I know that it's tough to schedule the time to do code reviews in a hectic development schedule, but my company has definately seen the benefits.
We've started the (sometimes painful) habit of doing a "post-mortem" of each release, and start the next round of coding with a code review. Although it would be better to do it 3/4 the way through the development cycle, we've found that this is the only place we can "squeeze it in" and still be able to spend sufficient time on it to be beneficial.
There's nothing better for catching potential problems, learning other areas of the system better, and forcing people to justify their coding practices (or change them for the next round) than a code review.
We've also found that it helps the junior programmers by having a more experienced person evaluate their code, and make suggestions.
So, it's more of a post-mortem analysis, sometimes too late to actually end up with improvements to the current code, but it's helped our team prosper, and sets the pace for the next iteration.
MadCow.
Make it simple for the end user to decide...
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 1
Well, if there was a simple method for the end user to decide if email was spam or not (and therefor easily filter it), it would be acceptable. Right now, you have to filter based on random patterns... not always effective.
In my view, simple laws making it manditory to mark "Unsolicited Commercial Email" as such in a standard fasion would be sufficient.
To me it sounds like your programmer doesn't want to have to parse a config file... not a hard thing to do though! I can't think of any other good reason why Environment Variables would be preferred...
Now having said that, the question is whether the computer this runs on will be a "dedicated" workstation to THIS application... if so, you could get away with a ton of E.V.'s. If not, I'd hate to see the system cluttered up with unnecessary E.V.'s the rest of the time.
On Windows, I prefer Registry Entries over config files, but that's a personal preference.
"While I may disagree with your opinion, I will fight to the death to defend your right to express it".
I'd rather compare it to an election... you can choose Bush as your next president. Period. Oops, did we forget to mention Gore? Ah, too bad, who cares, he sucks as an embedded president anyways.
I'm not asking them to give details of the WinCE performance or installation procedures as they do with Linux... just that they MENTION that it's an option!
Well, it's hard to miss... the FIRST line of the product description at LinuxDevices.com states that the product ships with Linux OR Windows CE.
The article that you link to doesn't mention CE at all... although I'm definately not a CE fan, it has it's uses, and should have been mentioned in any reasonably non-biased forum.
Pity... as much as we accuse Microsoft of being eletist and anti-competive, things like this don't make the Open Source / Linux movement look any better.
I guess my real point is that the company shouldn't have to go to the trouble of even investigating if there is a security risk with Seti@home... it's not in their best interests to invest the time. After all, what corporate benefit would there be to running the Seti@home program on a few computers? (sure, if they ran it company wide, they could get some miles out of it, but not on an individual user basis)
To the Sysadmin, it's "unknown" software... could be benign, could be hazardous. They shouldn't have to be put in the position to have to make that distinction. They have better things to do (well... usually...) q:]
You and I might know enough about Seti@home specifically to be sure it won't cause a problem... but you probably spent at least 30 minutes reading up about Seti@home before coming to that conclusion. For a sysadmin that gets no benefit from it, that's 30 minutes wasted.
>> best they can come up with is, "some kind of risk"?
And that isn't a good answer? Do you expect them to analyze the Seti@home software to determine exactly what risks are involved? Do you expect them to do the same for every piece of crapware that is out there that the user "might" install on their system?
Sure, Seti@home is mentioned specifically, but it's not a problem that's specific to that code. No Sysadmin could realistically do anything but "forbid" basically all non-company-issued software, especially those that connect to the Internet.
Now, on the other hand, if a company wanted to support Seti@home specifically, it would be feasible to test it so that they could determine the risks... but that's one out of millions of programs that the user might want to install.
So you have two domains: www.slashdo.com and www.slashdot.com (for example): which one is the type for which?
Just because slashdot.com was registered first, maybe there's been a company called slashdo for years, and just now created a website.
Hey, if you want to protect your brand name, register all the typos you can think of yourself, and stop bitching. If someone beat you to it, good for them.
MS says that they'll make a meta tag usable to stop this from happening on a page...
Shouldn't they make a meta-tag that ENABLES this feature instead? MS should get explicit permission to do this to someone's website through an opt-in tag, rather than an opt-out tag that I have to spend time and money inserting into every single one of my pages.
