Hmm... Yeah most of the content management stuff out there is pretty crappy and expensive. Not a good combination.
Has anyone actually used Tea and/or Kettle? I wish I could say it was a great package, but I just haven't had time to look at it.
But free (as in speech) is good. That means that if it is crappy, someone can make it uncrappy.:)
This is a super important piece of software for a major website to have available for free. Sure you can serve up a zillion hits with Apache, but how do you manage the pipeline of getting structured content from writers and artists onto that site in a timely and efficient manner?
I used to run Caldera OpenLinux... honestly I think its a piece of garbage. It doesn't ship with the all the necessary libraries, and getting them compiled is a nightmare...
I know a guy who runs a small ISP/ASP, and he's got RedHat 6.1 on one machine, SCO on the other...he got cracked, but guess it what? It wasn't on the SCO machine, it was on the Red Hat box. The skr1pt k1ddi3 couldn't exploit the SCO box, probably because SCO sucks so bad he couldn't get a HOWTO for cracking the damn thing.... hehehe...
SCO's really not that bad, but I like Linux and FreeBSD...
Those of you who have used IP Masquerading (ipchains) on Linux will know what I'm talking about... routers can log *EVERYTHING* that passes through them...no proxy is required.
Well, aside from the fact that Delphi and Pascal FORCE you to write better code (something despised by many experienced programmers who often refer to Pascal as a B&D language) there actually *have* been large scale production programs written in Pascal!
For those of us who grew up programming in the BBS days, we'll remember that many popular BBS packages were written in Pascal (which is exactly we learned Pascal as our first "real" language). Among them: WWIV (and its derivatives such as T.A.G., Telegard, Renegade, JRBBS, etc), QuickBBS, RemoteAccess, WildCat, etc...
In order to share data structures with these programs, external utility or door writers would have to do them in Pascal or be faced with writing stupid conversion routines that turn Pascal fixed-length strings into C null-terminated strings and turn certain other Pascal types into their C counterparts....
Look, I'm as skeptical as the next guy about things that pop up in unreliable sources like the Drudge Report.
But when rumours persist in the business world, particularly about mergers, they often have some element of truth to them.
Look at the recent separation between GM and GM class "H" (GMH) stocks. Rumours persisted for months about several companies, including AT&T, Sprint/MCI/WorldCom, and other companies buying GM in order to acquire Hughes Satellite. No, GM hasn't yet gotten bought out, but GM's behaviour regarding Hughes certainly has been consistent with these hostile takeover rumours. GM spun off the defense portion of Hughes, and kept Hughes Electronics. Then, GM split the links between GM and GMH stocks. Consequently, GM stocks fell and GMH skyrocketed. This behaviour is consistent with an attempt to prevent a buyout of GM.
Furthermore, for how many months were there rumours about the AOL/Netscape merger? For how many months did AOL and Netscape continually DENY that there were any talks. But it happened anyway.
I'm not saying that this proves anything about Apple/Pixar/Disney, but it goes to show that rumours of mergers often are at least partially true. Don't automatically dismiss it just because it is Drudge. Drudge has been right before, despite his sensationalist twist on things.
I wouldn't doubt that it could happen. Quit laughing...:)
Books are malleable. What I mean by this is that I can fold pages, make notes in margins, highlight sections, etc, all with the simple and cheap tool known as a pen.
Wow. I heard about this new technology, this "pen" thing. Its super-ultra-cheap (under a $1 a piece!!), and you can write on this stuff called "paper." What I don't understand is, I've seen pictures of one, but I don't see how to write with these things. There's no keyboard buttons or anything! Seems pretty useless to me.
Directories. Slashdot (and its brethren). "Internet guides" Web portals Web Award Sites (like the Webby). (COuld be legal without linking but then what would be the point?) The "News from around the net" sections on ZDNet and CNet. AOL Instant Messenger and ICQ URL link functions URL Link functions in e-mail programs. This messsage would be illegal, too.
In fact we often hear that developers are reluctant to write documentation; this is true for everybody else.
