It's a fact that most people don't like straying from their comfort zone. No matter how "idiot proof" something is, someone will build a better idiot.
That's not to say the WSJ reporter was an idiot, far from it, he brings up many valid points. I personally use LINUX all the time on the back end... but I don't at the desktop and in particular, at home.
I'm simply not interested in screwing around with things to get multimedia functions to work on my desktop, especially as new revs of apps are released. This seems to be the crux of his issues, outside of MS Office compatiblity... and in that regard, Mac OS X would do just fine... way better than LINUX anyway.
Anyway, MS is too big, too powerful and has money coming out of every orifice of its body (making analogies with the human anatomy). As much as I would like to see some competition on the desktop, I currently don't see any. Yeah, there's Apple, but sorry I don't want to pay a $1000 premium to Jobs for running Mac OS X.
As much as I would like to run a LINUX desktop, I run too many games and one too many other small pieces of software that I like on Windows to jettison it.
If I didn't run games, then yeah, LINUX would work. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of running Mozilla on LINUX and using OpenOffice and have done so in the past. So yeah, I can survive without Windows in a semi-business context where my duties are primarily technical. But running Half-Life2 at 2048x1536 like I can on Windows, well, LINUX stumbles there.
When I buy a shrink wrapped game, I want to play the game (enjoy the content) not care about how to make it work on LINUX. The few ports I've seen to LINUX of games have not impressed me.
Yeah I love, GNU, the bash shell, Apache, etc., etc., but the reality is, MS is here to stay.
You had a mega content distributor and a mega content creator -- it was supposed to be soooooo synergistic.
Yeah whatever. Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans.
Mega mergers always suck. Plain and simple.
I don't see the point in this. Jobs has become a power player @ Disney through Pixar (not Apple).
Apple shouldn't be concerned about making computer animated films.
In fact whoever is suggesting this marriage is an idiot... be the person initiating this on slashdot and/or the person on the Apple/Disney side (if such a thing exists).
Prepare to be disappointed. Most contractors are implementors. That's one way. Another more albeit more negative way of looking at them is "sh*t shovelers", aka grunts. Most contractors are brought in when high level decisions and designs have been made. The contracting business is nowhere as robust as it was 10 years ago. With IT budgets slashed and the birth of offshoring, unless you're damn good and have made a name for yourself, I would not recommend it for the faint of heart.
Yes you are right... it's more than what people will bear... but life's a bitch. I sure as hell don't run processes that talk on the Net with administrative credentials.
And it's trivial to run programs with admin credentials on a non-admin desktop. Truly trivial. It's just that users don't know how to wipe their a**, nor want to learn.
Unlike a TV or a toaster, you hear many analogies about how a computer should be easy to use like them, a computer runs software systems that are highly dynamic and require active participation on behalf of the user.
A TV allows you to turn yourself into a vegetable.
When the price of ignorance is too high, users will adjust their behavior.
Microsoft is planning NOT to have users running on admin accounts with Vista.
I assure you when this happens, all these stories about IE flaws and viruses will go WAY DOWN.
No I totally disagree... I've made this statement before and I'll make it again, the issue is that people run their desktop under an administrative account... which means when rogue code enters your system it has free will to do anything.
Firefox/Mozilla has had some recent security issues... and if you run an administrative desktop, which um, 99% of SOHO users do, then Mozilla can be just as bad a proxy for malicious intent.
The reason Mac OS X users have been able to enjoy a life free of viruses is because Apple doesn't have users running as "root" aka "Administrator" in the Windows world. I read "security guru" morons saying how "One day the Mac OS X people are going to get it!!!" There indeed may be an incident, probably small, on account of perhaps some hole... in the OS, but it won't be on account of Apple's browser, Safari.
And given the track record under Mac OS X, the lack of viruses, spyware et al, it underscores what I'm saying now and what I've said before, running a Windows admnistrative desktop and browsing the Internet is like going into a brothell after a "busy night" and screwing everything under the sun without protection.... yeah, you're likely to "catch something."
Not sure why I bother saying any of this... for all the tech people on/. there's so much utter cr*p posted when it comes to the topic of security.
