There is the technology available to avoid spam. Spam blacklists, Bayesian filters, and Challenge-Response systems will handle the vast majority of spam, if not all of it.
And all of these either have either costs, drawbacks, or don't really solve the problem (i.e. Bayesian filter on MUAs don't avoid the traffic etc.), while I can't for the life of me find anything bad on the thoughts of spammer rotting in jail.
Lol, funny how often I get that reply. Ok, thanks for pointing that out, but it isn't about the search results, in this link, but about the "Sponsored Links" you see on the right side of the page.
"Last month, Japan, China and South Korea met in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh to sign an agreement to jointly research and develop non-Windows, open source OS."
Maybe South Korea should first invest more money (the 300 umptilion they seem to save here) into better education of their admins (I count every user as admin here). They are one of the biggest sources of spam, last I saw, and the reason for that is ratio of boxes with big pipes vs. capable admins/users over there. Mind you, I'm not saying that the s-koreans are less competent than somewhere else, it's just that they seem to have one of the most advanced network infrastructures of the world. That makes every homeuser an attractive target for spammers cracking the box and using it for sending tons of spam. If they switched everything to linux tomorrow, I'd expect the proportion of exploitable OSS systems vs. windows systems to change in a significant way.
I know we are on the same side on this one. The whole thread started with that tired strong vs. weak typing argument, and I wanted to point out that people always seem to confuse that with static vs. dynamic typing. People always confuse things like "design by contract" with static typing (also in this thread), while the first should be seen as conscious design choice (by the programmer/designer of the software), and the second is in reality a constraint forced by the language. I'm absolutely not against enforcing types, but I want to choose when. I don't want to evangelize for python, it's just that I know python best to use it as a counter example against static typing proponents. Now about your examples (which are absolutely valid), you can do that in python too. First, there's "assert" in python
>>> a = 3 >>> assert type(a) == str, "a should be an int, dumbass" Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<interactive input>", line 1, in ? AssertionError: a should be an int, dumbass >>> assert type(a)==int, "a should be an int, dumbass" >>>
I really don't know about the quality, but it shows that it is possible to use something much more powerfull than static typing to make a piece software maintainable with python. OTOH, I'd like to see someone showing me dynamically typed java.
First, I don't think that this battle is the same as the old IBM vs. rest-of-the-world+microsoft battle. That one had two opposing parties which were quite potent. The "battle" we have today is SCO vs. IBM+rest-of-the-world, but the difference is that SCO is fundamentally impotent, in that they have no chance of winning.
But there's a really epic battle in the works, and this battle can't be categorized into hardware or software. It's about the whole system, and this time it's nearly-the-whole-industry vs. consumers, and it's about palladium. We should not forget about that while raving about this SCO nuisance.
But a type system makes a hell of a difference when you (or your poor successor) needs to change anything later because many (if not most) of the conflicts caused by a change are IMMEDIATELY nailed down by the typechecker. This thing is, typeing bugs are bugs. If you send a number to a thing that expects a database connection Python will moan just as much as JAva. the difference is JAva will moan before you run. PYthon and PHP will not.
Don't get me wrong, I write loads of tings in Ruby and Python. Most of them are small things that do a specific task, adminstrative scripts that sort of things. But for large complex systems, don't get me on a non-typed language.
Please get your terminology right. Python _is_ strongly typed (as you said yourself, it _will_ moan if you try to mix incompatible types). But, it's dynamically typed + not compiled, therefore it can't complain in the compile stage. But that is why you write unit tests.
And as nice as static typing (which is what you are talking about), it forces you to do all kinds of distracting (at least IMO) typecasts.
See for instance http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.j sp?thread= 7590 for the scoop on static vs. dynamic and strong vs. weak typing w.r.t. python.
Oh, and you may well be right that for really huge projects, the java handles typing is the way to go, if only because one can't trust all programmers working on the project at any point in time to not shoot themselves in the foot. But still, your terminology isn't right.
I don't mean to say anything against their product, which as far as I know is the greatest object persistence scheme ever hatched.
It isn't. Please see the thread about the ZODB, also tagged to this story, to read about at least one other object database which doesn't have many of the shortcomings of their product.
Excellent summary. I'd like to add that the ZODB guys also don't go around telling everyone how their product will make Oracle/Postgres/DB2 obsolet. IMO, that's a big plus for them, as it shows they know their stuff.
[OT]Re:same price at amazon
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
So, you'd prefer Big Corporate Amazon keep that $1 commision than they give it to some guy? What are you, a Republican?