Heck, for $50 or so at Radio Shack (sorry, can't find a link for you), you can get a "Phone System Emulator" that you can use to simulate a phone network. Plug TIVO into one side, and your home computer into the other.
No matter what they dial, you can pick it up on the other side, just like it was their server answering.
Wouldn't this be effectively the same as embedding someone else's page within your own page/frame? Using other people's content for your own means without permission would be copyright infringement.
If I create a web page, and "snag" content dynamically from another site (without permission), I'm violating copyright. By them modifying my page, they're effectively using my content to display their own page with my content.
This just doesn't add up... while it's certainly within the University's rights to refuse to allow you to run this site on their servers and bandwidth (effective censoring you), expulsion and charges just don't seem to be justified by any means!
Is there something missing here? Are there documented "incidents" or did you fail to comply with directives they gave you? Was there a warning of consequences? What are the specifics of the charges (they must detail specifically what infraction occured and when)?
I've looked at the Google cached pages, and can only come to three possible conclusions:
1. You've left out some important details, and they have better reasoning for these charges than you lead us to believe.
2. Your University has been taken over by fanatical conservatives, and they're trying to make an example of you, legal or not.
3. You'll be rich once you hire a lawyer and sue them for malicious prosecution.
Keep us informed, it'll be interesting to see where this goes.
MadCow.
SGI-Photoshop is no longer available
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 2
Adobe stopped releasing Photoshop for SGI-IRIX at version 2.5. Our company was including this oudated version on an SGI-system that we sell since then, but about 6 months ago, Adobe stopped selling licensing for it.
Although CPU watercool kits are meant to cool to ambient temperature, there's no reason you can't make "ambient" a bucket of ice. If the heatsink part of the cooling unit has electrical components, put it in a plastic bag first, and dump that back in the icebucket.
If you have some way of monitoring the chemical bath temp and turning the CPU cooling pump on/off as required, this would work fine.
Of course, IANAL, but doesn't this smell like Libel and/or Slander? In effect, they have slandered your name by making it look like you're advertising/promoting/advocating porn. This is especially true because of the type of spam they sent.
Libel and Slander cases can have pretty hefty payouts... your "good name" and "reputation" are damaged, and are worth money.
Lawsuits are never something that you want to do, but being slandered by spammers is something that you should NOT let continue. If you DON'T do anything, it's worse.
In all seriousness, if you put Linux on an old 486/Pentium, it's quite a usefull box. Other OS's just aren't as efficient, you don't have thousands of people optimizing the same code.
I'm not just saying this because/. is pro-Linux... I use a 486/66 for my firewall and mail server, and a P200 for my web server, and they still sit there twiddling their thumbs 99.999% of the time. The P200 also makes a very good desktop system, even while serving pages itself.
Slashdot Mirror
We've started the (sometimes painful) habit of doing a "post-mortem" of each release, and start the next round of coding with a code review. Although it would be better to do it 3/4 the way through the development cycle, we've found that this is the only place we can "squeeze it in" and still be able to spend sufficient time on it to be beneficial.
There's nothing better for catching potential problems, learning other areas of the system better, and forcing people to justify their coding practices (or change them for the next round) than a code review.
We've also found that it helps the junior programmers by having a more experienced person evaluate their code, and make suggestions.
So, it's more of a post-mortem analysis, sometimes too late to actually end up with improvements to the current code, but it's helped our team prosper, and sets the pace for the next iteration.
MadCow.
In my view, simple laws making it manditory to mark "Unsolicited Commercial Email" as such in a standard fasion would be sufficient.
MadCow.
Now having said that, the question is whether the computer this runs on will be a "dedicated" workstation to THIS application... if so, you could get away with a ton of E.V.'s. If not, I'd hate to see the system cluttered up with unnecessary E.V.'s the rest of the time.
On Windows, I prefer Registry Entries over config files, but that's a personal preference.
MadCow.
I'd rather compare it to an election... you can choose Bush as your next president. Period. Oops, did we forget to mention Gore? Ah, too bad, who cares, he sucks as an embedded president anyways.
I'm not asking them to give details of the WinCE performance or installation procedures as they do with Linux... just that they MENTION that it's an option!