If you don't like MS, just say it, don't pretend to know anything about computer security.
-M
PS: Die hard Mozilla user (this message typed in through LINUX)
I've patented this system, you rollup soft paper on a cardboard cylinder thereby allowing its convenient dispensing when user has the need to clean up after defacating.
Yes, I think I will patent toilet paper.
Now/. users and the rest of humanity has to pay me to wipe their rear ends.
There are mediocre tech people on both sides of the ocean. I've worked with great home grown American IT folks and mediocre home grown American IT folks. The same can be said for various Indian IT people I have had occasion to work with.
However I think Nicholas Carr's "Why IT doesn't matter" is more relevant in why someone should not choose to pursue a CS degree.
In a nutshell, IT has become a commodity input, much like eletricity. Yes, it is more expensive... but not as expensive as it once was. CS degrees are largely about programning and let me tell you, most of the places that have interesting programming problems can only employ a fraction of the CS students that graduate.
Companies whose business doesn't fall within technology employ about 90% of the IT people in the US. Frankly, a CS degree is overkill. In some ways, this type of job is more akin to positions of "skilled craftsman" of yesteryear. Yeah, I can use a set of tools to build you a piece of furniture, but don't bother we with figuring out what metals/alloys will go into making the tools themselves, that make the furniture.
As is the constant history of mankind, we build off each other. Nothing is constant.
-M
PS:
"If I have been able to see further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
Legacy, whether a company is a *NIX shop or an MS shop. In my experience whether you can walk on water or not, generally has mattered little. Go into an MS shop strutting your *NIX stuff and you're likely to be disliked and labeled as an "icehole" or "arrogant" and everything else. Go to a *NIX shop with MS preaching and you're likely to be seen as a lover of everything "evil" there is about Microsoft.
Frankly, all these arguments are childish... it's about business folks... something I've said time and time again. Yeah, Google uses LINUX and Yahoo! uses FreeBSD... but outside of all the technical arguments for why they use it, the fact that they don't have to pay any company for an OS license every time they setup a server is a big deal.
It's about business, simple as that, pure technical arguments rarely win.
Appears to be quite slow or at least slower than Google Maps... given that I run LINUX Mozilla heavily through an X server and Google Maps readily works this way... whereas VirtualEarth from Microsoft is dog slow... I can only conclude that from a design standpoint, Google is a superior product.
That aside, it is yet another shining example of Microsoft copying a leader and not innovating in the slightest... why do they bother? Really, BillG, Steve et al why? Given that your bread and butter is an OS and office producitivty suite, why do you give a rat's ass about someone creating a slick web based map software?
Namely who cares about the question posed to start this thread... I sure as hell don't have 8 year old hardware... or want to waste time experimenting by running an OS that wasn't meant to be run on there.
I'm not fond of MS but I'm not sure how this all fits into anything for justifying that position.
Who cares... waste of time, typing, browsing (this thrad).
One of those books that many people had on their bookshelf, but it seemed, rarely read... given the mediocrity of C++ knowledge that I constantly ran into during my day.
"Yeah, the latest version of Windows Media Player can't be stripped from Windows because it's part of the OS." Only to be proved dead wrong.
I mean, we're talking about "user interface" changes and catching up withthe W3C times such as truly supporting the latest CSS standards.
Why on earth can't Windows 2000 do this?
MS should just tell it as it is, we hope you upgrade to take more money from, albeit in more euphemistic way OR simply state another valid reason. We'd rather not have to do regression testing on an older platform. Again, find a euphemism.
It's FREE, they make no money. About the only thing they can charge is a "convenience fee" for putting software on a CD for you. Big deal, why bother, just download the software off the Net.
As for spyware et al, ignorance makes companies money. 50% of Symantec's revenue is from their Norton Antivirus product.
But if you read my posting on this Slashdot thread from yesterday:
Namely the use of a limited account, this would seriously burn into Symantec's revenue. Never mind any altruistic notions you might want to ascribe to Symantec et al. Yes they are doing people a service, but they are an agent for laziness at the same point. Still I do respect Symantec as an organization so don't misconstrue what I am saying here.
