Good point, I was worried about the legal side of blocking the change of their DNS.
The difference is that *I* didn't initiate the transaction. I just recieved an email asking me to authorize a change. Refusing to authorize the change kept things the same, so I wasn't changing anything. So, in fact blocking the change was what I was required by law to do. And, each time I blocked the change I sent email to both VeriSign and the site owner telling them that I was blocking the change because I wasn't authorized to approve the change because I wasn't the technical contact for the site.
OTOH, helping them correct a typo, at their request, could not be considered unauthorized access. After all, they sent me email asking me to make the change.
Anyway, the only way I could get them to fix the database was to block the change. I could have sued them for damage to my reputation, I could STILL sue them. But, this was easier.
I considered doing exactly what you suggested. I looked into the law covering such an action and realized that I could be prosecuted for doing it.Unauthorized access to a computer system and unauthorized modification of data are illegal.
Yes, they left the door open, but that doesn't give me the legal right to go through the door.
Stonewolf
How I became a porn king without even trying.
on
VeriSign DNS in Trouble
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
VeriSign made a data entry error and listed my nic handle, something like, SW123 as the technical contact for a porn site. The nic handle of the real technical contact for the site was something like SW1234. They just dropped the last digit. I found out about the problem when angry customers of the porn site started contacting me. A couple threatened to sue me. I contacted VeriSign and asked them to correct the error. They refused. I explained the problem, they couldn't care less. I contacted the actual web site owner, in Australia, I live in the US, he never responded.
I found that I was on many porn dealer mailing lists. I contacted VeriSign. I started getting promotional offers for disks of barn yard porn. Both VeriSign and the owner of the site refused to reply to my emails. When I called VeriSign they told me to stop bothering them. They refused to take any action.
Eventually the owner tried to change the DNS server for the site, as technical contact I blocked it. They tried again, I blocked it. They tried to change the technical contact. I let them!
I was listed as technical contact for that site for more than 4 years. VeriSign refused to do anything. I was never able to contact the actual owners of the site. I contacted VeriSign by email and by phone repeatedly. They refused to do anything.
My name and my home address are still listed in directories of porn site operators.
I would like to see the President of VeriSign draw and quartered. I hate those guys. Putting them out of business is the least that should be done to them. They are sick sick sick bastards.
I've measured this in a number of projects over the last 20 years. My own personal records versus the official schedule.
Working longer hours makes the project take longer and costs more. The error rate in the code goes way up, the time spent on bug reduction practices (such as code reviews, design reviews, designing at all) drop. Programmers starting taking short cuts and start making work, not right.
Working long hour might get the code written sooner, but the testing time will triple and you'll wind up throwing it all out and starting over in six months to a year.
On a personal note, if your management has that attitude it is time to start looking for a real job. The company you are working for is in deep trouble.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the response to my posting. The majority of the posts are from people who are not only happy, but out right joyful, that this move hurts open source developers and independent software developers while it helps Microsoft maintain and extend its monopoly.
I'll never be able to understand people who like having their chains tightened. I will never understand people who joyfully demand to be enslaved.
I know this is obvious to every one but it needs to be said. The mp3 is dead.
There will be a short period of confusion while people pick a new format to replace the mp3 format. Then, over the next year that new technology will completely replace mp3s. In violation of the patents people will distribute tools to convert mp3s to other formats. All existing ripping and encoding software will be rewritten to use something other than mp3.
The mp3 will become a footnote in history and law books. In 10 years when we are being nostalgic for the Internet boom years someone will mention mp3s and someone else will mention betamax and we will take another sip of our drinks and laugh.
As far as I can see the sad state of reality is that if you are a member of minority, and if you are poor, and if you live in a high crime area, there are very few ways for you to make a living other than through crime.
Your schools will certainly be substandard, so you can't get an education and get out of the ghetto. You can't get a job because there are no jobs near where you live and you can't go to where the jobs are because you are poor so you can't own a car and you can't use public transportaion to get to a job because it doesn't go near where you live.
When you look at TV the only people you see who look like you and have money are drug dealers, pimps, and sports stars. The odds of making a living as a sports star are pretty damn thin. So what do you do? Hang out on the street corner and turn to crime because that at least lets you eat.
I think this situation is the main reason why so many people want gun control in the US. The idea that the next million man march might be a million people carrying two million guns marching on our all white suburbs scares them to death. The thing I don't understand is why that hasn't already happened?
If you look down the page for the number of active websites instead of the number of total websites you see that Apache gained 1.43% and IIS lost 0.51%
There is a lot of difference between active sites and "parked" inactive sites. On the netcraft site you can find a good discussion of the difference between total sites and active sites.
The 6% swing seems to be the result of some major web parking sites switching to Apache.
I love to see open source advance, but we need to be as honest as possible in selecting statistics to present.
I'll turn 50 in a just a couple of months. I've been through the whole process that you are worried about. I went to school not really knowing what I wanted to be. I found I loved Computer Science and was good at both the practical and theoretical sides. But I was a lot better at the practical side so I studied the emerging field of Software Engineering and concentrated on system software development. I went out into the real world and found that the jobs I really liked, the analysis and design jobs, all required a graduate degree so I went back and got one.
