugly in there) but most of them actually have a clue surprisingly enough.
To add a new meta-discussion, it's kind of interesting to see some of the "people see comfort in buying licenses" posts. Here we have something nebulous such as bits on a CD, and it wasn't that long ago (maybe 20, 30 years, small in the history of financial transactions) that software was a given and hardware was the only thing worth paying for. Anyone think of the debates that raged when Microsoft actually had the temerity to sell software instead of giving it away? Now we're come somewhat full circle to where people are more comfortable paying.
I'm not saying people shouldn't pay. I'm a programmer myself and it's how I pay my rent. Other folks get money for what is essentially information (authors, musicians, designers of most any kind) and nothing concrete (how is Mozarts music score any more or less concrete than a couple zeros and ones on a CD). It's just we've seen the change from paying for hardware, to paying for software where hardware (in the PC world) is a nearly interchangeable commodity, to soon paying for services. Just struck me for some reason.
I personally wouldn't use this, in mozilla or otherwise. This technology already exists, I think NBCI had something that did this. I never downloaded it, and I bet neither did a lot of folks. NBCI didn't have the legal issues because it was user initiated, you had to download something.
There's gonna be some interesting lawsuits soon, Microsoft insisting it's only changing presentation and not content. My opinion (not that it matters) links are content. Suck (R.I.P.) was probably the best example of links becoming content. There'll be lawyers.
There is one big difference between Mickeysoft and Mozilla doing it: Microsoft is a monopoly. It does change the rules. A lot of the governments case was on illegal bundling. Bundling isn't necessarily illegal. Leveraging a monopoly in one arena by bundling to gain advantage in another area is. Again, there'll be lawyers.
He did it for fun man. The first electronic (well electromagnetical anyway, he used relays) computer was created by some German dude because he wanted to use it to do his math homework. I can guarantee he spent more time on the comp. than his homework woulda taken, but it was fun man.
Same thing with this dude. If he spent his time trying to figure out a weird way of getting a low drain computer, more power to him. (Pun pseudo-intended).
Slashdot Mirror
The "release" name Pentium was created by some marketing name-creating droid, the same fine folks who gave us Agilent et. al. Penta evokes "5" (the 586) while the "ium" supposed to evoke an elemental ingredient, like plutonium.
The reason for this was the old AMD and Cyrix vs Intel disputes. Intel used to use them as external fabs, they had access to designs and such. When the 486 came out, Intel wanted to bring stuff back in-house, and also distance with the other guys, make them sound cooler. So, they tried to trademark i486, for the real Intel blessed 486. Judge laughed, you can't trademark numbers. Next time around, they came up with a trademarkable name, the Pentium. That begat the 5x86 and 6x86 from Cyrix, and Athlon and Duron, cause now all the cool kids had to have names.
IBM was working on this for it's Power line (not PowerPC). Dammit, can't find any links to anything concrete.
Even this isn't enough. In the case of PowerPC vs. Intel, because of the AltiVec unit, the problem set can be chosen to be better on one system vs. another.
The entire thing right now I think some folks miss seeing in the race to have the best is that 99% of stuff out there will do what most folks need. I had a friend (thanks to Intel Inside-eous marketing) ask me if his 800Mhz Celeron would let him surf the Internet faster. Umm, Idunno if libpr0n has been optimized for MMX, but I'd say yeah.
On another note with 'optimized' benchmarks. I remember some story of some UNIX vendor a long time ago that rewrote their compiler so that it would detect a certain canned benchmark. If would then "optimize" it to become nothing but a giant no-op loop. You can go through a loop pretty fast if it does nothing. For some reason they always won that benchmark test. Though they obviously violated the spirit of the benchmark, thoy could honestly claim they were the fastest through that code. Be careful what you're testing.
Though I don't like them all that much (don't hate them either) I kinda feel sorry for ICANN. The world thinks they're too allied with the US and US government, and our government thinks they're not like a rubber stamp enough.
The problem is that these happen all too often. We're building complex systems, but our tools are not up to the task, at least at the security end. This was a stack smash, the multiple telnet vulnerability is a stack smash (there's some keyword expansion in the buffer, and that wasn't accounted for), the (in)famous Morris worm was a stack smash. There are exploits for environment variables of unchecked length, there are exploits for using a supplied string for a printf or sprintf ( printf(a) instead of printf("%s", a), which causes problems if a is evil-user supplied). Why are these still happening? These are all known problems, with easy solutions. C tends to be our language of choice, but is insecure. Where are the additional tools though that can secure it? A sort of SecureLint? These bugs and worms are causing economic damage. Isn't it worth a portion of this money to try to make tools to clamp these down?
