the current "killer" usability issue is with Outlook - you no longer get to see upcoming appointments if they're not for today. So tomorrow's 9am meeting... you don't see it until you drag yourself into the office at 9:10.
Of course the 'social integration' is another killer as far as I'm concerned.
true, the best programmers (like CEOs) work more for the joy of working. Those who only come because you throw bucketloads of cash at them tend to be interested in only 1 thing, and that ain't the work you need them doing.
Still, from another post: "Samsung uses EFL as UI framework and has in it's payroll Carsten Haitzler (Rasterman) and Cedric Bail, the main developers of Enlightenment".
and not only that, why does Google maps need to know my contact list, amongst other 'necessary' information?
Security on Android is hopeless, until *we* can select which services an app has access to, rather than letting the app developer decide, there's little point to it.
That's like the MR2 sports car - in French you'd pronounce that "M R deux" which is quite a lot like "merde".
So Toyota made a car for the French market and called it Shit, so you have to be careful with even simple combinations of letters and numbers in a code.
you misunderstand. You have the ability to do anything you want, even bad things that are proscribed by law, morals or consensus.
Its a natural-world form of freedom, not the legal version you're thinking of. Kind of like how you have free will to do whatever you like.
However, my examples show how your freedom (in both senses) could be subverted - I like the robot overlord following you around to ensure you really do not, no matter what, have the capability of performing an act that violates the rules that it is designed to enforce. That would be a true lack of freedom.
Prisoners are free to attempt to leave - and many of them attempt to do so all the time, prisoners of war for example are duty-bound to try to leave. The 'law' that says they may not does not impact their freedom of acting in a manner designed to bypass that law.
Suicide is illegal. You do not have the legal freedom to kill yourself. Yet many people do.
The law says they do not have the freedom to to commit suicide, so how did those people who killed themselves manage to do so if they did not have the freedom to perform the act?
Hence my point - even though you are not legally free to do some things, you can still do them. The concept of a legal freedom is basically meaningless.
You are not free to enslave people, deny education to women as the Taliban wants to do, recklessly endanger property and lives, litter, trespass, and so on.
actually you are. You can do all of those things - there isn't anyone actively stopping you; there's no Tom Cruise watching everything you do and jumping in just before you do it; there's no robot 'guardian' following you around ready to zap you the moment it thinks you're going to do something bad.
Of course, society is also free to to lock you away, and/or otherwise punish you to ensure you don't do it again, or attempt to persuade you not to do it again once you're released.
That's what freedom is all about - the ability to make your own choices and not have someone decide for you, but it also doesn't mean there's no responsibility for your actions either.
it does vary, and a truly open office is a bad thing - you need partitions and plants around the place to break the sound from other teams up. You get to sit with your colleagues and chat about stuff instead of having to go to the water cooler for your fix of herd-instinct interaction.
But I find anywhere that had 'cubicles' or 'bays' were just as loud overall, and a personal office is just lonely and sad.
I know plenty of people who always wanted to sit with their backs to the wall, in a corner... a company I used to work at had one bloke like that - got sacked to surfing porn all day, and my colleague at the last place wanted that.. so he could surf facebook all day. You see where I'm going with this:)
I think the confusion over web servers has built up over time because of the word server in the title.
The webserver's primary responsibility is to generate html to send to the browser. Now as people found they could run code from the webserver it was just too easy to keep adding code there and turn it into a monolithic do-everything (including the db layer sometimes as people found ways to store stuff in xml for various reasons, usually "speed").
The link between browser and webserver is inextricably linked, I think its best to think of them as 2 halves of a single tier. Once you have that mindset, its easy to conceptualise putting your business logic in a dedicated tier that can be properly secured. Think of the server as the part that creates the GUI, and the browser as a dumb-terminal that simply renders it.
Also, a lot of 3-tier systems have 1 DB, a couple of business logic servers, and several webservers.
Its very easy to make use of the web frameworks to just bung everything into a webserver and run it all from there, and that's ok for small-scale stuff. But if you want to do it "properly", think of the webserver as part of the presentation layer, put the logic into distinct servers and things will be much easier overall, more secure and more scalable.
Strangely, MVC appears to be just a way to get this 3-tier distinction but coded all in a single server.
disagree - its not about learning the rules inside out, its about relaxing the rules where you disagree with them, bringing in "house rules" that suit your style of play better.
