President Nixon, Henry Kissinger, the Pope, and a hippie were riding in an airplane. Suddently there was a loud pop and then they can no longer hear the engines. The pilot tells them that the plane is going to crash, but there are only three parachutes for the passengers. Nixon jumps up and says as leader of the free world he should get a parachute, so he puts one on and jumps out of the plane. Henry Kissinger then stands, exclaims that he is the smartest man in the world and should therefore have one of the parachutes, and then he jumps. The pope turns to the young hippie and says that he has lived a long life and is ready to meet God, so the hippie should take the final parachute. Whereupon the hippie says: Don't worry, father, the smartest man on earth just jumped out of here with my backpack on!
"I believe the Borg comparison is still entirely valid."
Than why didn't you list the reasons you believe the comparison is valid? I get your opinion that MS is evil, but being evil isn't a unique aspect of the Borg. The Borg were not into marketing hype or spin, they simply had the best technology around. Do you want to say the same thing about MS?
I think it's because many people who reach a high management position within a company didn't get there by placing the needs of the company before their own career. At that level it's more about politics and self-promotion than it is about performance. I'm sure that these difficult bosses are considered great guys by the people whose asses are being kissed.
"A cornerstone of documentation in the Unix/Linux/*BSD world is the man page, a very concise and targetted form of documentation that programmers and sysadmins in particular find extremely convenient, especially for documenting library functions and commandline tools."
I think you phrased it perfectly. Man pages are extremely convenient for the writer, but not a particularly effective reference for the reader.
"And it doesn't need to be. The TCP/IP stack implementations need to be protected against buffer overflows and such like. Appart from that, security must be implemented on the application layer (which is not part of the TCP/IP stack)."
You're just describing how it was designed, which has nothing to do with what could or should have been done. Having each application handle its own security is both redundant and much less secure than if the problem were solved in one place.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. I think what we are seeing now is that the end-to-end principle is not the optimum design for every distributed system but a trade-off like all other system design approaches.
It's ironic to me that some of the same people who get upset about a few lines of code being duplicated within an application find nothing wrong with redundant security hardware and software being duplicated millions of times on the Internet becuase Internet Protocols are "insecure by design".
I'd say the same thing about all of them. Every company is responsible for the quality of their products.
We've already seen some posts describing home-brew solutions to the problem, so I suspect that if people complain enough Apple will "discover" the problem and fix it without too much trouble.
If Apple wishes to market devices in the EU, it needs to abide by it's laws and if it can't make reliable products that way, than it shouldn't be in business there.
RoHS may be a bad idea as you suggest, but that doesn't relieve Apple of its fundamental responsibilities.
Re:Of course you can talk about it at interviews
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
I think his point is that most people don't have to worry about them. It would be better to have NDAs regulated but there are probably more important employer abuses to worry about first.
If you want true platform independence you'll find it about the same time you find unicorns. Of course if you're willing to narrow the definition of "platform" or slap a horn on a horse, you can fool yourself into believing in these fairy tales.
Delegates for event handling rather than using Java's adapter hack. Not using Java's failed checked exception handling experiment. Static classes. No superfluous dependencies like class paths, binding between classes and file names etc.
"There are. Microsoft has always done whatever is necessary to protect what they see as their own inventions."
Which includes all their patents by definition, so what? You say there are patents that apply exclusively to the CLR. In that case you should be able to name them, so what are the patent numbers?
Slashdot Mirror
President Nixon, Henry Kissinger, the Pope, and a hippie were riding in an airplane. Suddently there was a loud pop and then they can no longer hear the engines. The pilot tells them that the plane is going to crash, but there are only three parachutes for the passengers. Nixon jumps up and says as leader of the free world he should get a parachute, so he puts one on and jumps out of the plane. Henry Kissinger then stands, exclaims that he is the smartest man in the world and should therefore have one of the parachutes, and then he jumps. The pope turns to the young hippie and says that he has lived a long life and is ready to meet God, so the hippie should take the final parachute. Whereupon the hippie says: Don't worry, father, the smartest man on earth just jumped out of here with my backpack on!