And that's just the base stuff, sacrificing security for perceived ease of use or speed to market is a topic for someone elses rant.
(Obligatory karma whoring link)
Flawfinder
This wasn't an email virus. This was a self-spreading worm. Took advantage of an unchecked buffer to do standard stack smash exploit. The only error was not applying IIS system patches as soon enough.
(Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!)
From story submit:
(You must preview once before you can submit)
Or maybe they just like bold and italics?
Microsoft Outlook: Making the Goodtimes virus real.
And they helped out in our revolution, but then they invaded Mexico so they could align with the Southern States in our Civil War. I guess they wanted the Louisiana Purchase back.
I've looked at some of the other articles on his site - I had a link to the homepage for a while now and I read this article yesterday. He's a pretty smart guy, a few good ideas. I don't necessarily agree with the article - I think it applies more for large complex systems (Notes, NT, unfortunately Word) but a Notepad style editor that takes 10 years is a bit much.
Pain in the ass if you move around. I got a new computer twice (for various reasons). Contact list didn't survice totally intact either time.
Messenger went down
I have no Internet chats
Phone sex anyone?
Messenger went down I have no Internet chats Phone sex anyone?
Much like Rick never saying "play it again Sam" and Al Gore never saying he invented the Internet, Sagan never said "Billions and Billions". He just accented billions so heavily it became a catchphrase and it morphed into "billions and billions".
Many of the dotcoms (I worked for one, and I speak of what I want through) felt all of the old business models were invalid. Well, the rules bent when new companies were flooded with what seemed to be an unending supply of capital, but when that bubble burst, a lot of folks got bit in the ass. Webvan raised $375million in it's IPO, only to crash 2 weeks later. And this was before the big bubble burst on Wall Street.
Groceries are a tough business. You get maybe a 4% margin on things. It's almost better to put your money in a passbook and draw 2% or 3% at zero risk.
Probably not. The ads are probably subtle enough (well not subtle, but they don't explicitly state anything illegal) that nothing could happen because of that.
Also, there are times you can't get to the EULA. Ever have a wrapped CD where the flap has some "by breaking this seal you agree to the EULA", and the EULA is a file on the CD? So I'm agreeing to something I haven't read?
I said they write it, not necessarily followed it.... ;^)
Jokes aside, they have large complex systems, changing all the time based on marketing whims. They added XML and Internet hooks into every product that they own. They can turn on a dime if they want to, and one of the tradeoffs they make is code quality. Not great for blue screens, but hasn't hurt them in the poicketbook, which suits Billy Boy just fine.
What sets Microsoft apart from all other programming companies is their singleminded need to dominate every market it touches. I don't think Billy can sleep at night knowing somebody out there is turning on a PC or a toaster and he's not getting a couple shekels off of it. Unfortunately, this market dominance manifests itself quite often in apps rushed to the market, too many features (which MS semi-admitted in W2K by having menus hide unused features) which add to possible defects and bugs, and Microsoft giving you what it wants you to have instead of what you want/need (damn paperclip).
Yes, some of their stuff is shit (ever wade through MFC headers or source? it's ugly in there) but most of them actually have a clue surprisingly enough.
I'm not saying people shouldn't pay. I'm a programmer myself and it's how I pay my rent. Other folks get money for what is essentially information (authors, musicians, designers of most any kind) and nothing concrete (how is Mozarts music score any more or less concrete than a couple zeros and ones on a CD). It's just we've seen the change from paying for hardware, to paying for software where hardware (in the PC world) is a nearly interchangeable commodity, to soon paying for services. Just struck me for some reason.
I think Bondage and D/S get enough money on the net with or without your contributions, but the thought was nice.
Hmm. How about MOS 6502s? I knew there was a reason I have my C64 in my attic.....
Gnutella's scaling issues were bandwidth, not processor based.
There's gonna be some interesting lawsuits soon, Microsoft insisting it's only changing presentation and not content. My opinion (not that it matters) links are content. Suck (R.I.P.) was probably the best example of links becoming content. There'll be lawyers.
There is one big difference between Mickeysoft and Mozilla doing it: Microsoft is a monopoly. It does change the rules. A lot of the governments case was on illegal bundling. Bundling isn't necessarily illegal. Leveraging a monopoly in one arena by bundling to gain advantage in another area is. Again, there'll be lawyers.
Same thing with this dude. If he spent his time trying to figure out a weird way of getting a low drain computer, more power to him. (Pun pseudo-intended).