I agree with you, you shouldn't need tons of experience for running various appslications. However you can BLAME companies such as Nullsoft, Trillian and even Intuit for not taking into consideration the platform their software is operating on and adjusting accordingly.
These misbehaveed applications is the critica reason MS doesn't push the use of limited accounts more (easy enough to setup when a contemporary version of Windows was being installed).
It all goes back to what I said in my original posting, MS and PC companies do not want to absorb the cost of supporting legacy and/or misbehaved applications.
Plain and simple.
This computer "weenie" makes his living educating the uninitiated about this stuff... and Lord knows, there's no shortage of laziness in this world (generally speaking). Getting people to learn anything (not just computers) seems to always be a challenge, e.g., the USA still suck under the English system of weights distances, volumes. And yes I live in the USA.
All these "IE vs. Mozilla" or "IE vs. FireFox" or "Netscape vs. IE" or "Opera vs. IE" discussions (pick your poison) are irrelevant.
First off, it amazes me that I have run across paranoid *NIX sys admin friends who are very mindful of what runs as "root" on servers they control but then turn around and operate day to day on Windows desktops as an administrator.
Well, gee dip sh*ts, no wonder you're screwed if rogue code enters your system.
If people used limited accounts and then used impersonation (ever hear of "runas") under Windows, all of these discussions would go the way of the dodo bird.
More to the point they would be TRULY irrelevant. Sure send me to some baddie site, won't do much on my system. Whatever malware sent down the pipe to me can't do anything to change my system (C:\WINDOWS).
This is how I operate, i.e. a limited account desktop. The admin account is just that, for ADMINISTRATION, e.g., setting up new apps.
Amazingly, this approach is "novel" among even tech types since I keep hearig these discussions even on Slashdot.
The principle of least privilege is ANCIENT. Impersonation is part of Windows. Just as it is with other OSes.
The Windows NT kernel has had security since its inception. On the file system, registry as well as synchronization mechanisms such as mutexes, semaphores, etc.
Do you want to know why MS doesn't leverage it? Cost. Plain and simple. If WinAmp (which doesn't work under a limited account) stops working for someone on account of MS automatically setting up limited accounts for people, guess who is likely to start receiving support calls? "But it always worked on Windows 9x!!!"
Yes, it boils down to money. This is NOT a technical problem. MS alongside companies peddling its wares (Dell, Gateway et al) simply do not want to deal with the potential legacy costs of supporting misbehaved apps and/or apps whose designers were myopic and assumed the ability to write to any part of the file system and/or registry.
The great thing is, even with a limited account desktop you can still readily run WinAmp. You just have to know how.
All of this seems like "rocket science" to everyone. And I guess it is, since this discussion keeps rearing its head, namely browser security. The point is, a browser is another app that inherits default credentials from your login. Don't operate as administrator geniuses (sarcasm in case you didn't figure that out).
In the case of WinAmp. I simply defined an admin account that I leverage to run that application on my limited desktop (use the command line "runas" facility or change the properties on the shortcut through the "Advanced" button). I might mention that Shoutcast servers are capable of sending URLs (think JavaScript) that WinAmp will readily execute via IE totally disrespecting your browser choice. So taking another page from what Windows has offered from the start, I changed the ACLs for the IE executable such that my "WinAmp User" has absolutely no rights to the IE executable. Not even the ability to read that file. In this manner I short circuit this potential threat vector. In addition I changed the ACLs on C:\WINDOWS and some other directories so that this "WinAmp User" could only read from these directories.
Here's the moral of the story folks, use a limited account. Plain and simple. End of story. End of this not very worthwhile discussion (among tech people).
Yes I use LINUX, I use Cygwin's X server and readily use LINUX Mozilla complements of the latter. Not just a little, a lot. This IN ADDITION to the fact that I use a limited account for day to day activities.
I have never had spyware or a virus on my system. EVER.
It's arbitrary. I was just trying to give people a frame of reference and to see if they understand a critical aspect of C++ class design.
