The problem has existed for almost ten years. I don't call this a timely response. Other problems have also continued for a long time and MS doesn't make it easier.
Between connecting to the Internet and receiving the patches, many machines were infected. Why do even new machines ship with software that has known inadequacies?
Sure MS has announced the idea of cooperating with 3rd party IM companies, what about cooperating with 3rd-party exchange clients? What about cooperating with outher network file systems like SAMBA?
As for leaving systems to be automatically updated, that would be good if the updates don't break things. This isn't always the case. It is onething if only professionals had to check out updates before applying them across the enterprise. They have the resources and spare machines. A home user doesn't - but it myay still break the user's applications.
Cygwin runs well and does ssh. It will run remotely everything that doesn't need a GUI. For patch installation, it runs fine, it is only on sowftware installations that you may need the GUI, then VNC will help you out there.
No I don't think that Ms. Ham would have nixed the imagery for this reason. It's more a case that non-technical managers get out of their depth on very technical projects. From my reading, it wasn't just Ham whonixed the snapshots, however she passed the decision down and didn't go against it. They know numbers but they don't understand engineering. Those who did know it have been too far away from the field so they have forgotten thie way things really are.
According to the CAIB report, if they had imaged early enough, they had a very real chance of being able to recover the astronauts. Even an attempted patch and land could have been attempted, the thing is that reentry with a holed RCC panel was 100% death - they were aware of this. They just didn't know enough to make a reasoned decision.
Sure a space walk would have been risky, but anything is better than certain death. The crew (especially the pilots) would have been trained to patiently go through every available option, working with the ground.
Sorry the ground wasn't there. Management had decided that it wasn't worth the engineer's time to research this.
The Soviets built and launched rockets but it was some time before they were considered "man-rated". However the Soviet approach to engineering was KISS. They could design in a bureau near Moscow, build in the Ukraine and final assembly/launch in Kazakhstan. This tended to mean that conservative designs were needed. They were also very rigorous theoreoticians, even if they didn't dummy run so many mockups, they would have tested on paper.
His design requires a pilot on board for all tests, so there is a non-negligable chance that there could be a fatality, which would almost certainly end the effort in the X-Prize timeframe.
This wouldn't just be bad for the pilot concerned and Scaled, it just might lead to the competition being shutdown or at least banned from the US as too dangerous. This is why I prefer your approach of automate/test/debug before a human gets into the thing.
Linux is the brand, forget Suse, RH or whoever (forgetting for the moment about the non-commercial distributions). People choose Linux now because it is Linux, not which distribution. They arre aware that even if RedHat curls up and dies, they can go to Suse or vice versa. This is the differentiating point, they can't do this with MS.
Whilst MS won't necessarily die, there is still a massive supportability risk because it is a closed source, one-company backed open source.
I agree with you that apart from this each dist can have a default install (look and feel), so really we are back where we started: RH Linux and Suse Linux. That also gives library compatabilities.
I disagree because the speed is bounded. You can render frame by frame - but that is useless for playback. The only time that slow rendering is acceptable is when you are re-encoding for later playback.
SO what happens in many player/drivers is that they trade off quality against playback speed and integrity (frame dropping). Speed up the decoding and the quality is improved.
Translating from binary to assembler is inexact at the best of times. Even when you have a relocatable object file, it isn't a.s file with instructions and data completely differentiated.
All that Phoenix did with the IBM BIOS was to spec the original assembler source (which IBM even provided in the old PC technical reference manual) and then somebody else wrote it from the spec.
To go from binary to C is fairly clean because the C will hopefully not produce an identical binary. C is far enough away from the binary that it is itself a specification language.
If another person rewrites the C who has had no access to the disassembled code, you have the clean room approach. The clean-room approach is cautious but it isn't compulsory.
Intersting. There are a number of devices that have contractural or even FCC problems. Anything with MacroObfuscation (MacroVision) has to be closed source because of NDAs. Wireless LAN cards are another area where hardware register settings must be obfuscated to assume FCC compliance and certification. That is, if the register settings could be altered then the device would start using different power levels or frequencies.
