Yes, but the factor of this story which made it Newsworthy for Nerds was not the existance of the virus, but rather its novel method of conveyance, the apparent complexity of its API, and the level of sophistication it displays. We are interested in that kind of thing.
There are DOZENS of new viruses and variants discovered every month. Slashdot only reports the ones we might find interesting, the ones that are really nasty, for one reason or another. That's why for a complete list of viruses to watch out for, you'd check out Symantec and others. For the "gee that's scary, let's bash Microsoft" list, you check/.
Close as I can tell, the only useful information you can get from a paypal cookie is a user's email address. Paypal doesn't let you store your password in a cookie like some sites (*cough* slashdot). And the unique session ID is worthless unless you're using SSL on the same machine...
Why can't the average user use Registry Editor? If you can leaf through a card catalog at a library, you can use registry editor.
It's a pretty simple concept -- that the settings in your computer are stored as a bunch of values branching off from each other. Registry editor lets you search them without caring about what the branches mean, and remove them without knowing what a DWORD is. Shit, I've been using the registry editor for almost ten years and I still don't know what the branches mean. It has never hurt me.
First off, what do you consider "real programming?" I always felt it was the ability to take an input, process it, and create an output. You don't need to understand ANYTHING about data structures to do that.
Or is it not "real programming" unless you avoid all of the convenient shortcuts which permit programmers to do things that are more complex than the addition and transformation of bytes?
You don't need to understand the cellular biology behind tree growth to be a carpenter. I'm sure it might help a little, but you can build some fairly impressive structures without knowing anything.
Similarly, when.NET's IList derived classes (there are dozens, each with its own specific purpose, from strong typing to execution speed to in memory size) have some twenty common functions that represent hundreds of lines of code you never have to optimize, debug or even think about, what does it matter? With.NET, I can write code to instantiate, fill, sort and output a hundred lists in the time it takes you to make and debug one linked list from scratch.
Another thing to remember is that while processor speeds double fairly often, programmer speeds are a constant given a distinct set of tools. If picking a language that executes slower allows a programmer to write more software in a given period of time, then that language is superior choice for all but the most time sensitive applications.
In other words, I don't want to waste time fucking around with pointers when I could be working on something more pertinant to the task at hand. I don't care HOW my matrix gets sorted. I just care that it does. If I waste some cycles, so what? This computer performs 53 MILLION in between each monitor refresh. If writing in a more abstract language permits me to get twice as much done per day of programming (and in my experience, it's more like 5-10 times), I'm willing wait.
Besides, while computers may no be able to "think," code optimization is not reasoning as much as it is pattern based. In fact, modern refactoring tools are better optimizers than most programmers, because they know more of these patterns. And unlike human programmers, refactoring tools aren't tempted to glaze over modern day essentials like bounds or type checking, resulting in fewer bugs and better security.
Because I seem to remember the days of the Commordore 64, the Apple ][ and the PC Jr, when EVERY game was on a bootable disk.
And I remember being very happy when DOS reared its mighty head, and I no longer had to reboot my machine to start a new program.
Why should we take a step back in time JUST so developers can have a Linux based platform when they already have a ubiquitous development environment in the Windows PC?
Postgresql is a VERY good database (I use it as the backend for dasmegabyte.org), and its license is more "open" than MySQL's. But it's no MS SQL. It's another "Apache vs. IIS" comparison (no, I'm not talking security). IIS really is an "Internet" server, incorporating every service from DNS to webscripting. Apache is "just" a web server. In the same way, Postgresql is a great, reliable database. But MS SQL does SO much more than just selects and inserts...
"Standard SQL" can't be relied on to do all that much, and what it does is slowwww. From server to server, you can't rely on syntaxes being the same for things like subqueries, LIKE statements or even cross-database selects (which some servers allow and others don't). So while yes, you CAN write cross-database compatible script, your best bet for performance is to optimize for one.