People who lawyer up on the rules end up just playing a game of who knows the rules better. Those who take a more relaxed approach to having fun, have fun.
you'd best stop using the internet entirely. I can't see what consumer choices you make will stop the cable taps the NSA have put in where the transatlantic cable comes on-shore.
You can be too paranoid, you have to weigh up the overall risk against the benefit to you.
It depends how much security you need. If I was running a blog that had posts about my cat... just slap it all on a single shared webserver.
If I was running a server that contained people's credit card data, I'd run it as 3 servers: web, business logic and a third for DB. Generally, if you get to the point where you need this kind of stuff, you might require multiple web servers to handle load or fault tolerance anyway.
If cost really is a problem, I'd run the 3 tiers in 3 VMs on a single box - assuming there are few attacks someone connecting from the internet can make to hijack the hypervisor, this should be sufficient for a lot of scenarios.
3 tiers: webserver is the presentation layer; middle tier is a set of web services (or other services, but I guess people would prefer webservices nowadays), data tier is the DB, preferably exposing its stuff as an API via stored procedures.
This is how the financial services companies (the ones that do things properly that is) do things. Typically they run their tiers on distinct servers that have security firewalls between them as well, and as limited an attack surface as possible (eg no network access at all from the web to the DB)
put your DB connection on a separate service layer, so if (ha! when) someone hacks your web server they cannot simply create a DB connection and select all the data they want out of it.
That these web frameworks try to be an all-in-one solution is why there's so many high profile data thefts.
when writing a website, assume from day 1 that your web server has already been hacked. There are enough zero-day exploits being found to mean its probably true anyway.
not necessarily - whilst its true the cheapass "BIOS" style RAID controllers are pretty useless, the expensive RAID cards are very good. As good as having a dedicated CPU to perform the xor calculations that your main CPU would otherwise do if using mdadm or similar, with a battery backing to ensure writes occur on power failure.
Still, there are plenty of cheap dedicated RAID cards out there that are also pretty useless.
Partly its stolen all the ideas of Ruby on Rails, but didn't implement them particularly well, having to force them to work in a more.NET way rather than a Rails way. This makes it reasonably convoluted and complex especially as you try to make entity framework work like activerecord.
Secondly, its still a web-server framework rather than a way to create web GUIs. I disagree with the idea of putting all your business logic, and db connection code in the webserver, not when webservers are the first thing to get hacked.
or services like Mozy that let you encrypt everything their own client sends with your own key. Admittedly they have loads of warnings like "forget your key and you're screwed" which is why they prefer you use their supplied one - stupid users and all - but its nice they give you the option all built in.
the jobs I see the majority of adverts for (by far) are all ASP.NET (yes, I know its poo, but technical quality was not a criteria in the question).
That said I am also seeing a lot of jobs wanting embedded linux (with networking stuff to get at cloud-connected servers)(probably so companies can filch your data and sell it to advertising companies), that pay rather a lot. So frankly, learn that!
#3: The FBI doesn't investigate crimes unless it involves damages above $3000.
but potentially recording a movie is multi-million dollar larceny. I've seen the damages awarded to the RIAA to know just how damaging to the entire western civilisation if its allowed to continue. I'm surprised they didn't just shoot him in his seat, you know, just in case.
Mind you, it is just some glasshole trying to get some attention. They should have shot him in his seat, just out of sympathy to the rest of us.
I'm afraid of the present where someone is asked not to do something, and they whine bitterly that its their right, they're doing nothing wrong, that their mates on the internet will back them up, and that everyone else just doesn't get it.
If only they knew that, actually, we do get that they are all self-righteous massive arseholes.
Normal person with google glass, when asked not to record, would take it off, fold it up and put it in pocket possibly adding an apology.
FYI, there was a comedy show on UK Channel 4 a while ago called Nathan Barley highlighting this kind of hipster attitude. Worth a watch if you can get it.
Slashdot Mirror
the current "killer" usability issue is with Outlook - you no longer get to see upcoming appointments if they're not for today. So tomorrow's 9am meeting... you don't see it until you drag yourself into the office at 9:10.
Of course the 'social integration' is another killer as far as I'm concerned.
true, the best programmers (like CEOs) work more for the joy of working. Those who only come because you throw bucketloads of cash at them tend to be interested in only 1 thing, and that ain't the work you need them doing.