One of my first jobs put me through a lot of psychological tests and asked me about what I wanted to be doing in 20 years so I was forced to face that question. I decided that one day I would like to do research into personal computing. And I kept moving toward that goal. The only thing that got in the way of that goal was life. I got married to wonderful woman who also has career goals so we had to compromise on where we were going to live. Then we had children and decided that we were going to live somewhere that was good for the children. We also decided that we weren't going to move every couple of years. That cut us both off from some of the opportunities we could have had. But, it was the right decision for us.
Oddly enough I got a chance to go to work for a corporate R&D Center/Think Tank, and I jumped at it. We didn't have to move for me to take the job and I was supposed to do applied research (perfect for me) at the intersection of multimedia and telecommunication. I thought I was in heaven. After four years I thought I was in hell. The trouble was that I got to study things, and write reports about them but, I didn't get to develop anything and as far as I could tell no one ever read the reports. In fact I kept getting in trouble for writing reports that said, roughly, the sky is falling, look out! So, I left and tried to go back to being a programmer. (BTW, the company I worked for, a fortune 100 telecom company, is in financial trouble because everything I predicted has happened. I learned a long time ago that being right is worthless if you can't do anything about it. There is little value in knowing a train is coming if you can't convince people to get off the track.)
In my early 40s I had reached the goal I had been working toward since my early 20s just to find out that it wasn't what I wanted at all. Because of the time I spent doing research I'm having to almost start over as a programmer. Which, while frustrating is a lot of fun. The only problem is that all the time I spent doing research, combined with having worked for 6 start ups since 1984, made me very aware of the"Big Picture" and how important the relationship between the business plan and the technology is. This awareness has caused me no end of problems during interviews. People don't seem to want to hire programmers, who are actually very low level employees, who understand too much about their business model. They especially don't like programmers who question their business model. I've also learned that a lot of people can not stand the idea of having someone older than they all working for them. I don't understand that at all.
I've been out of work for most of a year now and I'm very thankful for that wife I mentioned earlier and for the cash part of my savings. I'm nearly 50, I reached the long term goal I had set for myself, I was considered to be very successful. And now I'm almost back to where I was when I was 20. The point? Goals motivate you and they give you a way to measure where your are. Goals are necessary, but don't treat a goal as a straitjacket. The world can change so that your goal becomes impossible. You can change so that your goals are no longer desirable, you can achieve your goals just to find that what you wanted isn't worth having. All in all, I value my wife and children much more than about anything else I've achieved in the last 30 years. With any luck they will be around for a lot longer than my goals will be.
Stonewolf
P.S.
If you are looking for a VERY experience linux/unix programmer or even for a researcher, let me know.
Back in the middle 60s there was a big push to develop exoskeletons. Popular Science had a whole issue on the subject. There were tests of an "elephant" exoskeleton. Talk of Giant, 20 to 40 feet tall, exoskeletons. Pictures of centaur trucks.
In concept, none of this is new. What is news worthy is why the work done in the '60s failed and why the work done in the '90s and '00s is working. Fourtty years ago there were no cheap fast computers. There were no ultrastrong ultralight composite materials. Fourty years of technilogical advance was need to get from the first failed attempt to a where their is chance this will work
There should be criminal and civil penalties for withholding information about security risks. Right now I do not have the legal right to know about security risks that are discovered in systems I use, the creators of those systems are not legally required to inform me when a new risk is discovered. This means that I can not make an informed decision about how to protect myself from the problem. I can't even use a list of currently unresolved risks to help me decide what systems to use and/or purchase.
To me, the withholding of security risk information is a form of fraud. It is the same as rolling back the odometer on a used car. It is the same as selling Pintos with exploding gas tanks and the same as selling flammable pajamas to children. Companies must be required to release security risk information about their systems in a timely manner. They must be legally liable for damages that result from security issues between the time they discover the problem and the time they warn users of the problem. These kinds of penalties will force companies to create secure systems in the first place. And, to warn people in a timely manner so that they can take action to protect themselves. Although it is tempting I don't think the developers should be required to fix the system. But, a list of all outstanding security problems must be included in advertising and on the packaging of any system. People have to be able to make an informed decision about what systems to use. We put warning labels on beer and cigarettes, we require people to wear seat belts, we require the disclosure of the ingredients of all our food, we have lemon laws to protect us from unscrupulous car salesmen, and we have product liability laws that cover every physical thing we purchase. But, we have no equivalent legal protection from the purveyors of software snake oil.
The only way a company should be able to get out from under these penalties is to declare the product "dead", notify all customers of record that no more security support will be given for that product. Declaring the software dead should also require that the source code and/or system designs as well as any patent and copyrights to the system be released to the customers so that customers can arrange for other sources of security support for the system. At that point the company would not be allowed to sell, distribute, or accept any sort of payment including royalties and support payments for the software.
I will bet that right now and forever Ameritech (a subsidiary of SBC) will do anything they can to stop this plan. In Texas when several cities including Dallas and Austin tried to build city owned MANs within their borders SBC used their wholly owned legislators to ram through a law making such networks illegal.
SBC recently hired William Daley, son and brother of Chicago mayors to "fix" SBC's problems with both the FCC and the state regulators in their Pacific Bell and Ameritech territories. Seems SBC needs to bring in some outside guns to teach them how to buy off Democrats. Being a Texas company they usually only have to buy off Republicans.
