Pure quantity of security holes really is not the most question. To me there are two factors:
1. How severe is the hole if exploited.
Are we talking a DOS, a root compromise, the ability to take over a domain controller. The effect of a compromise needs to be taken into account.
2. How easy to exploit is the whole.
Is it a theoretical exploit, or are there tools floating around? Can it be easily mitigated by a good firewall, or can viewing an email cause the problem.
These questions seem to me more important than pure quantity and should be taken into account when building a threat assesment of a system.
...is the results of these surveys they are conducting. How exactely they are going to argue that MS products are less expensive than running Linux? I guess they will try to gloss over the original software costs and bring up the training and "support" issues (which are vague and hard to quantify, thereby easily manipulated). And of course they will also gloss over security issues.
Office v.X is what is called a "Carbon" app. It uses a subset of the old Mac APIs to work on OS X. No such API exists on any unix, so it would require rewriting the entire GUI aspect of the program to run on another UNIX.
This was Apple's way of making it easy to port apps from the "old" MacOS to OS X. You just have to make sure you are not using the parts of the old APIs that are "naughty" under OS X (directly access hardware, etc.) and you are good to go.
As an indvidual who regularly interviews people for programmer posistions, I would say definately go for the CS degree. In my opinion, CIS degrees are not enough to prepare you for a career in programming. Even with people who come into our company with CS degrees have a rather steep learning curve (we design smartcard based network security products) ahead of them.
I have interviewed many people who have followed the CIS track, and have not been impressed at all with the level of their programming knowledge. They rarely do well on the technical questions I ask. They are usually adequate for help-desk or testing type posistions, but I assume that is not what you are after.
Just a small comment regarding icon sizes. During the keynote, Steve showed a control panel that allowed you to adjust the icon sizes. Apparently the application icon's are stored as 128x128 pixel images, and the OS will scale the icons to whatever size the user wants them to appear.
So if you want them smaller, all you need to do is adjust a slider. Neat huh?
Gibson books are more an experience than a "story"
on
All Tomorrow's Parties
·
· Score: 2
Gibson's books are more an experience than a "story"
I don't know how to explain it better than that. I finished _All Tomorrow's Parties_, and I just sort of sat back and said "wow." His books have less of a linear flow; but when you are done with them, a full picture has been created in your head that makes you think.
His stories also have a depth that is lacking in many other stories. I have read _Neuromancer_ many times and after every read I have picked up another facet of the story I didn't understand before.
Gibson is truely a talented writer and I look forward to rereading _All Tomorrow's Parties_ again and the details I know I missed the first time.
I can't believe the fact that people think that just because something was invented a while ago, that it is bad.
Software evolves. If we were saying that the UNIXes of 30 years ago were superior to modern day OSs, then somebody should go see a shrink, but UNIX has evolved like every other piece of software. Kernel version 2.2.10 is not 30 year technology, it is a little under two week old technology (having been released on June 14th).
- This post was made by a peice of technology that according to Bob Metcalfe is 4 Billion years old. Seems to me, we're doing just fine.
I was discussing this witha friend this morning, and I see that there are two possible explanations to this situation.
1. They are serious. Given the talk over the past week or so about possible legal problems, and the mention a few days ago of getting a certified letter, it could be true that UF and Segfault have gotten themselves unfairly attacked.
2. Given that the shutdown has occured on April Fool's day, it could be that Illiad and the editors of Segfault have succeeded in pulling off an April Fool's day prank of immense proportions and have been conducting a long, intricately planned setup job.
I, for one, hope that 2 is true and that we have all been hoodwinked, but if 1 is actually the case, I hope that we can band together in our support of two quality sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Pure quantity of security holes really is not the most question. To me there are two factors:
1. How severe is the hole if exploited.
Are we talking a DOS, a root compromise, the ability to take over a domain controller. The effect of a compromise needs to be taken into account.
2. How easy to exploit is the whole.
Is it a theoretical exploit, or are there tools floating around? Can it be easily mitigated by a good firewall, or can viewing an email cause the problem.
These questions seem to me more important than pure quantity and should be taken into account when building a threat assesment of a system.
...is the results of these surveys they are conducting. How exactely they are going to argue that MS products are less expensive than running Linux? I guess they will try to gloss over the original software costs and bring up the training and "support" issues (which are vague and hard to quantify, thereby easily manipulated). And of course they will also gloss over security issues.
Oh well.
Office v.X is what is called a "Carbon" app. It uses a subset of the old Mac APIs to work on OS X. No such API exists on any unix, so it would require rewriting the entire GUI aspect of the program to run on another UNIX.
This was Apple's way of making it easy to port apps from the "old" MacOS to OS X. You just have to make sure you are not using the parts of the old APIs that are "naughty" under OS X (directly access hardware, etc.) and you are good to go.
As an indvidual who regularly interviews people for programmer posistions, I would say definately go for the CS degree. In my opinion, CIS degrees are not enough to prepare you for a career in programming. Even with people who come into our company with CS degrees have a rather steep learning curve (we design smartcard based network security products) ahead of them.
I have interviewed many people who have followed the CIS track, and have not been impressed at all with the level of their programming knowledge. They rarely do well on the technical questions I ask. They are usually adequate for help-desk or testing type posistions, but I assume that is not what you are after.
Just a small comment regarding icon sizes. During the keynote, Steve showed a control panel that allowed you to adjust the icon sizes. Apparently the application icon's are stored as 128x128 pixel images, and the OS will scale the icons to whatever size the user wants them to appear.
So if you want them smaller, all you need to do is adjust a slider. Neat huh?
I don't know how to explain it better than that. I finished _All Tomorrow's Parties_, and I just sort of sat back and said "wow." His books have less of a linear flow; but when you are done with them, a full picture has been created in your head that makes you think.
His stories also have a depth that is lacking in many other stories. I have read _Neuromancer_ many times and after every read I have picked up another facet of the story I didn't understand before.
Gibson is truely a talented writer and I look forward to rereading _All Tomorrow's Parties_ again and the details I know I missed the first time.
myArray[i]is not equivilent to i[myArray]
If they aren't, here is the proper conversion:
myArray[i] is equivilent to (i[myArray/sizeof(myArray)]+myArray%sizeof(i))
I think that is correct, correct me if I'm wrong.
I love C.
Software evolves. If we were saying that the UNIXes of 30 years ago were superior to modern day OSs, then somebody should go see a shrink, but UNIX has evolved like every other piece of software. Kernel version 2.2.10 is not 30 year technology, it is a little under two week old technology (having been released on June 14th).
- This post was made by a peice of technology that according to Bob Metcalfe is 4 Billion years old. Seems to me, we're doing just fine.
I, for one, hope that 2 is true and that we have all been hoodwinked, but if 1 is actually the case, I hope that we can band together in our support of two quality sites.