And as I said, most people did NOT answer that question.
On another note, the number of times I asked people to write "strcpy" when they had C emblazoned on their resume and they couldn't do it, well, I lost track.
-M
PS: You might have known that, but most people I interviewed with C++ all over their resume didn't.
But then again, I don't know what kind of questions are being asked. I used to follow the ANSI C++ committee, read "C++ Report", read books from people like Scott Meyes, Stan Lipman, etc. Let's just say I know C++ much better than pretty much everyone around me. I was never arrogant about it nor used interviewing as a soapbox to gloat.
During the interview process I would ask people to rate themselves and would qualify the upper tiers of the scale (1-10). Per my "scale" which was very arbitrary mind you (as all are) I would say "If you rate yourself an 8 you should be able to tell me off the top of your head why you would want to write a copy constructor." I would then qualify 9 and 10.
Either people weren't listening (likely) or they severely overestimated their C++ coding abilities (just as likely, probably more so). I would hear "8" an awful lot. Guess what the first question was? Few people got this question right.
Mediocrity ruled my C++ interviews. I met maybe 5 people who truly knew C++ well. The scary part is I spent 2-1/2 years in Microsoft and twice I had people on a team I was on want to rewrite code I had written since they did not understand contemporary C++. That was 1997. I pretty much gave up on C++ and software development. I have not done any C++ software development since then nor am I inclined to change that fact.
Mediocrity truly rules software development... unless you're talking about people who code out from a point of passion, in particular, open source projects (it sure ain't the money).
But then some of this is necessary. You see, if everyone had stellar C++ class design skills (as a function of their knowledge of the C++ language) no one would want to do the grunt work. However, this type of person is very common and thus you wind up with lots of difficult to maintain code.
In closing, YES I can believe they have a hard time finding good C++ people.
-M
PS: Trying hard to make money in other ways nowadays.
I wholeheartedly agree. My father had a construction business and I was too wrapped up in tech to realize what was before my eyes. "Oh, I'm gonna create technology and venture out in the big world."
Let's see, the downturn in 2001 saw me laid off, I didn't find work for 8 months in the city that had become home to me. I went back to the city I grew up and at one point took a job waiting tables.
Yes, I'm back in tech but I still have to worry about bills more than ever. My father on the other hand, who was involved in construction all the while I grew up and left collects rent checks from people and is financially independent.
If coding is in your blood, you will know by your contributions to some open source project. Otherwise, forget it, it's largely a waste of time at this point.
Have I wondered how it works? No. Do I ever see myself caring? It's a GUI application. There are dozens of them, all of which decompose to lots of API calls to create windows and register handlers. Big deal.
The other thing, "monolithic, bloated IDEs"? What other monolithic, bloated IDEs? Somehow I get the feeling the writer could be eluding to Microsoft's Visual Studio since well, IDEs on *NIX-land have largely been non-existent. Or last least, not very popular. Despite my lack of affinity for Microsoft in various ways, their Visual Studio product has been polished for years and years, before anything similarly worthwhile existed in *NIX-land. Being an EMACS head I could care less frankly.
Perhaps they were referring to Netbeans but considering this is about the only other IDE outside of Eclipse in the *NIX world worth bothering with, the fact that the term "IDEs" was used (indicating plural) is just more of the same... self-aggrandizing platitudes.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can't make him drink.
It's a fact that most people don't like straying from their comfort zone. No matter how "idiot proof" something is, someone will build a better idiot.
That's not to say the WSJ reporter was an idiot, far from it, he brings up many valid points. I personally use LINUX all the time on the back end... but I don't at the desktop and in particular, at home.
I'm simply not interested in screwing around with things to get multimedia functions to work on my desktop, especially as new revs of apps are released. This seems to be the crux of his issues, outside of MS Office compatiblity... and in that regard, Mac OS X would do just fine... way better than LINUX anyway.
-M
Or wait, isn't meth all the rage these days?
Anyway, MS is too big, too powerful and has money coming out of every orifice of its body (making analogies with the human anatomy). As much as I would like to see some competition on the desktop, I currently don't see any. Yeah, there's Apple, but sorry I don't want to pay a $1000 premium to Jobs for running Mac OS X.