Personally, I very often see this true. But it is especially true of developers (particularly hackers) who perceive documentation to be a waste of their time.
A few hackers, such as ESR, don't mind writing documentation. As a result you see certain projects have excellent documentation with other projects having almost non-existant documentation. For ESR, my example would be fetchmail. This program is not only very well written, its extremely well documented, although I have to believe that the documentation was NOT written in a bazaar mode like the program itself is.
That faq-o-matic is very interesting, though. I hadn't heard of it prior to your posting this.
Making noise is one of the things that keeps the open source system healthy. I think that in general the Linux kernel has had good stewardship, and though I personally have not had direct interactions with Al Viro, I think that extends to him as well.
I agree with this statement, especially the first part. Anyone not sure that making noise keeps open source healthy, particularly in the bazaar mode of development that is present in Linux, should read the writings of ESR, particularly Homesteading the Noosphere and possibly the Cathedral and The Bazaar. (Not necessarily in that order though:)
I think this should change. I think that the design documentation we need should be readily available - it has to be posted somewhere where everybody can get at it, and contribute to it.
Yeah, current documentation would be great. But I don't think that documentation lends itself well the bazaar mode of development. The "roadmaps" you speak of reek very much of "requirements documents" and I don't think you will find any of those in Linux development.
Then what makes a trusted system? What systems would be considered trusted?
Just because something is closed source, that doesn't mean it's developed to a formal specification with formalized testing.
Furthermore, what constitutes a formal specification? Both OpenBSD and Linux derive their security models from the Unix security model. That model *is* a specification. But is it a *formal* specification, and if not exactly what constitutes a formal specification?
FInally, as for formalized testing, I don't know that much about what Linux kernel hackers do, but I'm to understand its a very chaotic environment. I agree with the professor here: I don't think Linux has had formalized testing for *anything*, let alone the area where it matters (security.) Yes, to a bazillion eyeballs all bugs are shallow, but formalized testing means creating a formal benchmark test that puts the program into virtually every conceivable situation. I'm not saying that closed source developers do that (isn't it obvious? look at the number of security holes in the Windows operating systems over the years.) but I do think that Linux, and software development community as a whole, needs serious improvement in the areas of testing.
From what I can see, the proessor's whole gist is this: software development needs develop an engineering culture. Software needs to follow a systems development life cycle (SDLC)where formal specifications (requirements documents) are written up in advance, the software is developed within an engineering culture, and there is formalized testing and user acceptance. These seemingly superfluous controls, especially in the area of infosec, are vital to controlling the inevitable bugs that crop up and to making sure that software meets the requirements.
I think Linux and *BSD at least need to take a hard look at requirements gathering and testing phases and see if there is any room for improvement.
Here's a question - open to all - if you have an acquaintance who you are hideously attracted to, and want to see about exploring the relationship BUT you don't want to inadvertently queer the current, tenuous friendship, what's a good way to do it?
Visual Basic doesn't count because it provides a high-level interface to Win32. The same code generated by a page and a half of C/C++ code is the same code generated by Win.Show in VB.
Here's a question - open to all - if you have an acquaintance who you are hideously attracted to, and want to see about exploring the relationship BUT you don't want to inadvertently queer the current, tenuous friendship, what's a good way to do it?
Plus, VB is okay for some work, but the code it produces is too bloated and slow for systems work, for example. VB is also not well-suited for large systems, either.
Re:x86 is popular to hate, but not that bad really
on
Is The x86 Obsolete?
·
· Score: 2
I've programmed a variety of modern chips at a low level--MIPS, PPC, x86, SHx--and there's more to be said for the x86 than many people realize
I totally agree! People have been tolling the death bell of the x86 architecture for over 15 years now. Has it gone away? No. Why?
Because its NOT THAT BAD. No, its not perfect, but anyone who has ever programmed assembler for one must realize that hey, it works. Modern x86es combines the best of the modern RISC chips with the best of the old-style CISC chips (like hardware stacks and more registers). Of course it also combines those with the worst of the old-style CISC chips, but oh well.