Still, from another post: "Samsung uses EFL as UI framework and has in it's payroll Carsten Haitzler (Rasterman) and Cedric Bail, the main developers of Enlightenment".
Doesn't sound too bad now.
why make it look like wp8 then?
because if they made it look like Android, they'd get patent-sued by Apple for copying their look and feel :-)
its unfortunate, but sometimes the best way to drive a screw into a piece of wood is just to keep smashing at it with bigger and bigger hammers.
I guess this approach is what Intel and AMD have been doing with x86.
Depends, if its running Windows Storage Spaces, it'll need more than the 128 GB.
and not only that, why does Google maps need to know my contact list, amongst other 'necessary' information?
Security on Android is hopeless, until *we* can select which services an app has access to, rather than letting the app developer decide, there's little point to it.
That's like the MR2 sports car - in French you'd pronounce that "M R deux" which is quite a lot like "merde".
So Toyota made a car for the French market and called it Shit, so you have to be careful with even simple combinations of letters and numbers in a code.
you misunderstand. You have the ability to do anything you want, even bad things that are proscribed by law, morals or consensus.
Its a natural-world form of freedom, not the legal version you're thinking of. Kind of like how you have free will to do whatever you like.
However, my examples show how your freedom (in both senses) could be subverted - I like the robot overlord following you around to ensure you really do not, no matter what, have the capability of performing an act that violates the rules that it is designed to enforce. That would be a true lack of freedom.
Prisoners are free to attempt to leave - and many of them attempt to do so all the time, prisoners of war for example are duty-bound to try to leave. The 'law' that says they may not does not impact their freedom of acting in a manner designed to bypass that law.
Suicide is illegal. You do not have the legal freedom to kill yourself. Yet many people do.
The law says they do not have the freedom to to commit suicide, so how did those people who killed themselves manage to do so if they did not have the freedom to perform the act?
Hence my point - even though you are not legally free to do some things, you can still do them. The concept of a legal freedom is basically meaningless.
You are not free to enslave people, deny education to women as the Taliban wants to do, recklessly endanger property and lives, litter, trespass, and so on.
actually you are. You can do all of those things - there isn't anyone actively stopping you; there's no Tom Cruise watching everything you do and jumping in just before you do it; there's no robot 'guardian' following you around ready to zap you the moment it thinks you're going to do something bad.
Of course, society is also free to to lock you away, and/or otherwise punish you to ensure you don't do it again, or attempt to persuade you not to do it again once you're released.
That's what freedom is all about - the ability to make your own choices and not have someone decide for you, but it also doesn't mean there's no responsibility for your actions either.
it does vary, and a truly open office is a bad thing - you need partitions and plants around the place to break the sound from other teams up. You get to sit with your colleagues and chat about stuff instead of having to go to the water cooler for your fix of herd-instinct interaction.
But I find anywhere that had 'cubicles' or 'bays' were just as loud overall, and a personal office is just lonely and sad.
I know plenty of people who always wanted to sit with their backs to the wall, in a corner... a company I used to work at had one bloke like that - got sacked to surfing porn all day, and my colleague at the last place wanted that.. so he could surf facebook all day. You see where I'm going with this :)
I think the confusion over web servers has built up over time because of the word server in the title.
The webserver's primary responsibility is to generate html to send to the browser. Now as people found they could run code from the webserver it was just too easy to keep adding code there and turn it into a monolithic do-everything (including the db layer sometimes as people found ways to store stuff in xml for various reasons, usually "speed").
The link between browser and webserver is inextricably linked, I think its best to think of them as 2 halves of a single tier. Once you have that mindset, its easy to conceptualise putting your business logic in a dedicated tier that can be properly secured. Think of the server as the part that creates the GUI, and the browser as a dumb-terminal that simply renders it.
Also, a lot of 3-tier systems have 1 DB, a couple of business logic servers, and several webservers.
Its very easy to make use of the web frameworks to just bung everything into a webserver and run it all from there, and that's ok for small-scale stuff. But if you want to do it "properly", think of the webserver as part of the presentation layer, put the logic into distinct servers and things will be much easier overall, more secure and more scalable.
Strangely, MVC appears to be just a way to get this 3-tier distinction but coded all in a single server.
disagree - its not about learning the rules inside out, its about relaxing the rules where you disagree with them, bringing in "house rules" that suit your style of play better.