If you support the idea of publicly owned networks watch carefully for laws and amendments that will outlaw them. The SBCs of the world want to control what you can access and how you can access it. And they want to charge you at least twice for each byte you get.
Sorry, there is enough valuable knowledge hidden in device drivers that no for profit company can be expect to release full source code all the time. They management would be sued by the stockholders for doing so.
But, if you read what I wrote you'll notice that the drivers worked after I down loaded source code and recompiled it!
If being pro-Linux == being anti-profit then Linux is dead, dead, dead.
Considering everything that stops people from using Linux on the desktop and the huge lead that MS has in established customer base and marketing, 0.24% isn't at all bad. It is a lot higher than I thought it was.
Truth is that there are huge barriers to using Linux that can only be blamed on Linux. A simple example. I recently installed NVidia graphics cards on both my Win98 and Red Hat 7.2 desktop machines. The hardware installation was the same of both machines. The software was another story...
Even though NVidia included binary RPMs for linux drivers on the disk those drivers were useless because they were for a different version of the kernel. So, I had to down load the drivers from the NVidia site and install those. Of course, even though they claimed to be compiled for the same RH kernal as the one I was using they didn't work either. So, I downloaded the source tar.gz files and compiled them and the installation went just fine. Then I had to edit the XF86Config-4 file and then figure out that for some reason AGP just wasn't going to work... and most of an afternoon and an evening later I had a working high performance OpenGL monster of a Linux box.
The install of the Windows drivers took about 5 minutes, but since I was at NVidia's site anyway I down loaded the newest drivers, installed them, and started playing games. Total time, counting the down load, about half an hour.
Did I mention that I spent 5 years as an X server developer in another life? So, I have an above average knowledge of the server. Did I also mention that I have several computers all networked so that after I lost my desktop and web browser (no graphical interface == no browser for most people) I was still able to access the NVidia web site and down load drivers and help files? And when they lose their desktop they are completely helpless.
All in all, just the hassle involved in loading an accelerated graphics card made by the most pro-linux graphics card manufacturer in the world (MHO) is enough to keep anyone who is not a hard core geek from even considering using Linux.
Lets face it folks, right now Linux is still actively hostile to the average human being. The fact that drivers have to be recompiled to match the kernel makes Linux actively hostile to all device manufacturers. And, that makes Linux hostile to all software developers that depend on specialty devices.
I'm about as pro-linux as anyone I know, but that doesn't change the fact that a company like NVidia needs to provide a 68 page installation manual with the Linux drivers for a card and doesn't need to provide any instructions for the Windows drivers for the same card.
Like I said, 0.24% isn't bad. On my web site I see closer to 1.3% Linux, 1.9% Mac, and 91% Windows.
WOW! I went and looked and found postings from my self starting in 1982... Some of it was really weird. Based on my postings I am not the same person I was 20 years ago. At least the things that matter have changed.
There should be criminal and civil penalties for withholding information about security risks. Right now I do not have the legal right to know about security risks that are discovered in systems I use, the creators of those systems are not legally required to inform me when a new risk is discovered. This means that I can not make an informed decision about how to protect myself from the problem. I can't even use a list of currently unresolved risks to help me decide what systems to use and/or purchase.
To me, the withholding of security risk information is a form of fraud. It is the same as rolling back the odometer on a used car. It is the same as selling Pintos with exploding gas tanks and the same as selling flammable pajamas to children. Companies must be required to release security risk information about their systems in a timely manner. They must be legally liable for damages that result from security issues between the time they discover the problem and the time they warn users of the problem. These kinds of penalties will force companies to create secure systems in the first place. And, to warn people in a timely manner so that they can take action to protect themselves. Although it is tempting I don't think the developers should be required to fix the system. But, a list of all outstanding security problems must be included in advertising and on the packaging of any system. People have to be able to make an informed decision about what systems to use. We put warning labels on beer and cigarettes, we require people to wear seat belts, we require the disclosure of the ingredients of all our food, we have lemon laws to protect us from unscrupulous car salesmen, and we have product liability laws that cover every physical thing we purchase. But, we have no equivalent legal protection from the purveyors of software snake oil.
The only way a company should be able to get out from under these penalties is to declare the product "dead", notify all customers of record that no more security support will be given for that product. Declaring the software dead should also require that the source code and/or system designs as well as any patent and copyrights to the system be released to the customers so that customers can arrange for other sources of security support for the system. At that point the company would not be allowed to sell, distribute, or accept any sort of payment including royalties and support payments for the software.
As pleased as I am to see some serious private rocket development, I am astounded to see that EZ-Rocket, in 2001, has yet to reach the same level of capability of rocket planes built during the late 1930's and early 1040s's.
Yes, you read that right. They are just now getting to the level of technology that the Germans (especially the Germans), the US, and the Russians had before and during WWII.
Why has private rocket development been held up for 60 years!
SBC was starting to see a lot of lines being leased for use as DSL lines. So, the started a big program to install DSL lines and used their marketing muscle, monopoloy power, and deep pockets to put all the little guys out of business. Then, when there is no competition they slooow down (nearly stop) deploying DSL and raise price.