In either case, an OSS friendly company may be aware of the legal issues about releasing source code, but simply to make the binary reasonably easy to reverse engineer. The company now has plausible deniability and the OSS community has the source code. The company also may sell more hardware.
Yes, there are a few such products, also doing the opposite, allowing non-Outlook clients to interact with ES.
The thing is that I would really be looking for something that is open source (one reason why I hate ES is that I want a better ability to repair the data stores). Notes is a good product and less likely to blow up, but it still does from time to time.
The idea is that eventually, I want to be able to "swap out ES" to provide progression onto more flexible platforms. I have no problems about paying for the product (i.e., as support) when the company is using it as a core business application - but I need flexibility.
An IMAP server does a lot but not for Outlook. Please remember that although Outlook can theoretically talk IMAP (and LDAP), it only does so for some of its functions. Others require a complicated series of different and undocumented protocols.
The problem here is that organisations need shared documents so standalone EMail doesn't really hack it. However, people can save themselves a lot by choosing open source Email clients and servers.
Note that some open source servers are very close to ES functionality, but if Outlook is sitting on someone's desk, it is hard to change over the backend.
I agree with you that Outlook runs ok standalone, but if you are using it within even a small organisation, then you need ES. Not just any IMAP server, but ES.
Well, Exchange Server doesn't work too well in non-Win-NT/2K/2K3 server environments. It doesn't run under Wine. It also needs a whole boat load of other MS services to work properly. I have one Win2K server with ES under an MSDN Universal license (it come to only about $4500, but this is for development, not production). It prefers not to operate with our normal DNS but needs to use the DNS server under Microsoft. For development, operating ES doesn't cost me to much for up to a handful of users. For production that is something else, i.e., client licenses, etc. Very quickly the package gets over the $10K mark.
PowerPoint is an excellent obfuscation for pitching bad business plans to venture capitalists. Having played with it for technical presentations with quite moderate formulas - it isn't good.
The trouble is, that whatever tools we have in the open source arena, we still need good templates.
Read the report, especially Chapter 6. Rescue or repair options did exist. In the case of knowing that Columbia couldn't reenter, these options could have been tried as otherwise they knew they could have lost the crew.
According to the report, they could conceivably be able to wait up to mission+31 for rescue/spare parts. Even if Atlantis couldn't be launched for safety reasons, there were repair options that were better than the zero option.
Interestingly, neurons work using FM. Biological wiring is incredibly noisy (ion transport) and the solution that has evolved involves modulating the pulse frequency. This seems to give rise to much more compact (and resiliant) circuitry than either binary or multi-level logic.
We are different. Our brains even seem to be slighly differently 'wired' - however we aren't two different species. Given that neither psychology nor neuro-phsyiology are exact, there are likely to be overlaps. Yes, there are less social pressures these days but a male and a female stiil represent different tastes albeit with exceptions. To quote your example, sorry we have been out of Africa for a few thousand years. Our origins go back a couple of million years with animal behaviour going back to the dawn of mammals.
Does this mean that we have a brutal past? Well yes, but sorry we have been more brutal in the last hundred years than we ever were in the preceding times and certainly much more so than our related species.
Lastly, men and women definitely seem to represent differemt markets for games for whatever the reason but with some cross over and some games that seem to be enjoyed by both sexes for different reasons.
In one of the chapters (7 page 191), they lay into Microsoft's Powerpoint being a totally inappropriate tool for non-marketing activities such as engineering. The formats used and the clunky support for equations impedes understanding.
Using the VMS cluster gave me nightmares that will take decades to fade.
The Digital VMS cluster technology was the best. It has been around in one form another since '81 so they had a lot of practice. This is why the technology lives on in high reliability message processing applications like SWIFT and stock exchanges. There are many cluster implementations out there now, but I wish the programmers had learned under VMS so they can surpass the technology.
You are right about "know thine enemy" but the problem is that it is easier to know Linux as a CS student because you can alway open up and have a look. In the same way, if I were hiring for Microsoft, I would look for people who have some knowledge of MS tools, but they must have a very good knowledge of other technologies such as Linux.