No, I'd prefer not to get spammed, period.
Re:same price at amazon
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah, and you also can go to amazon without supporting the blatantly spamming dumbass with amazon-id ccats-20 here
hey'll do it again in a second if it looks like Linux is eating Solaris's lunch. So, no. Linux is no threat to Sun. It's simply a transition challenge.
I don't think so. Sun switching to linux would mean making their product comparable and interchangable with every other hardware linux runs on. This is nearly the same as as apple not releasing OS X for intel (solaris on intel is no competitor to solaris on sparc, so that doesn't count). Sun adopting linux on big iron could mean the end of the company, that's why they'll avoid doing this as long as they can.
Really, read the following quote if you don't believe me:
I expect to take 10 percent of the market in the first year. Ten percent of a $30 billion a year desktop market is huge. So, is it going to be more than 10 percent? I hope so, but in the next year I'd like to get a million users. There's a hundred million computers sold every year, I want to be in front of a million of those and two-million the next year.
As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review:)
It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..
Interesting that it rejects the first recipient, but accepts the second, then bomb on the DATA stage.
You are thinking too complex for verisign standards;)
$ telnet spam.aasfgsdafgsdf.com 25 Trying 64.94.110.11... Connected to spam.aasfgsdafgsdf.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 snubby4-wceast Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 ready gfsdfg 250 OK sdfgsdgf 250 OK sdfgsdgf 550 User domain does not exist. sdfgsdgf 250 OK sdgfdsg 221 snubby4-wceast Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3 closing transmission channel
hat was then, this is now. Internal benchmarks of our code under mod_perl, PHP, Python (Zope), and Java for our web development show Java (Tomcat) to be the winner by a landslide when it comes to scalability, performance, and rapid development.
Ahem, sorry for a little zope advocacy, but you really can't compare the other alternatives to zope. It must be slower, since it is a complete application server and does much more for every request than the standard perl/php/servlet framework (like having a built in security architecture, preserving transaction integrity, etc.).
RTFA, it is because Gnutella is designed to be de-centralized. This is needed to avoid being targetted by dimwitted judges. If you no longer need to fear them you can go back to the centralized method that napster used and for that matter bittorrent.
And still the bandwidth (and processing power) you need for running the central database is quite expensive (note: that's why you can't compare bittorrent to napster, it just isn't centralized in the same way, and it solves the big-expensive-central-server problem.). Decentralized networks (including bittorrent following the reasoning above) are the only possibility way to do filesharing organized only by hobbiists, and that's why they will prevail.
But this whole mess is _not_ orchestrated by SCO. Look at the people involved, look at the content of IBM's subpoena (the important parts are up on groklaw), a subpoena adressed to Canopy, not SCO.
Canopy has a history of taking a lot of influence in the companies they have a majority stake in, so that in effect, the company is managed from inside Canopy.
I think they wanted to use the threat of a SCO kamikaze against IBM, in order to maximise their returns for a dying company by extorting some money from them and getting some money out of the stock market. Now that IBM apparently doesn't want to play this game, they are solely taking the stock market route - notice how the number of (absurd) press releases per week went considerably up after it was clear the IBM wouldn't cave in.
On IBM's POV, I think they know quite well what's going on, they know their real "enemies" are part of canopy, as can be seen by the content of their subpoena.
Now we can speculate even more: Maybe Canopy underestimated something when setting up that plot. This whole IP/Copyright "weakness" of linux they are capitalizing on is of an enormous strategical importance for IBM. IBM must make sure that no one else will ever get the idea to do what Canopy/SCO are doing now. And, if I interpret IBM's subpoena correcty, this is what they are doing now. They are beginning to show the world that there is no secure way of playing the game that canopy is playing now. And they (IBM) have to make sure that everyone gets this message.
So I don't expect this mess to resolve quietly, I expect Canopy to come out of this seriously hurt.
About that subpoena, I really think people don't get the importance of that. AFAIK, it was never reported here on slashdot, and I didn't see a lot about it elsewhere. But the content and adressee (Canopy, not SCO) really are the only sign what IBM seems to be up to. And I interpret it as they are going to make it ugly - as ugly as they can. If I were someone at Canopy, I'd be very scared by the thought that this might be only the first manouver from IBM, and wonder what I'm in for next. The possibilites are endless, maybe Canopy's most important companies (besides SCO, lol) are in for some patent problem talks at some point in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
There is the technology available to avoid spam. Spam blacklists, Bayesian filters, and Challenge-Response systems will handle the vast majority of spam, if not all of it.