Then when someone dares ask if they broke the rules to control the market they pay a piddling $100,000 dollar fine rather than answering the questions... Sheesh, a $100,000 dollars is more than it costs each time one of their executive asks their research department (TRI) a question.
IANAP But, you sound like you are suffering from depression. You MUST talk to someone about that. You also have to ask your self WHY you
rate yourself so much on grades? A 3.0 (out of 4.0) undergraduate GPA in CS is pretty damn good. Also, grades in CS don't have anything to do with how good a developer you can be. (Oh, yeah, all those off by one errors? You have those because as a senior in CS you are a stone cold newby at programming. You'll get past those pretty soon.)
On the other hand, I understand what you are saying. I started college as a history major (planning to be a Lawyer) that got boring, so I changed to English (creative writing), and then to CS.... Well written code is a lot like well written poetry. Doing what you like is the most important thing.
On the third hand, you might just not be cut out
for a life as a developer. A LOT of talented people went into CS in the late '60s, the early '80s, and the late '90s because that was where
they could make the most money. Then they found
out that developing code was like doing home work
all day long and they hated it. Most of those people stay in the field for less than 5 years
and nobody misses them. And, they are a lot happier doing whatever it is they wind up doing.
So, First, talk to a shrink. Get some perspective.
Then think about where you are headed.
Stonewolf
P.S.
My salary history looks like a saw tooth wave. It goes up for about 10 years, then goes backwards in a short sharp hop, and repeat. Right now my income has dropped to zero. Looks like I have a good chance of geting up to 50% of what I was making last month.
I just finished reading the proposed consent decree. Here are my observations.
1) This decree is very similar in structure to the consent decree the Baby Bells operated under from 1983 to 1996. This means that it is probably well founded in law an unlikely to be overturned.
2) I was bothered by the duration of the decree. I see now reason why it should automatically expire. I feel that Microsoft should have to go back to court and petition for the removal of the order. And, that they should have to prove that they no longer have monopoly powers before the decree can be removed.
3) I was bothered by the fact that the rank and file of Microsoft does not have to read and sign the decree. I was an employ of a Baby Bell at one time and I remember the psychological effect of having to read and sign that decree each year. Knowing that if you violate the decree you can be held in contempt of a federal court makes sure you check every action you make against that decree.
4) I am very concerned that Microsoft is allowed to require a licensing agreement ant the payment of royalties for the use their protocols. The number one competitor of Microsoft right now is not a corporation that can sign an agreement or pay royalties. The number one competitor of Microsoft is a coalition of volunteers who are building truly free operating systems, applications, and APIs
5) I am very concerned that Microsoft is not required to release information about protocols that they can construe to be used for security. This means that you can implement their protocols but not be able to authenticate to a Microsoft server. And, they can make proprietary changes to the security protocols of already public protocols and not revels those changes.
These exclusions allow Microsoft to abided by the letter of the decree and still absolutely lock out every other operating system from working with Microsoft systems.
6) I understand the court's decision to exclude all Windows system management protocols from public release. But, I believe that the court has been mislead by the seeming reasonableness of this exclusion. This exclusion requires that the master control console of any network that contains Windows must run on a Windows operating system.
Aside from these problems, which are enough to render the decree meaningless, the decree is actually an excellent piece of work.
Taking a blatantly anti-competitive, monopolistic, action like this while in court ordered negotiations over a settlement for a conviction of monopolistic practices is beyond shooting your self in the foot. If there is ANY justice left in the US then Microsoft has just slit its own throat.
With any luck every web browser and OS company in the world will file suite against Microsoft by tomorrow morning. And, they should all win.
This is just another moral to the same old story.
The VCs will push you into doing ANYTHING, follow
any short term, well hyped, strategy to try to make a 0.01% better ROI for this quarter.
You can't build a company that is profitable in the long run by changing directions every quarter. This is especially true in technology based businesses where more than half of the total value of the company is the team and not physical assets.
Oh! I agree with you. Microsoft is insane. They will not play nice. They will piss off the judge. This judge will stay quiet and nail Microsoft to the wall.
I've been told by Microsofties during business meetings that if they don't get what they want in court they will move the company so they can ignore the ruling. This is of course insane. Even if they are not inside the US they sell in the US and they could be barred from selling in the US if they ignore the court.
Microsoft has lost their last hope of delaying a judgement. They have, with out a doubt, been convicted of being a destructive monopoly.
This means they have no choice but to play nice with the current judge. If they try the kind of tricks they used in the trial Bill could wind up in jail. This also means that in any future suit filed against Microsoft they will go into court with Microsoft having to prove they weren't doing any of the things they did to get convicted the first time. This puts Microsoft at a HUGE disadvantage in court.
This leads to the possibility that Microsoft will be placed under judicial supervision to ensure they do not repeat any of their crimes. How would you like it if Microsoft was forced to release complete details of all interfaces and be forced to make all net interface definitions public for 6 months before they could release an product that implements them? Happened to the US phone companies. It could happen to Microsoft.
Don't underestimate the importance of this ruling.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, I was worried about the legal side of blocking the change of their DNS.