Obligatory Pink Floyd quote here because it seams that your director wants to offer training rather than education. Ask him if you are teaching a batchelor's/masters degree or are you just training up Minesweeper Consultants and Solitaire Experts (MCSEs).
This is standard project engineers lore. It seems that NASA chose cheap and fast - we know what the tradeoff was. The thing is that sometimes it is reasonable to short cut on quality, as long as it is acceptable that something will fail from time to time. However, a rocket is a semi-controlled bomb and even unmanned, can be very dangerous (ask the Brazilians). Knowing when a shortcut means a risk, and understanding that risk needs a good engineering manager - I have met very few in recent years.
This rule is so fundemental to good engineering and the management of engineering projects from bridges through software - including space shuttles.
Actually satellite repair and retrieval were the primary design requirements for the Shuttle.
Actually, the shuttle flys too low. The big expensive satellites with a long life tend to sit out in Geosynchronous orbits. You would have to reduce the orbit of the satellite to where it could be captured by the shuttle.
The fact is that a Shuttle launch is more than the cost of most satellites.
The US military went through this kind of transition in the early 1980s. More and more command and control was moved lower and lower in the hierarchy. Tactics were left to the people on the scene
Actually with the advent of real-time situation reporting, the Pentagon can already monitor where mobile units are and their condition. There is a very real danger of someone in the Pentagon trying to micromanage a military action (even worse, perhaps with a politician looking on, offering suggestions). The technology is almost there now to make a soldier feel like an astronaut - monitored and micromanaged every second with almost no capability to use initiative.
The Sun is one of the dirty diggers bottom-end rags.
What is being proposed is road usage charges which needs some kind of tracking device. This annoys a lot of people including some friends of Murdochs in the road transport industry, hence the reaction.
The government wants to be able to track how far you travel and which roads you use so that you can pay depending upon actual useage. There are privacy issues and it may get used for speed tracking as happens on some toll roads in other countries already. Go to France, average 30Km/h above the speed limit and you will find a fine automatically added to the toll.
There are privacy issues, but at the same time it may be the only way that unnecessary road usage can be reduced. The UK is a small island that is rapidly turning into a car park.
Slashdot Mirror
Between connecting to the Internet and receiving the patches, many machines were infected. Why do even new machines ship with software that has known inadequacies?
Sure MS has announced the idea of cooperating with 3rd party IM companies, what about cooperating with 3rd-party exchange clients? What about cooperating with outher network file systems like SAMBA?
As for leaving systems to be automatically updated, that would be good if the updates don't break things. This isn't always the case. It is onething if only professionals had to check out updates before applying them across the enterprise. They have the resources and spare machines. A home user doesn't - but it myay still break the user's applications.
Cygwin runs well and does ssh. It will run remotely everything that doesn't need a GUI. For patch installation, it runs fine, it is only on sowftware installations that you may need the GUI, then VNC will help you out there.
According to the CAIB report, if they had imaged early enough, they had a very real chance of being able to recover the astronauts. Even an attempted patch and land could have been attempted, the thing is that reentry with a holed RCC panel was 100% death - they were aware of this. They just didn't know enough to make a reasoned decision.
Sure a space walk would have been risky, but anything is better than certain death. The crew (especially the pilots) would have been trained to patiently go through every available option, working with the ground.
Sorry the ground wasn't there. Management had decided that it wasn't worth the engineer's time to research this.
In my understanding the accused just developed and released a variant based on the original.
The Soviets built and launched rockets but it was some time before they were considered "man-rated". However the Soviet approach to engineering was KISS. They could design in a bureau near Moscow, build in the Ukraine and final assembly/launch in Kazakhstan. This tended to mean that conservative designs were needed. They were also very rigorous theoreoticians, even if they didn't dummy run so many mockups, they would have tested on paper.
Whilst MS won't necessarily die, there is still a massive supportability risk because it is a closed source, one-company backed open source.
