Just think of all the costs and damage that all these holes incur.
Creating an OS with no notion of security, then adding networking functionality so you can connect it to every other computer on the planet and then adding scripting and remote execution functionality so that anyone may run scripts and executables remotely is the height of stupidity. In fact, it sounds negligent to me.
How can such an operating system be considered of merchantable quality in a fully networked world? It's analogous to a building contractor selling a house without doors or windows.
It's not as if networks are a new thing. They have existed for what... 30 years now?
The only way that the Love bug affects Linux or apple is very high load on the mail servers and gateways. People useing Linux on the desktop will only be affected in that they may receive copies of the trojan but I wouldn't call this being affected.
I don't understand why these emulators appear. They are generally slow, buggy and consume two many resources. They also tend to die out fairly quickly.
Science requires definition. You go and define what quality is before you try to measure it.
Until you can define for me what quality is and how to measure it, don't try to tell me that Quality systems measure quality.
I agree that it is reasonable for management to expect good quality work from employees but you can't buy Quality.
The problems is that most management think that they can simply buy one of these quality systems, hire a few consultants and they magically have "Quality".
Not the case and simply trying to get quality by implementing a quality system will not give you a quality business, quality management or quality products.
Quality does *not* start at the top of the heirarchy, what utter crap.
Quality is up to the individual. Either the individuals concerned *believe* in doing high quality work or they don't give a shit. If they don't care then there isn't a quality system in the world which will make a difference.
That's not the same as "getting some Quality" which is what all these Quality systems imply.
Management often think they can just buy "Quality" and invest in these systems. However, you can't just buy "Quality", you have to *believe* in it. You can spend as many millions as you like on consultants and quality systems but that doesn't mean that you have a better business or better products.
Slashdot Mirror
Now what's needed is a network of servers to distribute the galaxy over.
Your ship jumps to another solar system - your client connects to the relevant server on the Internet.
People could design their own solar systems, spacefaring races, spacecraft etc.
It's the obvious next step.
It can all be sorted by reserving 1st & 2nd level domains for administrative puroposes only.
8 219&cid=105
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/10/22
That'd be my choice.
Actually, I want Debian. It's the one distribution that you can get for every single platform (that I can think of anyway).
It's an administrators dream.
Just think of all the costs and damage that all these holes incur.
Creating an OS with no notion of security, then adding networking functionality so you can connect it to every other computer on the planet and then adding scripting and remote execution functionality so that anyone may run scripts and executables remotely is the height of stupidity.
In fact, it sounds negligent to me.
How can such an operating system be considered of merchantable quality in a fully networked world? It's analogous to a building contractor selling a house without doors or windows.
It's not as if networks are a new thing. They have existed for what... 30 years now?
Say I wanted to make a thin server like a cobalt raq but using PowerPC chips and running Power PC Linux.
Where would I go about getting the motherboard etc? None of the regular PC outlets have anything for the PPC except iMacs.
I currently abuse the moderation system as much as possible. I do it because I can and it'll hasten the change to an improved system.
Problem: Too many moderators with too many points.
It's far too easy to become a moderator at the moment.
The DNS heirarchy is total anarchy at the moment. Someone needs to put a little thought into a structure which will meet future needs.
.com, .net, .org (and all the new ones that'll appear soon) simply will no longer do.
A flat
Ah but it does matter. She's not really that great looking and to be honest it takes away from the whole atmosphere of the game.
Yup.
Oracle has replication, transaction logging, distributed locking, remote queries, scheduling etc etc etc.
But yes, it is a pain to admin.
The only way that the Love bug affects Linux or apple is very high load on the mail servers and gateways. People useing Linux on the desktop will only be affected in that they may receive copies of the trojan but I wouldn't call this being affected.
Are we surprised that Linux is unaffected in that it's a Microsoft specific trojan?
There are some nice procmail filters about now which can bounce specific attachment types so the unix mail admins will be more prepared in future.
Well, get yourself an abuse account and mark yourself up.
I.e. badly.
I don't understand why these emulators appear. They are generally slow, buggy and consume two many resources. They also tend to die out fairly quickly.
Science requires definition. You go and define what quality is before you try to measure it.
Until you can define for me what quality is and how to measure it, don't try to tell me that Quality systems measure quality.
I agree that it is reasonable for management to expect good quality work from employees but you can't buy Quality.
The problems is that most management think that they can simply buy one of these quality systems, hire a few consultants and they magically have "Quality".
Not the case and simply trying to get quality by implementing a quality system will not give you a quality business, quality management or quality products.
Quality is a belief, *not* a methodology.
Quality does *not* start at the top of the heirarchy, what utter crap.
Quality is up to the individual. Either the individuals concerned *believe* in doing high quality work or they don't give a shit. If they don't care then there isn't a quality system in the world which will make a difference.
That's not the same as "getting some Quality" which is what all these Quality systems imply.
Management often think they can just buy "Quality" and invest in these systems. However, you can't just buy "Quality", you have to *believe* in it. You can spend as many millions as you like on consultants and quality systems but that doesn't mean that you have a better business or better products.
'Quality' cannot be enforced from above. It's that simple.
So, saying we need to get some Quality is stupid and the people (management) who think that they can get some 'Quality' are stupid.