The difference is that *I* didn't initiate the transaction. I just recieved an email asking me to authorize a change. Refusing to authorize the change kept things the same, so I wasn't changing anything. So, in fact blocking the change was what I was required by law to do. And, each time I blocked the change I sent email to both VeriSign and the site owner telling them that I was blocking the change because I wasn't authorized to approve the change because I wasn't the technical contact for the site.
OTOH, helping them correct a typo, at their request, could not be considered unauthorized access. After all, they sent me email asking me to make the change.
Anyway, the only way I could get them to fix the database was to block the change. I could have sued them for damage to my reputation, I could STILL sue them. But, this was easier.
Stonewolf
I considered doing exactly what you suggested. I looked into the law covering such an action and realized that I could be prosecuted for doing it.Unauthorized access to a computer system and unauthorized modification of data are illegal.
Yes, they left the door open, but that doesn't give me the legal right to go through the door.
Stonewolf
VeriSign made a data entry error and listed my nic handle, something like, SW123 as the technical contact for a porn site. The nic handle of the real technical contact for the site was something like SW1234. They just dropped the last digit. I found out about the problem when angry customers of the porn site started contacting me. A couple threatened to sue me. I contacted VeriSign and asked them to correct the error. They refused. I explained the problem, they couldn't care less. I contacted the actual web site owner, in Australia, I live in the US, he never responded.
I found that I was on many porn dealer mailing lists. I contacted VeriSign. I started getting promotional offers for disks of barn yard porn. Both VeriSign and the owner of the site refused to reply to my emails. When I called VeriSign they told me to stop bothering them. They refused to take any action.
Eventually the owner tried to change the DNS server for the site, as technical contact I blocked it. They tried again, I blocked it. They tried to change the technical contact. I let them!
I was listed as technical contact for that site for more than 4 years. VeriSign refused to do anything. I was never able to contact the actual owners of the site. I contacted VeriSign by email and by phone repeatedly. They refused to do anything.
My name and my home address are still listed in directories of porn site operators.
I would like to see the President of VeriSign draw and quartered. I hate those guys. Putting them out of business is the least that should be done to them. They are sick sick sick bastards.
Stonewolf
I've measured this in a number of projects over the last 20 years. My own personal records versus the official schedule.
Working longer hours makes the project take longer and costs more. The error rate in the code goes way up, the time spent on bug reduction practices (such as code reviews, design reviews, designing at all) drop. Programmers starting taking short cuts and start making work, not right.
Working long hour might get the code written sooner, but the testing time will triple and you'll wind up throwing it all out and starting over in six months to a year.
On a personal note, if your management has that attitude it is time to start looking for a real job. The company you are working for is in deep trouble.
Stonewolf
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the response to my posting. The majority of the posts are from people who are not only happy, but out right joyful, that this move hurts open source developers and independent software developers while it helps Microsoft maintain and extend its monopoly.
I'll never be able to understand people who like having their chains tightened. I will never understand people who joyfully demand to be enslaved.
Stonewolf
I know this is obvious to every one but it needs to be said. The mp3 is dead.
There will be a short period of confusion while people pick a new format to replace the mp3 format. Then, over the next year that new technology will completely replace mp3s. In violation of the patents people will distribute tools to convert mp3s to other formats. All existing ripping and encoding software will be rewritten to use something other than mp3.
The mp3 will become a footnote in history and law books. In 10 years when we are being nostalgic for the Internet boom years someone will mention mp3s and someone else will mention betamax and we will take another sip of our drinks and laugh.
Stonewolf
As far as I can see the sad state of reality is that if you are a member of minority, and if you are poor, and if you live in a high crime area, there are very few ways for you to make a living other than through crime.
Your schools will certainly be substandard, so you can't get an education and get out of the ghetto. You can't get a job because there are no jobs near where you live and you can't go to where the jobs are because you are poor so you can't own a car and you can't use public transportaion to get to a job because it doesn't go near where you live.
When you look at TV the only people you see who look like you and have money are drug dealers, pimps, and sports stars. The odds of making a living as a sports star are pretty damn thin.
So what do you do? Hang out on the street corner and turn to crime because that at least lets you eat.
I think this situation is the main reason why so many people want gun control in the US. The idea that the next million man march might be a million people carrying two million guns marching on our all white suburbs scares them to death. The thing I don't understand is why that hasn't already happened?
Stonewolf, one sad wolf today.
If you look down the page for the number of active websites instead of the number of total websites you see that Apache gained 1.43% and IIS lost 0.51%
There is a lot of difference between active sites and "parked" inactive sites. On the netcraft site you can find a good discussion of the difference between total sites and active sites.
The 6% swing seems to be the result of some major web parking sites switching to Apache.
I love to see open source advance, but we need to be as honest as possible in selecting statistics to present.
Stonewolf
I'll turn 50 in a just a couple of months. I've been through the whole process that you are worried about. I went to school not really knowing what I wanted to be. I found I loved Computer Science and was good at both the practical and theoretical sides. But I was a lot better at the practical side so I studied the emerging field of Software Engineering and concentrated on system software development. I went out into the real world and found that the jobs I really liked, the analysis and design jobs, all required a graduate degree so I went back and got one.