MadCow.
MadCow.
The article that you link to doesn't mention CE at all... although I'm definately not a CE fan, it has it's uses, and should have been mentioned in any reasonably non-biased forum.
Pity... as much as we accuse Microsoft of being eletist and anti-competive, things like this don't make the Open Source / Linux movement look any better.
MadCow.
I fugured, "Why confuse them with details here..." q:]
MadCow.
MadCow.
For your needs, Xerox is definately a leader... I'd talk to them about software, or possibly a digital printer company like Heidleburg, or Xitron.
Or, hire me, and I'll write you a custom one through PostScript. q:]
MadCow.
So, if you're using IE, just type "fuckoff", and you'll go to my web page. I suggest you do that.
q:] MadCow.
Hey! I know who you are! q:] Hi Bro. MadCow.
Or was the rumor he was using PlayStation2's... q:]
MadCow.
1) *.biz
2) *.info
3) keywords in all countries separately
4) and any other root domain they come up with...
Get's to be expensive, time consuming, and a general pain-in-the-butt...
MadCow
I'd definately second that one... !!!
To the Sysadmin, it's "unknown" software... could be benign, could be hazardous. They shouldn't have to be put in the position to have to make that distinction. They have better things to do (well... usually...) q:]
You and I might know enough about Seti@home specifically to be sure it won't cause a problem... but you probably spent at least 30 minutes reading up about Seti@home before coming to that conclusion. For a sysadmin that gets no benefit from it, that's 30 minutes wasted.
playing-the-devils-advocate-ly-yours...
MadCow
And that isn't a good answer? Do you expect them to analyze the Seti@home software to determine exactly what risks are involved? Do you expect them to do the same for every piece of crapware that is out there that the user "might" install on their system?
Sure, Seti@home is mentioned specifically, but it's not a problem that's specific to that code. No Sysadmin could realistically do anything but "forbid" basically all non-company-issued software, especially those that connect to the Internet.
Now, on the other hand, if a company wanted to support Seti@home specifically, it would be feasible to test it so that they could determine the risks... but that's one out of millions of programs that the user might want to install.
MadCow.
Just because slashdot.com was registered first, maybe there's been a company called slashdo for years, and just now created a website.
Hey, if you want to protect your brand name, register all the typos you can think of yourself, and stop bitching. If someone beat you to it, good for them.
MadCow.
Shouldn't they make a meta-tag that ENABLES this feature instead? MS should get explicit permission to do this to someone's website through an opt-in tag, rather than an opt-out tag that I have to spend time and money inserting into every single one of my pages.
MadCow.
No matter what they dial, you can pick it up on the other side, just like it was their server answering.
MadCow.
If I create a web page, and "snag" content dynamically from another site (without permission), I'm violating copyright. By them modifying my page, they're effectively using my content to display their own page with my content.
I don't see the difference, personally.
MadCow.
Is there something missing here? Are there documented "incidents" or did you fail to comply with directives they gave you? Was there a warning of consequences? What are the specifics of the charges (they must detail specifically what infraction occured and when)?
I've looked at the Google cached pages, and can only come to three possible conclusions:
1. You've left out some important details, and they have better reasoning for these charges than you lead us to believe.
2. Your University has been taken over by fanatical conservatives, and they're trying to make an example of you, legal or not.
3. You'll be rich once you hire a lawyer and sue them for malicious prosecution.
Keep us informed, it'll be interesting to see where this goes.
MadCow.
So, for SGI, Photoshop is dead. Period.
MadCow.
If you have some way of monitoring the chemical bath temp and turning the CPU cooling pump on/off as required, this would work fine.
MadCow.
Libel and Slander cases can have pretty hefty payouts... your "good name" and "reputation" are damaged, and are worth money.
Lawsuits are never something that you want to do, but being slandered by spammers is something that you should NOT let continue. If you DON'T do anything, it's worse.
MadCow.
I'm not just saying this because /. is pro-Linux... I use a 486/66 for my firewall and mail server, and a P200 for my web server, and they still sit there twiddling their thumbs 99.999% of the time. The P200 also makes a very good desktop system, even while serving pages itself.
I'd buy something better, but why?
MadCow.