My point is that the x86 runs good, and is in lots and lots of cheap hardware. It makes it the best bang for the buck, right now. (Although, that stuff from Transmeta looks pretty sexy from where I'm sitting.:)
BY MR. GARBUS: Q I'm not taking now about reverse -- Mr. Valenti. I'm not now talking about the actual reverse engineering. Let's assume man A does the reverse engineering. Man B posts it on the internet. Man C then takes that information, and he's a Linux, user, and he uses that information to play a DVD on a Linux operating system and the Linux operating system has no license from the DVD CCA. Is it your view that that's against the law? A[Mr Valenti] Yes.
In other words, we're not worried about breaking copy protection or reverse-engineering, we don't want people playing movies on equipment that we haven't specifically sanctioned and licensed.
BY MR. GARBUS: Q What is the concept of Fair Use, as you understand it?
A It means that libraries or schoolteachers can play movies in their classrooms for educational purposes.
I also threw my coffee over the keyboard at this one. Just for educational institutions?
Funny you should say that. I just did the same thing. Another one bites the dust.:) (this is why I buy $10 keyboards.:)
So is Mr. Valenti saying that if I play movies in my home, and then invite people over for a movie-watching party, that that would be illegal?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Yeah most of the content management stuff out there is pretty crappy and expensive. Not a good combination.
:)
;-)
Has anyone actually used Tea and/or Kettle? I wish I could say it was a great package, but I just haven't had time to look at it.
But free (as in speech) is good. That means that if it is crappy, someone can make it uncrappy.
This is a super important piece of software for a major website to have available for free. Sure you can serve up a zillion hits with Apache, but how do you manage the pipeline of getting structured content from writers and artists onto that site in a timely and efficient manner?
Microsoft Office 2000?
Toy Story 2 is Pixar, not Fox...
Well, I don't know what's in eDesktop. I have/had 2.2.
I used to run Caldera OpenLinux ... honestly I think its a piece of garbage. It doesn't ship with the all the necessary libraries, and getting them compiled is a nightmare...
I know a guy who runs a small ISP/ASP, and he's got RedHat 6.1 on one machine, SCO on the other...he got cracked, but guess it what? It wasn't on the SCO machine, it was on the Red Hat box. The skr1pt k1ddi3 couldn't exploit the SCO box, probably because SCO sucks so bad he couldn't get a HOWTO for cracking the damn thing.... hehehe...
SCO's really not that bad, but I like Linux and FreeBSD...
Those of you who have used IP Masquerading (ipchains) on Linux will know what I'm talking about ... routers can log *EVERYTHING* that passes through them...no proxy is required.
Yeah, the only thing less stable then Netscape Communicator is Mozilla ... (which has an excuse, since it is still alpha... :)
A couple of four-by-four posts work pretty well if you stack the logs right .... :)
The laughter and the questioning of Drudge for trustworthiness was actually more directed at Slashdot as a whole, not to you in particular...
Well, aside from the fact that Delphi and Pascal FORCE you to write better code (something despised by many experienced programmers who often refer to Pascal as a B&D language) there actually *have* been large scale production programs written in Pascal!
:)
For those of us who grew up programming in the BBS days, we'll remember that many popular BBS packages were written in Pascal (which is exactly we learned Pascal as our first "real" language). Among them: WWIV (and its derivatives such as T.A.G., Telegard, Renegade, JRBBS, etc), QuickBBS, RemoteAccess, WildCat, etc...
In order to share data structures with these programs, external utility or door writers would have to do them in Pascal or be faced with writing stupid conversion routines that turn Pascal fixed-length strings into C null-terminated strings and turn certain other Pascal types into their C counterparts....
Ahhh...those were the days...
Look, I'm as skeptical as the next guy about things that pop up in unreliable sources like the Drudge Report.
:)
But when rumours persist in the business world, particularly about mergers, they often have some element of truth to them.