One of my first jobs put me through a lot of psychological tests and asked me about what I wanted to be doing in 20 years so I was forced to face that question. I decided that one day I would like to do research into personal computing. And I kept moving toward that goal. The only thing that got in the way of that goal was life. I got married to wonderful woman who also has career goals so we had to compromise on where we were going to live. Then we had children and decided that we were going to live somewhere that was good for the children. We also decided that we weren't going to move every couple of years. That cut us both off from some of the opportunities we could have had. But, it was the right decision for us.
Oddly enough I got a chance to go to work for a corporate R&D Center/Think Tank, and I jumped at it. We didn't have to move for me to take the job and I was supposed to do applied research (perfect for me) at the intersection of multimedia and telecommunication. I thought I was in heaven. After four years I thought I was in hell. The trouble was that I got to study things, and write reports about them but, I didn't get to develop anything and as far as I could tell no one ever read the reports. In fact I kept getting in trouble for writing reports that said, roughly, the sky is falling, look out! So, I left and tried to go back to being a programmer. (BTW, the company I worked for, a fortune 100 telecom company, is in financial trouble because everything I predicted has happened. I learned a long time ago that being right is worthless if you can't do anything about it. There is little value in knowing a train is coming if you can't convince people to get off the track.)
In my early 40s I had reached the goal I had been working toward since my early 20s just to find out that it wasn't what I wanted at all. Because of the time I spent doing research I'm having to almost start over as a programmer. Which, while frustrating is a lot of fun. The only problem is that all the time I spent doing research, combined with having worked for 6 start ups since 1984, made me very aware of the"Big Picture" and how important the relationship between the business plan and the technology is. This awareness has caused me no end of problems during interviews. People don't seem to want to hire programmers, who are actually very low level employees, who understand too much about their business model. They especially don't like programmers who question their business model. I've also learned that a lot of people can not stand the idea of having someone older than they all working for them. I don't understand that at all.
I've been out of work for most of a year now and I'm very thankful for that wife I mentioned earlier and for the cash part of my savings. I'm nearly 50, I reached the long term goal I had set for myself, I was considered to be very successful. And now I'm almost back to where I was when I was 20. The point? Goals motivate you and they give you a way to measure where your are. Goals are necessary, but don't treat a goal as a straitjacket. The world can change so that your goal becomes impossible. You can change so that your goals are no longer desirable, you can achieve your goals just to find that what you wanted isn't worth having. All in all, I value my wife and children much more than about anything else I've achieved in the last 30 years. With any luck they will be around for a lot longer than my goals will be.
Stonewolf
P.S.
If you are looking for a VERY experience linux/unix programmer or even for a researcher, let me know.
Back in the middle 60s there was a big push to develop exoskeletons. Popular Science had a whole issue on the subject. There were tests of an "elephant" exoskeleton. Talk of Giant, 20 to 40 feet tall, exoskeletons. Pictures of centaur trucks.
In concept, none of this is new. What is news worthy is why the work done in the '60s failed and why the work done in the '90s and '00s is working. Fourtty years ago there were no cheap fast computers. There were no ultrastrong ultralight composite materials. Fourty years of technilogical advance was need to get from the first failed attempt to a where their is chance this will work
Stonewolf
I said this a while back and I'm saying it again:
There should be criminal and civil penalties for withholding information about security risks. Right now I do not have the legal right to know about security risks that are discovered in systems I use, the creators of those systems are not legally required to inform me when a new risk is discovered. This means that I can not make an informed decision about how to protect myself from the problem. I can't even use a list of currently unresolved risks to help me decide what systems to use and/or purchase.
To me, the withholding of security risk information is a form of fraud. It is the same as rolling back the odometer on a used car. It is the same as selling Pintos with exploding gas tanks and the same as selling flammable pajamas to children. Companies must be required to release security risk information about their systems in a timely manner. They must be legally liable for damages that result from security issues between the time they discover the problem and the time they warn users of the problem. These kinds of penalties will force companies to create secure systems in the first place. And, to warn people in a timely manner so that they can take action to protect themselves. Although it is tempting I don't think the developers should be required to fix the system. But, a list of all outstanding security problems must be included in advertising and on the packaging of any system. People have to be able to make an informed decision about what systems to use. We put warning labels on beer and cigarettes, we require people to wear seat belts, we require the disclosure of the ingredients of all our food, we have lemon laws to protect us from unscrupulous car salesmen, and we have product liability laws that cover every physical thing we purchase. But, we have no equivalent legal protection from the purveyors of software snake oil.
The only way a company should be able to get out from under these penalties is to declare the product "dead", notify all customers of record that no more security support will be given for that product. Declaring the software dead should also require that the source code and/or system designs as well as any patent and copyrights to the system be released to the customers so that customers can arrange for other sources of security support for the system. At that point the company would not be allowed to sell, distribute, or accept any sort of payment including royalties and support payments for the software.
Stonewolf
I will bet that right now and forever Ameritech (a subsidiary of SBC) will do anything they can to stop this plan. In Texas when several cities including Dallas and Austin tried to build city owned MANs within their borders SBC used their wholly owned legislators to ram through a law making such networks illegal.