As much as I would like to run a LINUX desktop, I run too many games and one too many other small pieces of software that I like on Windows to jettison it.
If I didn't run games, then yeah, LINUX would work. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of running Mozilla on LINUX and using OpenOffice and have done so in the past. So yeah, I can survive without Windows in a semi-business context where my duties are primarily technical. But running Half-Life2 at 2048x1536 like I can on Windows, well, LINUX stumbles there.
When I buy a shrink wrapped game, I want to play the game (enjoy the content) not care about how to make it work on LINUX. The few ports I've seen to LINUX of games have not impressed me.
Yeah I love, GNU, the bash shell, Apache, etc., etc., but the reality is, MS is here to stay.
-M
You had a mega content distributor and a mega content creator -- it was supposed to be soooooo synergistic.
Yeah whatever. Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans.
Mega mergers always suck. Plain and simple.
I don't see the point in this. Jobs has become a power player @ Disney through Pixar (not Apple).
Apple shouldn't be concerned about making computer animated films.
In fact whoever is suggesting this marriage is an idiot... be the person initiating this on slashdot and/or the person on the Apple/Disney side (if such a thing exists).
Thumbs down,
-M
Another politically correct story. 99% of chicks don't dig computers... not the aspects that tend to attract 99% of males to the field.
Chicks like their shoes, guys their TVs, this is the same script, different actors.
Who freaking CARES?
Yin and Ying.
-M
Prepare to be disappointed. Most contractors are implementors. That's one way. Another more albeit more negative way of looking at them is "sh*t shovelers", aka grunts. Most contractors are brought in when high level decisions and designs have been made. The contracting business is nowhere as robust as it was 10 years ago. With IT budgets slashed and the birth of offshoring, unless you're damn good and have made a name for yourself, I would not recommend it for the faint of heart.
-M
Yes you are right... it's more than what people will bear... but life's a bitch. I sure as hell don't run processes that talk on the Net with administrative credentials.
And it's trivial to run programs with admin credentials on a non-admin desktop. Truly trivial. It's just that users don't know how to wipe their a**, nor want to learn.
Unlike a TV or a toaster, you hear many analogies about how a computer should be easy to use like them, a computer runs software systems that are highly dynamic and require active participation on behalf of the user.
A TV allows you to turn yourself into a vegetable.
When the price of ignorance is too high, users will adjust their behavior.
Microsoft is planning NOT to have users running on admin accounts with Vista.
I assure you when this happens, all these stories about IE flaws and viruses will go WAY DOWN.
Hurray,
-M
No I totally disagree... I've made this statement before and I'll make it again, the issue is that people run their desktop under an administrative account... which means when rogue code enters your system it has free will to do anything.
/. there's so much utter cr*p posted when it comes to the topic of security.
Firefox/Mozilla has had some recent security issues... and if you run an administrative desktop, which um, 99% of SOHO users do, then Mozilla can be just as bad a proxy for malicious intent.
The reason Mac OS X users have been able to enjoy a life free of viruses is because Apple doesn't have users running as "root" aka "Administrator" in the Windows world. I read "security guru" morons saying how "One day the Mac OS X people are going to get it!!!" There indeed may be an incident, probably small, on account of perhaps some hole... in the OS, but it won't be on account of Apple's browser, Safari.
And given the track record under Mac OS X, the lack of viruses, spyware et al, it underscores what I'm saying now and what I've said before, running a Windows admnistrative desktop and browsing the Internet is like going into a brothell after a "busy night" and screwing everything under the sun without protection.... yeah, you're likely to "catch something."
Not sure why I bother saying any of this... for all the tech people on
If you don't like MS, just say it, don't pretend to know anything about computer security.
-M
PS: Die hard Mozilla user (this message typed in through LINUX)
I've patented this system, you rollup soft paper on a cardboard cylinder thereby allowing its convenient dispensing when user has the need to clean up after defacating.
/. users and the rest of humanity has to pay me to wipe their rear ends.