And all of these either have either costs, drawbacks, or don't really solve the problem (i.e. Bayesian filter on MUAs don't avoid the traffic etc.), while I can't for the life of me find anything bad on the thoughts of spammer rotting in jail.
</half joking>
Lol, funny how often I get that reply. Ok, thanks for pointing that out, but it isn't about the search results, in this link, but about the "Sponsored Links" you see on the right side of the page.
Hmm, looks like I should adjust that sig.
"Last month, Japan, China and South Korea met in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh to sign an agreement to jointly research and develop non-Windows, open source OS."
Maybe South Korea should first invest more money (the 300 umptilion they seem to save here) into better education of their admins (I count every user as admin here). They are one of the biggest sources of spam, last I saw, and the reason for that is ratio of boxes with big pipes vs. capable admins/users over there. Mind you, I'm not saying that the s-koreans are less competent than somewhere else, it's just that they seem to have one of the most advanced network infrastructures of the world. That makes every homeuser an attractive target for spammers cracking the box and using it for sending tons of spam.
If they switched everything to linux tomorrow, I'd expect the proportion of exploitable OSS systems vs. windows systems to change in a significant way.
People always confuse things like "design by contract" with static typing (also in this thread), while the first should be seen as conscious design choice (by the programmer/designer of the software), and the second is in reality a constraint forced by the language.
I'm absolutely not against enforcing types, but I want to choose when. I don't want to evangelize for python, it's just that I know python best to use it as a counter example against static typing proponents.
Now about your examples (which are absolutely valid), you can do that in python too. First, there's "assert" in pythonSecond, there's an implementation of real contracts for python, take a look at http://www.wayforward.net/pycontract/.
I really don't know about the quality, but it shows that it is possible to use something much more powerfull than static typing to make a piece software maintainable with python. OTOH, I'd like to see someone showing me dynamically typed java.
Lookee here
Freepdf, if you're not doing prepress stuff, it is actually better than acrobat (I use 4.0) IMO.
I wonder how many SCO FUD Spinners read /. waiting to see who to go after next.
We'll find out when they start filing duplicate press releases or lawsuits.
Nice analogy, but flawed IMO.
First, I don't think that this battle is the same as the old IBM vs. rest-of-the-world+microsoft battle. That one had two opposing parties which were quite potent. The "battle" we have today is SCO vs. IBM+rest-of-the-world, but the difference is that SCO is fundamentally impotent, in that they have no chance of winning.
But there's a really epic battle in the works, and this battle can't be categorized into hardware or software. It's about the whole system, and this time it's nearly-the-whole-industry vs. consumers, and it's about palladium.
We should not forget about that while raving about this SCO nuisance.
To be able to "declare" types is not necessary for having a type system: attributes of classes would need to have a defined type. Furthermore, you also have a hierachy of types, based on inheritance:
But a type system makes a hell of a difference when you (or your poor successor) needs to change anything later because many (if not most) of the conflicts caused by a change are IMMEDIATELY nailed down by the typechecker. This thing is, typeing bugs are bugs. If you send a number to a thing that expects a database connection Python will moan just as much as JAva. the difference is JAva will moan before you run. PYthon and PHP will not.
j sp?thread= 7590
Don't get me wrong, I write loads of tings in Ruby and Python. Most of them are small things that do a specific task, adminstrative scripts that sort of things. But for large complex systems, don't get me on a non-typed language.
Please get your terminology right. Python _is_ strongly typed (as you said yourself, it _will_ moan if you try to mix incompatible types).
But, it's dynamically typed + not compiled, therefore it can't complain in the compile stage. But that is why you write unit tests.
And as nice as static typing (which is what you are talking about), it forces you to do all kinds of distracting (at least IMO) typecasts.
See for instance
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.
for the scoop on static vs. dynamic and strong vs. weak typing w.r.t. python.
Oh, and you may well be right that for really huge projects, the java handles typing is the way to go, if only because one can't trust all programmers working on the project at any point in time to not shoot themselves in the foot.
But still, your terminology isn't right.
I don't mean to say anything against their product, which as far as I know is the greatest object persistence scheme ever hatched.
It isn't. Please see the thread about the ZODB, also tagged to this story, to read about at least one other object database which doesn't have many of the shortcomings of their product.