SBC recently hired William Daley, son and brother of Chicago mayors to "fix" SBC's problems with both the FCC and the state regulators in their Pacific Bell and Ameritech territories. Seems SBC needs to bring in some outside guns to teach them how to buy off Democrats. Being a Texas company they usually only have to buy off Republicans.
If you support the idea of publicly owned networks watch carefully for laws and amendments that will outlaw them. The SBCs of the world want to control what you can access and how you can access it. And they want to charge you at least twice for each byte you get.
Stonewolf
Ahh.. No.
Sorry, there is enough valuable knowledge hidden in device drivers that no for profit company can be expect to release full source code all the time. They management would be sued by the stockholders for doing so.
But, if you read what I wrote you'll notice that the drivers worked after I down loaded source code and recompiled it!
If being pro-Linux == being anti-profit then Linux is dead, dead, dead.
Considering everything that stops people from using Linux on the desktop and the huge lead that MS has in established customer base and marketing, 0.24% isn't at all bad. It is a lot higher than I thought it was.
Truth is that there are huge barriers to using Linux that can only be blamed on Linux. A simple example. I recently installed NVidia graphics cards on both my Win98 and Red Hat 7.2 desktop machines. The hardware installation was the same of both machines. The software was another story...
Even though NVidia included binary RPMs for linux drivers on the disk those drivers were useless because they were for a different version of the kernel. So, I had to down load the drivers from the NVidia site and install those. Of course, even though they claimed to be compiled for the same RH kernal as the one I was using they didn't work either. So, I downloaded the source tar.gz files and compiled them and the installation went just fine. Then I had to edit the XF86Config-4 file and then figure out that for some reason AGP just wasn't going to work... and most of an afternoon and an evening later I had a working high performance OpenGL monster of a Linux box.
The install of the Windows drivers took about 5 minutes, but since I was at NVidia's site anyway I down loaded the newest drivers, installed them, and started playing games. Total time, counting the down load, about half an hour.
Did I mention that I spent 5 years as an X server developer in another life? So, I have an above average knowledge of the server. Did I also mention that I have several computers all networked so that after I lost my desktop and web browser (no graphical interface == no browser for most people) I was still able to access the NVidia web site and down load drivers and help files? And when they lose their desktop they are completely helpless.
All in all, just the hassle involved in loading an accelerated graphics card made by the most pro-linux graphics card manufacturer in the world (MHO) is enough to keep anyone who is not a hard core geek from even considering using Linux.
Lets face it folks, right now Linux is still actively hostile to the average human being. The fact that drivers have to be recompiled to match the kernel makes Linux actively hostile to all device manufacturers. And, that makes Linux hostile to all software developers that depend on specialty devices.
I'm about as pro-linux as anyone I know, but that doesn't change the fact that a company like NVidia needs to provide a 68 page installation manual with the Linux drivers for a card and doesn't need to provide any instructions for the Windows drivers for the same card.
Like I said, 0.24% isn't bad. On my web site I see closer to 1.3% Linux, 1.9% Mac, and 91% Windows.
Stonewolf
WOW! I went and looked and found postings from my self starting in 1982... Some of it was really weird. Based on my postings I am not the same person I was 20 years ago. At least the things that matter have changed.
Stonewolf
To me, the withholding of security risk information is a form of fraud. It is the same as rolling back the odometer on a used car. It is the same as selling Pintos with exploding gas tanks and the same as selling flammable pajamas to children. Companies must be required to release security risk information about their systems in a timely manner. They must be legally liable for damages that result from security issues between the time they discover the problem and the time they warn users of the problem. These kinds of penalties will force companies to create secure systems in the first place. And, to warn people in a timely manner so that they can take action to protect themselves. Although it is tempting I don't think the developers should be required to fix the system. But, a list of all outstanding security problems must be included in advertising and on the packaging of any system. People have to be able to make an informed decision about what systems to use. We put warning labels on beer and cigarettes, we require people to wear seat belts, we require the disclosure of the ingredients of all our food, we have lemon laws to protect us from unscrupulous car salesmen, and we have product liability laws that cover every physical thing we purchase. But, we have no equivalent legal protection from the purveyors of software snake oil.
The only way a company should be able to get out from under these penalties is to declare the product "dead", notify all customers of record that no more security support will be given for that product. Declaring the software dead should also require that the source code and/or system designs as well as any patent and copyrights to the system be released to the customers so that customers can arrange for other sources of security support for the system. At that point the company would not be allowed to sell, distribute, or accept any sort of payment including royalties and support payments for the software.
Stonewolf
This so called history doesn't seem to have noticed that there is/was a version of DOOM for the Apple Macinstosh.
It was a great game. My only exposure to the Mac
was through that game.
Stonewolf
As pleased as I am to see some serious private rocket development, I am astounded to see that EZ-Rocket, in 2001, has yet to reach the same level of capability of rocket planes built during the late 1930's and early 1040s's.
Yes, you read that right. They are just now getting to the level of technology that the Germans (especially the Germans), the US, and the Russians had before and during WWII.
Why has private rocket development been held up for 60 years!
Stonewolf
Acting like a monopoly, who'd a thunk?
SBC was starting to see a lot of lines being leased for use as DSL lines. So, the started a big program to install DSL lines and used their marketing muscle, monopoloy power, and deep pockets to put all the little guys out of business. Then, when there is no competition they slooow down (nearly stop) deploying DSL and raise price.