"I believe the Borg comparison is still entirely valid."
Than why didn't you list the reasons you believe the comparison is valid? I get your opinion that MS is evil, but being evil isn't a unique aspect of the Borg. The Borg were not into marketing hype or spin, they simply had the best technology around. Do you want to say the same thing about MS?
I think it's because many people who reach a high management position within a company didn't get there by placing the needs of the company before their own career. At that level it's more about politics and self-promotion than it is about performance. I'm sure that these difficult bosses are considered great guys by the people whose asses are being kissed.
Bully? Disrespect for people's opinions that differ from his? Sounds like many of us hear on Slashdot.
So you could just say that Apple invented everything in the computer industry for the last 100 years.
You can get thin clients that run RDP, VNC, or X-windows.
Unfortunately, they'll cost more than a full low-end PC.
Your comment is as clear as a man page for a command you've never used before.
"A cornerstone of documentation in the Unix/Linux/*BSD world is the man page, a very concise and targetted form of documentation that programmers and sysadmins in particular find extremely convenient, especially for documenting library functions and commandline tools."
I think you phrased it perfectly. Man pages are extremely convenient for the writer, but not a particularly effective reference for the reader.
When code is used for documentation, there's no way to determine if there are bugs.
"Obama does not own the myspace.com/barackobama url any more than he owns en.wikipedia.com/Barack_Obama."
...
Sure, that's why they call the site "SomebodyElsesSpace.com" instead of something like "myspace.com". Oh wait
"And it doesn't need to be. The TCP/IP stack implementations need to be protected against buffer overflows and such like. Appart from that, security must be implemented on the application layer (which is not part of the TCP/IP stack)."
You're just describing how it was designed, which has nothing to do with what could or should have been done. Having each application handle its own security is both redundant and much less secure than if the problem were solved in one place.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. I think what we are seeing now is that the end-to-end principle is not the optimum design for every distributed system but a trade-off like all other system design approaches.
It's ironic to me that some of the same people who get upset about a few lines of code being duplicated within an application find nothing wrong with redundant security hardware and software being duplicated millions of times on the Internet becuase Internet Protocols are "insecure by design".
I'd say the same thing about all of them. Every company is responsible for the quality of their products.
We've already seen some posts describing home-brew solutions to the problem, so I suspect that if people complain enough Apple will "discover" the problem and fix it without too much trouble.
So, you admit that Apple has bad components and isn't fixing them, but I'm a troll for saying Apple is at fault???
If Apple wishes to market devices in the EU, it needs to abide by it's laws and if it can't make reliable products that way, than it shouldn't be in business there.
RoHS may be a bad idea as you suggest, but that doesn't relieve Apple of its fundamental responsibilities.
I think his point is that most people don't have to worry about them. It would be better to have NDAs regulated but there are probably more important employer abuses to worry about first.
What's the point of all these "not a design fault" posts. The customer could care less about what part of Apple's process screwed-up.
If you want true platform independence you'll find it about the same time you find unicorns. Of course if you're willing to narrow the definition of "platform" or slap a horn on a horse, you can fool yourself into believing in these fairy tales.
In addition, you can subclass a class written in one language in another language (e.g. VB.NET can extend C# classes or vice versa).
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of Unix are doomed to re-invent it. Poorly." -- Forgot who said it.
Somebody in marketing?
Slashdot responds to FUD saying that Slashdot labels anything anti-Apple as FUD.
Yes, the top of my head must be a busy place.
A few examples of the top of my head:
Delegates for event handling rather than using Java's adapter hack.
Not using Java's failed checked exception handling experiment.
Static classes.
No superfluous dependencies like class paths, binding between classes and file names etc.
"There are. Microsoft has always done whatever is necessary to protect what they see as their own inventions."
Which includes all their patents by definition, so what? You say there are patents that apply exclusively to the CLR. In that case you should be able to name them, so what are the patent numbers?
No. Sun sued Java out of existence on Windows.