Yes, I think I will patent toilet paper.
Now
-M
There are mediocre tech people on both sides of the ocean. I've worked with great home grown American IT folks and mediocre home grown American IT folks. The same can be said for various Indian IT people I have had occasion to work with.
However I think Nicholas Carr's "Why IT doesn't matter" is more relevant in why someone should not choose to pursue a CS degree.
In a nutshell, IT has become a commodity input, much like eletricity. Yes, it is more expensive... but not as expensive as it once was. CS degrees are largely about programning and let me tell you, most of the places that have interesting programming problems can only employ a fraction of the CS students that graduate.
Companies whose business doesn't fall within technology employ about 90% of the IT people in the US. Frankly, a CS degree is overkill. In some ways, this type of job is more akin to positions of "skilled craftsman" of yesteryear. Yeah, I can use a set of tools to build you a piece of furniture, but don't bother we with figuring out what metals/alloys will go into making the tools themselves, that make the furniture.
As is the constant history of mankind, we build off each other. Nothing is constant.
-M
PS:
"If I have been able to see further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
-Sir Isacc Newton
Legacy, whether a company is a *NIX shop or an MS shop. In my experience whether you can walk on water or not, generally has mattered little. Go into an MS shop strutting your *NIX stuff and you're likely to be disliked and labeled as an "icehole" or "arrogant" and everything else. Go to a *NIX shop with MS preaching and you're likely to be seen as a lover of everything "evil" there is about Microsoft.
Frankly, all these arguments are childish... it's about business folks... something I've said time and time again. Yeah, Google uses LINUX and Yahoo! uses FreeBSD... but outside of all the technical arguments for why they use it, the fact that they don't have to pay any company for an OS license every time they setup a server is a big deal.
It's about business, simple as that, pure technical arguments rarely win.
-M
I don't because of the rampant unemployment in the tech sector... I do because mediocrity *is* is rampant in tech.
-M
virtualearth.msn.com
Appears to be quite slow or at least slower than Google Maps... given that I run LINUX Mozilla heavily through an X server and Google Maps readily works this way... whereas VirtualEarth from Microsoft is dog slow... I can only conclude that from a design standpoint, Google is a superior product.
That aside, it is yet another shining example of Microsoft copying a leader and not innovating in the slightest... why do they bother? Really, BillG, Steve et al why? Given that your bread and butter is an OS and office producitivty suite, why do you give a rat's ass about someone creating a slick web based map software?
-M
Who cares?
Namely who cares about the question posed to start this thread... I sure as hell don't have 8 year old hardware... or want to waste time experimenting by running an OS that wasn't meant to be run on there.
I'm not fond of MS but I'm not sure how this all fits into anything for justifying that position.
Who cares... waste of time, typing, browsing (this thrad).
-M
One of those books that many people had on their bookshelf, but it seemed, rarely read... given the mediocrity of C++ knowledge that I constantly ran into during my day.
-M
Haven't we heard such sh*te before?
"Yeah, the latest version of Windows Media Player can't be stripped from Windows because it's part of the OS." Only to be proved dead wrong.
I mean, we're talking about "user interface" changes and catching up withthe W3C times such as truly supporting the latest CSS standards.
Why on earth can't Windows 2000 do this?
MS should just tell it as it is, we hope you upgrade to take more money from, albeit in more euphemistic way OR simply state another valid reason. We'd rather not have to do regression testing on an older platform. Again, find a euphemism.
-M
It's FREE, they make no money. About the only thing they can charge is a "convenience fee" for putting software on a CD for you. Big deal, why bother, just download the software off the Net.
3 3245&tid=114&tid=113&tid=154&tid=95&tid=218
As for spyware et al, ignorance makes companies money. 50% of Symantec's revenue is from their Norton Antivirus product.
But if you read my posting on this Slashdot thread from yesterday:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/27/17
Namely the use of a limited account, this would seriously burn into Symantec's revenue. Never mind any altruistic notions you might want to ascribe to Symantec et al. Yes they are doing people a service, but they are an agent for laziness at the same point. Still I do respect Symantec as an organization so don't misconstrue what I am saying here.