Then when someone dares ask if they broke the rules to control the market they pay a piddling $100,000 dollar fine rather than answering the questions... Sheesh, a $100,000 dollars is more than it costs each time one of their executive asks their research department (TRI) a question.
Stonewolf
Seriously,
IANAP But, you sound like you are suffering from depression. You MUST talk to someone about that. You also have to ask your self WHY you
rate yourself so much on grades? A 3.0 (out of 4.0) undergraduate GPA in CS is pretty damn good. Also, grades in CS don't have anything to do with how good a developer you can be. (Oh, yeah, all those off by one errors? You have those because as a senior in CS you are a stone cold newby at programming. You'll get past those pretty soon.)
On the other hand, I understand what you are saying. I started college as a history major (planning to be a Lawyer) that got boring, so I changed to English (creative writing), and then to CS.... Well written code is a lot like well written poetry. Doing what you like is the most important thing.
On the third hand, you might just not be cut out
for a life as a developer. A LOT of talented people went into CS in the late '60s, the early '80s, and the late '90s because that was where
they could make the most money. Then they found
out that developing code was like doing home work
all day long and they hated it. Most of those people stay in the field for less than 5 years
and nobody misses them. And, they are a lot happier doing whatever it is they wind up doing.
So, First, talk to a shrink. Get some perspective.
Then think about where you are headed.
Stonewolf
P.S.
My salary history looks like a saw tooth wave. It goes up for about 10 years, then goes backwards in a short sharp hop, and repeat. Right now my income has dropped to zero. Looks like I have a good chance of geting up to 50% of what I was making last month.
I just finished reading the proposed consent decree. Here are my observations.
1) This decree is very similar in structure to the consent decree the Baby Bells operated under from 1983 to 1996. This means that it is probably well founded in law an unlikely to be overturned.
2) I was bothered by the duration of the decree. I see now reason why it should automatically expire. I feel that Microsoft should have to go back to court and petition for the removal of the order. And, that they should have to prove that they no longer have monopoly powers before the decree can be removed.
3) I was bothered by the fact that the rank and file of Microsoft does not have to read and sign the decree. I was an employ of a Baby Bell at one time and I remember the psychological effect of having to read and sign that decree each year. Knowing that if you violate the decree you can be held in contempt of a federal court makes sure you check every action you make against that decree.
4) I am very concerned that Microsoft is allowed to require a licensing agreement ant the payment of royalties for the use their protocols. The number one competitor of Microsoft right now is not a corporation that can sign an agreement or pay royalties. The number one competitor of Microsoft is a coalition of volunteers who are building truly free operating systems, applications, and APIs
5) I am very concerned that Microsoft is not required to release information about protocols that they can construe to be used for security. This means that you can implement their protocols but not be able to authenticate to a Microsoft server. And, they can make proprietary changes to the security protocols of already public protocols and not revels those changes.
These exclusions allow Microsoft to abided by the letter of the decree and still absolutely lock out every other operating system from working with Microsoft systems.
6) I understand the court's decision to exclude all Windows system management protocols from public release. But, I believe that the court has been mislead by the seeming reasonableness of this exclusion. This exclusion requires that the master control console of any network that contains Windows must run on a Windows operating system.
Aside from these problems, which are enough to render the decree meaningless, the decree is actually an excellent piece of work.
Stonewolf
Taking a blatantly anti-competitive, monopolistic, action like this while in court ordered negotiations over a settlement for a conviction of monopolistic practices is beyond shooting your self in the foot. If there is ANY justice left in the US then Microsoft has just slit its own throat.
With any luck every web browser and OS company in the world will file suite against Microsoft by tomorrow morning. And, they should all win.
Stonewolf
This is just another moral to the same old story.
The VCs will push you into doing ANYTHING, follow
any short term, well hyped, strategy to try to make a 0.01% better ROI for this quarter.
You can't build a company that is profitable in the long run by changing directions every quarter. This is especially true in technology based businesses where more than half of the total value of the company is the team and not physical assets.
Stonewolf
Oh! I agree with you. Microsoft is insane. They will not play nice. They will piss off the judge. This judge will stay quiet and nail Microsoft to the wall.
I've been told by Microsofties during business meetings that if they don't get what they want in court they will move the company so they can ignore the ruling. This is of course insane. Even if they are not inside the US they sell in the US and they could be barred from selling in the US if they ignore the court.
Stonewolf
Microsoft has lost their last hope of delaying a judgement. They have, with out a doubt, been convicted of being a destructive monopoly.
This means they have no choice but to play nice with the current judge. If they try the kind of tricks they used in the trial Bill could wind up in jail. This also means that in any future suit filed against Microsoft they will go into court with Microsoft having to prove they weren't doing any of the things they did to get convicted the first time. This puts Microsoft at a HUGE disadvantage in court.
This leads to the possibility that Microsoft will be placed under judicial supervision to ensure they do not repeat any of their crimes. How would you like it if Microsoft was forced to release complete details of all interfaces and be forced to make all net interface definitions public for 6 months before they could release an product that implements them? Happened to the US phone companies. It could happen to Microsoft.
Don't underestimate the importance of this ruling.
Stonewolf