I agree with you that apart from this each dist can have a default install (look and feel), so really we are back where we started: RH Linux and Suse Linux. That also gives library compatabilities.
SO what happens in many player/drivers is that they trade off quality against playback speed and integrity (frame dropping). Speed up the decoding and the quality is improved.
Translating from binary to assembler is inexact at the best of times. Even when you have a relocatable object file, it isn't a .s file with instructions and data completely differentiated.
To go from binary to C is fairly clean because the C will hopefully not produce an identical binary. C is far enough away from the binary that it is itself a specification language.
If another person rewrites the C who has had no access to the disassembled code, you have the clean room approach. The clean-room approach is cautious but it isn't compulsory.
In either case, an OSS friendly company may be aware of the legal issues about releasing source code, but simply to make the binary reasonably easy to reverse engineer. The company now has plausible deniability and the OSS community has the source code. The company also may sell more hardware.
The thing is that I would really be looking for something that is open source (one reason why I hate ES is that I want a better ability to repair the data stores). Notes is a good product and less likely to blow up, but it still does from time to time.
The idea is that eventually, I want to be able to "swap out ES" to provide progression onto more flexible platforms. I have no problems about paying for the product (i.e., as support) when the company is using it as a core business application - but I need flexibility.
The problem here is that organisations need shared documents so standalone EMail doesn't really hack it. However, people can save themselves a lot by choosing open source Email clients and servers.
Note that some open source servers are very close to ES functionality, but if Outlook is sitting on someone's desk, it is hard to change over the backend.
Well, Exchange Server doesn't work too well in non-Win-NT/2K/2K3 server environments. It doesn't run under Wine. It also needs a whole boat load of other MS services to work properly. I have one Win2K server with ES under an MSDN Universal license (it come to only about $4500, but this is for development, not production). It prefers not to operate with our normal DNS but needs to use the DNS server under Microsoft. For development, operating ES doesn't cost me to much for up to a handful of users. For production that is something else, i.e., client licenses, etc. Very quickly the package gets over the $10K mark.
PowerPoint is an excellent obfuscation for pitching bad business plans to venture capitalists. Having played with it for technical presentations with quite moderate formulas - it isn't good.
The trouble is, that whatever tools we have in the open source arena, we still need good templates.
According to the report, they could conceivably be able to wait up to mission+31 for rescue/spare parts. Even if Atlantis couldn't be launched for safety reasons, there were repair options that were better than the zero option.
Interestingly, neurons work using FM. Biological wiring is incredibly noisy (ion transport) and the solution that has evolved involves modulating the pulse frequency. This seems to give rise to much more compact (and resiliant) circuitry than either binary or multi-level logic.
Does this mean that we have a brutal past? Well yes, but sorry we have been more brutal in the last hundred years than we ever were in the preceding times and certainly much more so than our related species.
Lastly, men and women definitely seem to represent differemt markets for games for whatever the reason but with some cross over and some games that seem to be enjoyed by both sexes for different reasons.
In one of the chapters (7 page 191), they lay into Microsoft's Powerpoint being a totally inappropriate tool for non-marketing activities such as engineering. The formats used and the clunky support for equations impedes understanding.
Obligatory Pink Floyd quote here because it seams that your director wants to offer training rather than education. Ask him if you are teaching a batchelor's/masters degree or are you just training up Minesweeper Consultants and Solitaire Experts (MCSEs).
This rule is so fundemental to good engineering and the management of engineering projects from bridges through software - including space shuttles.
The fact is that a Shuttle launch is more than the cost of most satellites.
What is being proposed is road usage charges which needs some kind of tracking device. This annoys a lot of people including some friends of Murdochs in the road transport industry, hence the reaction.
The government wants to be able to track how far you travel and which roads you use so that you can pay depending upon actual useage. There are privacy issues and it may get used for speed tracking as happens on some toll roads in other countries already. Go to France, average 30Km/h above the speed limit and you will find a fine automatically added to the toll.
There are privacy issues, but at the same time it may be the only way that unnecessary road usage can be reduced. The UK is a small island that is rapidly turning into a car park.