Cheers,
-M
I agree with you, you shouldn't need tons of experience for running various appslications. However you can BLAME companies such as Nullsoft, Trillian and even Intuit for not taking into consideration the platform their software is operating on and adjusting accordingly.
These misbehaveed applications is the critica reason MS doesn't push the use of limited accounts more (easy enough to setup when a contemporary version of Windows was being installed).
It all goes back to what I said in my original posting, MS and PC companies do not want to absorb the cost of supporting legacy and/or misbehaved applications.
Plain and simple.
This computer "weenie" makes his living educating the uninitiated about this stuff... and Lord knows, there's no shortage of laziness in this world (generally speaking). Getting people to learn anything (not just computers) seems to always be a challenge, e.g., the USA still suck under the English system of weights distances, volumes. And yes I live in the USA.
-M
PS: The gene pool could use some chlorine.
Dude,
You are uttering platitudes, aka noise, aka FUD aka I can only infer you don't know what you're talking about.
-M
All these "IE vs. Mozilla" or "IE vs. FireFox" or "Netscape vs. IE" or "Opera vs. IE" discussions (pick your poison) are irrelevant.
First off, it amazes me that I have run across paranoid *NIX sys admin friends who are very mindful of what runs as "root" on servers they control but then turn around and operate day to day on Windows desktops as an administrator.
Well, gee dip sh*ts, no wonder you're screwed if rogue code enters your system.
If people used limited accounts and then used impersonation (ever hear of "runas") under Windows, all of these discussions would go the way of the dodo bird.
More to the point they would be TRULY irrelevant. Sure send me to some baddie site, won't do much on my system. Whatever malware sent down the pipe to me can't do anything to change my system (C:\WINDOWS).
This is how I operate, i.e. a limited account desktop. The admin account is just that, for ADMINISTRATION, e.g., setting up new apps.
Amazingly, this approach is "novel" among even tech types since I keep hearig these discussions even on Slashdot.
The principle of least privilege is ANCIENT. Impersonation is part of Windows. Just as it is with other OSes.
The Windows NT kernel has had security since its inception. On the file system, registry as well as synchronization mechanisms such as mutexes, semaphores, etc.
Do you want to know why MS doesn't leverage it? Cost. Plain and simple. If WinAmp (which doesn't work under a limited account) stops working for someone on account of MS automatically setting up limited accounts for people, guess who is likely to start receiving support calls? "But it always worked on Windows 9x!!!"
Yes, it boils down to money. This is NOT a technical problem. MS alongside companies peddling its wares (Dell, Gateway et al) simply do not want to deal with the potential legacy costs of supporting misbehaved apps and/or apps whose designers were myopic and assumed the ability to write to any part of the file system and/or registry.
The great thing is, even with a limited account desktop you can still readily run WinAmp. You just have to know how.
All of this seems like "rocket science" to everyone. And I guess it is, since this discussion keeps rearing its head, namely browser security. The point is, a browser is another app that inherits default credentials from your login. Don't operate as administrator geniuses (sarcasm in case you didn't figure that out).
In the case of WinAmp. I simply defined an admin account that I leverage to run that application on my limited desktop (use the command line "runas" facility or change the properties on the shortcut through the "Advanced" button). I might mention that Shoutcast servers are capable of sending URLs (think JavaScript) that WinAmp will readily execute via IE totally disrespecting your browser choice. So taking another page from what Windows has offered from the start, I changed the ACLs for the IE executable such that my "WinAmp User" has absolutely no rights to the IE executable. Not even the ability to read that file. In this manner I short circuit this potential threat vector. In addition I changed the ACLs on C:\WINDOWS and some other directories so that this "WinAmp User" could only read from these directories.
Here's the moral of the story folks, use a limited account. Plain and simple. End of story. End of this not very worthwhile discussion (among tech people).
Yes I use LINUX, I use Cygwin's X server and readily use LINUX Mozilla complements of the latter. Not just a little, a lot. This IN ADDITION to the fact that I use a limited account for day to day activities.