Look at the recent separation between GM and GM class "H" (GMH) stocks. Rumours persisted for months about several companies, including AT&T, Sprint/MCI/WorldCom, and other companies buying GM in order to acquire Hughes Satellite. No, GM hasn't yet gotten bought out, but GM's behaviour regarding Hughes certainly has been consistent with these hostile takeover rumours. GM spun off the defense portion of Hughes, and kept Hughes Electronics. Then, GM split the links between GM and GMH stocks. Consequently, GM stocks fell and GMH skyrocketed. This behaviour is consistent with an attempt to prevent a buyout of GM.
Furthermore, for how many months were there rumours about the AOL/Netscape merger? For how many months did AOL and Netscape continually DENY that there were any talks. But it happened anyway.
I'm not saying that this proves anything about Apple/Pixar/Disney, but it goes to show that rumours of mergers often are at least partially true. Don't automatically dismiss it just because it is Drudge. Drudge has been right before, despite his sensationalist twist on things.
I wouldn't doubt that it could happen. Quit laughing...
Interesting. Despite the fact that the timothy article made it first, it got deleted. Hmmmm....
Books are malleable. What I mean by this is that I can fold pages, make notes in margins, highlight sections, etc, all with the simple and cheap tool known as a pen.
Wow. I heard about this new technology, this "pen" thing. Its super-ultra-cheap (under a $1 a piece!!), and you can write on this stuff called "paper." What I don't understand is, I've seen pictures of one, but I don't see how to write with these things. There's no keyboard buttons or anything! Seems pretty useless to me.
what about hotgritsinthepantsium?
natalieportmanium?
TrollMaster i4x86?
never mind...
these are the links that try mens souls
:)
:)
Hey I like that! Thanks!
I knew it was Patrick Henry, I just wanted to see if you were all paying attention.
And remember some wisdom a customer passed to me when I was working tech support in a bygone era: Don't buy version 1.0 of anything.
:)
Its not version 1.0, its version 2.4. What cave have you been hiding in?
For that matter:
Directories.
Slashdot (and its brethren).
"Internet guides"
Web portals
Web Award Sites (like the Webby). (COuld be legal without linking but then what would be the point?)
The "News from around the net" sections on ZDNet and CNet.
AOL Instant Messenger and ICQ URL link functions
URL Link functions in e-mail programs.
This messsage would be illegal, too.
GIVE ME LINKING, OR GIVE ME DEATH!
Shakespeare:
TO LINK, OR NOT TO LINK! THAT IS THE QUESTION!
???:
LINK FREE OR DIE!
The 1st Amendment (not to be confused with the 1st Post!)
Congress shall pass NO LAW abridging the right of the people to link one Web site to another.
:)
In fact we often hear that developers are reluctant to write documentation; this is true for everybody else.
Personally, I very often see this true. But it is especially true of developers (particularly hackers) who perceive documentation to be a waste of their time.
A few hackers, such as ESR, don't mind writing documentation. As a result you see certain projects have excellent documentation with other projects having almost non-existant documentation. For ESR, my example would be fetchmail. This program is not only very well written, its extremely well documented, although I have to believe that the documentation was NOT written in a bazaar mode like the program itself is.
That faq-o-matic is very interesting, though. I hadn't heard of it prior to your posting this.
Making noise is one of the things that keeps the open source system healthy. I think that in general the Linux kernel has had good stewardship, and though I personally have not had direct interactions with Al Viro, I think that extends to him as well.
:)
I agree with this statement, especially the first part. Anyone not sure that making noise keeps open source healthy, particularly in the bazaar mode of development that is present in Linux, should read the writings of ESR, particularly Homesteading the Noosphere and possibly the Cathedral and The Bazaar. (Not necessarily in that order though
I think this should change. I think that the design documentation we need should be readily available - it has to be posted somewhere where everybody can get at it, and contribute to it.
Yeah, current documentation would be great. But I don't think that documentation lends itself well the bazaar mode of development. The "roadmaps" you speak of reek very much of "requirements documents" and I don't think you will find any of those in Linux development.
"The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that I'd fuck a Democrat." - Sarah Michelle Gellar
:)
Damn. I uhhh..voted for Bill Clinton twice, and I even voted for Dukakis! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
Then what makes a trusted system? What systems would be considered trusted?