Excellent summary. I'd like to add that the ZODB guys also don't go around telling everyone how their product will make Oracle/Postgres/DB2 obsolet.
IMO, that's a big plus for them, as it shows they know their stuff.
So, you'd prefer Big Corporate Amazon keep that $1 commision than they give it to some guy? What are you, a Republican?
No, I'd prefer not to get spammed, period.
Yeah, and you also can go to amazon without supporting the blatantly spamming dumbass with amazon-id ccats-20
here
hey'll do it again in a second if it looks like Linux is eating Solaris's lunch.
So, no. Linux is no threat to Sun. It's simply a transition challenge.
I don't think so. Sun switching to linux would mean making their product comparable and interchangable with every other hardware linux runs on. This is nearly the same as as apple not releasing OS X for intel (solaris on intel is no competitor to solaris on sparc, so that doesn't count).
Sun adopting linux on big iron could mean the end of the company, that's why they'll avoid doing this as long as they can.
While there's still quite some way to go, sun has taken a good step in the direction of very creative public relation management.
Really, read the following quote if you don't believe me:
and lest not forget
this, this or this beauty.
Might be a nice idea for blogs to push that into google.
How is this supposed to help?
Interesting that it rejects the first recipient, but accepts the second, then bomb on the DATA stage.
You are thinking too complex for verisign standards
hat was then, this is now. Internal benchmarks of our code under mod_perl, PHP, Python (Zope), and Java for our web development show Java (Tomcat) to be the winner by a landslide when it comes to scalability, performance, and rapid development.
Ahem, sorry for a little zope advocacy, but you really can't compare the other alternatives to zope. It must be slower, since it is a complete application server and does much more for every request than the standard perl/php/servlet framework (like having a built in security architecture, preserving transaction integrity, etc.).
RTFA, it is because Gnutella is designed to be de-centralized. This is needed to avoid being targetted by dimwitted judges. If you no longer need to fear them you can go back to the centralized method that napster used and for that matter bittorrent.
And still the bandwidth (and processing power) you need for running the central database is quite expensive (note: that's why you can't compare bittorrent to napster, it just isn't centralized in the same way, and it solves the big-expensive-central-server problem.). Decentralized networks (including bittorrent following the reasoning above) are the only possibility way to do filesharing organized only by hobbiists, and that's why they will prevail.
Sorry, but the article writer is a dumbass
However, if filesharing becomes legal through a compulsory license, what is the purpose of the Gnutella-based software anymore?
Sharing bandwidth, perhaps?
But this whole mess is _not_ orchestrated by SCO. Look at the people involved, look at the content of IBM's subpoena (the important parts are up on groklaw), a subpoena adressed to Canopy, not SCO.
Canopy has a history of taking a lot of influence in the companies they have a majority stake in, so that in effect, the company is managed from inside Canopy.
I think they wanted to use the threat of a SCO kamikaze against IBM, in order to maximise their returns for a dying company by extorting some money from them and getting some money out of the stock market.
Now that IBM apparently doesn't want to play this game, they are solely taking the stock market route - notice how the number of (absurd) press releases per week went considerably up after it was clear the IBM wouldn't cave in.
On IBM's POV, I think they know quite well what's going on, they know their real "enemies" are part of canopy, as can be seen by the content of their subpoena.
Now we can speculate even more:
Maybe Canopy underestimated something when setting up that plot. This whole IP/Copyright "weakness" of linux they are capitalizing on is of an enormous strategical importance for IBM.
IBM must make sure that no one else will ever get the idea to do what Canopy/SCO are doing now.
And, if I interpret IBM's subpoena correcty, this is what they are doing now. They are beginning to show the world that there is no secure way of playing the game that canopy is playing now. And they (IBM) have to make sure that everyone gets this message.
So I don't expect this mess to resolve quietly, I expect Canopy to come out of this seriously hurt.
About that subpoena, I really think people don't get the importance of that. AFAIK, it was never reported here on slashdot, and I didn't see a lot about it elsewhere.
But the content and adressee (Canopy, not SCO) really are the only sign what IBM seems to be up to. And I interpret it as they are going to make it ugly - as ugly as they can.
If I were someone at Canopy, I'd be very scared by the thought that this might be only the first manouver from IBM, and wonder what I'm in for next.
The possibilites are endless, maybe Canopy's most important companies (besides SCO, lol) are in for some patent problem talks at some point in the future.
I own a Mac, so the situation is slightly different, ..
;).
Yeah, Mac owners can use up all the resources of their machines with a fast tetris level