I have never had spyware or a virus on my system. EVER.
-M
Dude, you missed the point completely. You've gone onto a touchy feely topic.
Knowing when to write a copy constructor in C++ is considered "basic" by people who truly know the language.
I had lots of people claim lots of experience and could not answer a "basic" question.
Leading into why I wrote that piece in the first place, as a reply to how hard it is to find good C++ developers.
Yes, I hear what you're saying, my point is, irrespective of WHATEVER channel you take, FINDING GOOD C++ PEOPLE IS *HARD*.
-M
It's arbitrary. I was just trying to give people a frame of reference and to see if they understand a critical aspect of C++ class design.
And as I said, most people did NOT answer that question.
On another note, the number of times I asked people to write "strcpy" when they had C emblazoned on their resume and they couldn't do it, well, I lost track.
-M
PS: You might have known that, but most people I interviewed with C++ all over their resume didn't.
But then again, I don't know what kind of questions are being asked. I used to follow the ANSI C++ committee, read "C++ Report", read books from people like Scott Meyes, Stan Lipman, etc. Let's just say I know C++ much better than pretty much everyone around me. I was never arrogant about it nor used interviewing as a soapbox to gloat.
During the interview process I would ask people to rate themselves and would qualify the upper tiers of the scale (1-10). Per my "scale" which was very arbitrary mind you (as all are) I would say "If you rate yourself an 8 you should be able to tell me off the top of your head why you would want to write a copy constructor." I would then qualify 9 and 10.
Either people weren't listening (likely) or they severely overestimated their C++ coding abilities (just as likely, probably more so). I would hear "8" an awful lot. Guess what the first question was? Few people got this question right.
Mediocrity ruled my C++ interviews. I met maybe 5 people who truly knew C++ well. The scary part is I spent 2-1/2 years in Microsoft and twice I had people on a team I was on want to rewrite code I had written since they did not understand contemporary C++. That was 1997. I pretty much gave up on C++ and software development. I have not done any C++ software development since then nor am I inclined to change that fact.
Mediocrity truly rules software development... unless you're talking about people who code out from a point of passion, in particular, open source projects (it sure ain't the money).
But then some of this is necessary. You see, if everyone had stellar C++ class design skills (as a function of their knowledge of the C++ language) no one would want to do the grunt work. However, this type of person is very common and thus you wind up with lots of difficult to maintain code.
In closing, YES I can believe they have a hard time finding good C++ people.
-M
PS: Trying hard to make money in other ways nowadays.
http://news.com.com/Johnny+can+so+program/2010-100 7_3-5700858.html?tag=nefd.ac
I wholeheartedly agree. My father had a construction business and I was too wrapped up in tech to realize what was before my eyes. "Oh, I'm gonna create technology and venture out in the big world."
Let's see, the downturn in 2001 saw me laid off, I didn't find work for 8 months in the city that had become home to me. I went back to the city I grew up and at one point took a job waiting tables.
Yes, I'm back in tech but I still have to worry about bills more than ever. My father on the other hand, who was involved in construction all the while I grew up and left collects rent checks from people and is financially independent.
If coding is in your blood, you will know by your contributions to some open source project. Otherwise, forget it, it's largely a waste of time at this point.
-M
Have I wondered how it works? No. Do I ever see myself caring? It's a GUI application. There are dozens of them, all of which decompose to lots of API calls to create windows and register handlers. Big deal.
The other thing, "monolithic, bloated IDEs"? What other monolithic, bloated IDEs? Somehow I get the feeling the writer could be eluding to Microsoft's Visual Studio since well, IDEs on *NIX-land have largely been non-existent. Or last least, not very popular. Despite my lack of affinity for Microsoft in various ways, their Visual Studio product has been polished for years and years, before anything similarly worthwhile existed in *NIX-land. Being an EMACS head I could care less frankly.
Perhaps they were referring to Netbeans but considering this is about the only other IDE outside of Eclipse in the *NIX world worth bothering with, the fact that the term "IDEs" was used (indicating plural) is just more of the same... self-aggrandizing platitudes.
Zzzz,
-M