Just because something is closed source, that doesn't mean it's developed to a formal specification with formalized testing.
Furthermore, what constitutes a formal specification? Both OpenBSD and Linux derive their security models from the Unix security model. That model *is* a specification. But is it a *formal* specification, and if not exactly what constitutes a formal specification?
FInally, as for formalized testing, I don't know that much about what Linux kernel hackers do, but I'm to understand its a very chaotic environment. I agree with the professor here: I don't think Linux has had formalized testing for *anything*, let alone the area where it matters (security.) Yes, to a bazillion eyeballs all bugs are shallow, but formalized testing means creating a formal benchmark test that puts the program into virtually every conceivable situation. I'm not saying that closed source developers do that (isn't it obvious? look at the number of security holes in the Windows operating systems over the years.) but I do think that Linux, and software development community as a whole, needs serious improvement in the areas of testing.
From what I can see, the proessor's whole gist is this: software development needs develop an engineering culture. Software needs to follow a systems development life cycle (SDLC)where formal specifications (requirements documents) are written up in advance, the software is developed within an engineering culture, and there is formalized testing and user acceptance. These seemingly superfluous controls, especially in the area of infosec, are vital to controlling the inevitable bugs that crop up and to making sure that software meets the requirements.
I think Linux and *BSD at least need to take a hard look at requirements gathering and testing phases and see if there is any room for improvement.
Here's a question - open to all - if you have an acquaintance who you are hideously attracted to, and want to see about exploring the relationship BUT you don't want to inadvertently queer the current, tenuous friendship, what's a good way to do it?
How the hell did that get in there?????
No, you got that last line wrong...
:)
Visual Basic = Win.Slow
Note the changes in bold face
Visual Basic doesn't count because it provides a high-level interface to Win32. The same code generated by a page and a half of C/C++ code is the same code generated by Win.Show in VB.
Here's a question - open to all - if you have an acquaintance who you are hideously attracted to, and want to see about exploring the relationship BUT you don't want to inadvertently queer the current, tenuous friendship, what's a good way to do it?
Plus, VB is okay for some work, but the code it produces is too bloated and slow for systems work, for example. VB is also not well-suited for large systems, either.
I've programmed a variety of modern chips at a low level--MIPS, PPC, x86, SHx--and there's more to be said for the x86 than many people realize
:)
I totally agree! People have been tolling the death bell of the x86 architecture for over 15 years now. Has it gone away? No. Why?
Because its NOT THAT BAD. No, its not perfect, but anyone who has ever programmed assembler for one must realize that hey, it works. Modern x86es combines the best of the modern RISC chips with the best of the old-style CISC chips (like hardware stacks and more registers). Of course it also combines those with the worst of the old-style CISC chips, but oh well.
My point is that the x86 runs good, and is in lots and lots of cheap hardware. It makes it the best bang for the buck, right now. (Although, that stuff from Transmeta looks pretty sexy from where I'm sitting.
BY MR. GARBUS: Q I'm not taking now about reverse -- Mr. Valenti. I'm not now talking about the actual reverse engineering. Let's assume man A does the reverse engineering. Man B posts it on the internet. Man C then takes that information, and he's a Linux, user, and he uses that information to play a DVD on a Linux operating system and the Linux operating system has no license from the DVD CCA. Is it your view that that's against the law? A[Mr Valenti] Yes.
:) (this is why I buy $10 keyboards. :)
In other words, we're not worried about breaking copy protection or reverse-engineering, we don't want people playing movies on equipment that we haven't specifically sanctioned and licensed.
BY MR. GARBUS: Q What is the concept of Fair Use, as you understand it?
A It means that libraries or schoolteachers can play movies in their classrooms for educational purposes.
I also threw my coffee over the keyboard at this one. Just for educational institutions?
Funny you should say that. I just did the same thing. Another one bites the dust.
So is Mr. Valenti saying that if I play movies in my home, and then invite people over for a movie-watching party, that that would be illegal?