People who lawyer up on the rules end up just playing a game of who knows the rules better. Those who take a more relaxed approach to having fun, have fun.
you'd best stop using the internet entirely. I can't see what consumer choices you make will stop the cable taps the NSA have put in where the transatlantic cable comes on-shore.
You can be too paranoid, you have to weigh up the overall risk against the benefit to you.
It depends how much security you need. If I was running a blog that had posts about my cat... just slap it all on a single shared webserver.
If I was running a server that contained people's credit card data, I'd run it as 3 servers: web, business logic and a third for DB. Generally, if you get to the point where you need this kind of stuff, you might require multiple web servers to handle load or fault tolerance anyway.
If cost really is a problem, I'd run the 3 tiers in 3 VMs on a single box - assuming there are few attacks someone connecting from the internet can make to hijack the hypervisor, this should be sufficient for a lot of scenarios.
you've never heard of 3-tier architectures?
3 tiers: webserver is the presentation layer; middle tier is a set of web services (or other services, but I guess people would prefer webservices nowadays), data tier is the DB, preferably exposing its stuff as an API via stored procedures.
This is how the financial services companies (the ones that do things properly that is) do things. Typically they run their tiers on distinct servers that have security firewalls between them as well, and as limited an attack surface as possible (eg no network access at all from the web to the DB)
put your DB connection on a separate service layer, so if (ha! when) someone hacks your web server they cannot simply create a DB connection and select all the data they want out of it.
That these web frameworks try to be an all-in-one solution is why there's so many high profile data thefts.
when writing a website, assume from day 1 that your web server has already been hacked. There are enough zero-day exploits being found to mean its probably true anyway.
not necessarily - whilst its true the cheapass "BIOS" style RAID controllers are pretty useless, the expensive RAID cards are very good. As good as having a dedicated CPU to perform the xor calculations that your main CPU would otherwise do if using mdadm or similar, with a battery backing to ensure writes occur on power failure.
Still, there are plenty of cheap dedicated RAID cards out there that are also pretty useless.
Partly its stolen all the ideas of Ruby on Rails, but didn't implement them particularly well, having to force them to work in a more .NET way rather than a Rails way. This makes it reasonably convoluted and complex especially as you try to make entity framework work like activerecord.
Secondly, its still a web-server framework rather than a way to create web GUIs. I disagree with the idea of putting all your business logic, and db connection code in the webserver, not when webservers are the first thing to get hacked.
or services like Mozy that let you encrypt everything their own client sends with your own key. Admittedly they have loads of warnings like "forget your key and you're screwed" which is why they prefer you use their supplied one - stupid users and all - but its nice they give you the option all built in.
The point is that when you have a 66% failure rate on brand new drives within a year, you start reconsidering your choice of vendor, no?
or the reliability of your raid card.
the jobs I see the majority of adverts for (by far) are all ASP.NET (yes, I know its poo, but technical quality was not a criteria in the question).
That said I am also seeing a lot of jobs wanting embedded linux (with networking stuff to get at cloud-connected servers)(probably so companies can filch your data and sell it to advertising companies), that pay rather a lot. So frankly, learn that!
#3: The FBI doesn't investigate crimes unless it involves damages above $3000.
but potentially recording a movie is multi-million dollar larceny. I've seen the damages awarded to the RIAA to know just how damaging to the entire western civilisation if its allowed to continue. I'm surprised they didn't just shoot him in his seat, you know, just in case.
Mind you, it is just some glasshole trying to get some attention. They should have shot him in his seat, just out of sympathy to the rest of us.
I'm afraid of the present where someone is asked not to do something, and they whine bitterly that its their right, they're doing nothing wrong, that their mates on the internet will back them up, and that everyone else just doesn't get it.
If only they knew that, actually, we do get that they are all self-righteous massive arseholes.
Normal person with google glass, when asked not to record, would take it off, fold it up and put it in pocket possibly adding an apology.
FYI, there was a comedy show on UK Channel 4 a while ago called Nathan Barley highlighting this kind of hipster attitude. Worth a watch if you can get it.
It always amazes me that some people think they can take their organs with them when they're dead.
Are they in for a surprise!
phew. thank goodness we only have a VM interpreter instead!
"nftables kernel engine adds a simple virtual machine into the Linux kernel, which is able to execute bytecode to inspect a network packet "
I assume its using Java bytecode?