And much of the speed boost you see in using SQL instead of a flat file is in the compilation of stored procedures. Which is why MySQL is so much faster than SQL Server in some tests. If you "SELECT date, article FROM Table1", MySQL is great. But if you "SELECT t1.article, min(t2.date) FROM Table1 t1 CROSS JOIN Table2 t2 on t1.table1id = t2.table2id WHERE table1.tableenum IN (2,3,1) GROUP BY t1.article", your best bet is to compile that into a stored procedure and use MS SQL or one of its companions.
See, cross-platform, cross-product methodologies are a good practice in theory. But if you know that none of your clients is likely to use an alternative platform or alternative server, you may as well write them the best software you can. You can't do that without breaking compatibility.
1) You're right. Enterprise systems don't work that way. They upgrade slowly over time, because you can't just slap new software on a working system and expect it not to change the way the system works. For the enterprise, the manpower cost to upgrade a server's software and test every aspect of its use always eclipses the cost to upgrade the software alone. I know plenty of servers still running MS SQL 6 or 7, even though they have bought copied of 2000 for that machine, simply because they don't have the time to devote to the upgrade. This whole "forced upgrade" thing is not as big an issue as OSS evangelists make it out to be.
2) MS' SQL Servers have always been relatively bug-free. They're quite stable. So, for that matter, have their more recent OS releases. There was a security hole in SQL Server that propagated a virus, but that hole had been patched for quite some time. Where the hell's this "let's see it work properly" comment coming from? It surely isn't from experience, because during the five years I've used SQL Server, I've seen it die a FRACTION of the times I've seen Postgres or MySQL go down. They're much more stable now, but it's MS who has the edge and the reputation.
Word. Licensing costs are a big issue with any database. A few months ago I had to devote about three weeks porting our app to Sybase. We wrote it originally for the MSDE (Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine) for our customers who couldn't afford a SQL server. MSDE is a really nice idea, but it only works with up to 5 connections before it tanks quality bigtime. And it seems our customers always needed 6 computers, which made the cost to add that last computer about $3000. Sybase ASA has a much nicer per-connection pricing.
Why couldn't I use MySQL? Well, we'd already written the procs in T-SQL for ADO.NET. Using Sybase ASA allowed us to write a single set of procs that would work on both servers (after quite a bit of wrangling). Using MySQL would have required either using MySQL everywhere (which would have been no good for our clients who already have SQL Server and just want us to put our app on there) or maintaining two distinct sets of procs, which would have not flown with our QA team (already upset about testing the SAME procs on two servers).
MySQL...is ten times easier to manage and work with then SQL Server 2000.
I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? I've used both these servers extensively (as well as Sybase ASA, PostgreSQL and Oracle), and as much as I respect MySQL, it's certainly no easier to use than SQL Server. It's at best about the same, with SQL Server being much easier to pick up from 0 knowledge due to a surprisingly good set of help docs. Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer are really good tools, as well...in fact, until we discovered mssqlXpress, Query Analyzer was bar none my favorite IDE for making new statements. (sqlXpress adds sourcesafe integration, versioning, and historical reporting to a clone of Q.A. with autocomplete and automatic proc generation, it is a pretty clutch tool)
MySQL is very good, but ten times better? Not really. In fact, if I had to beg for any SQL Server regardless of price, I'd take SQL Server because it's the easiest to develop for and easiest to port FROM. This gives you an app that will run on almost any other server with a little effort. I rewrote a massive app to run on Sybase in three weeks and Postgres in a month (most of which was testing the DB core of our app).
It was a small office, we could only afford the one. Windows admins, on the other hand, tend to smell like too much old spice.
Of course, Linux is too ubiquitous an OS to attract a single smell from its admins, whose odors range from a slight tinge of Vap-o-rub to a beer fart in an abbatroir.
(not really, of course, I just like to use the word "abbatroir" wherever possible)
Pardon me sir. I have rewritten your post to underscore my cynicism for your viewpoint. Examine:
"Guys, I want you to go steal all of Apple's ideas. That way, you don't have to come up with an interface or features by yourselves! Innovation is best left up to Apple, a company that pays for talented developers to engineer quality products. But fucked if I'm going to pay for it! I ain't no sucker. Now, make me free software, I command it!"
Which is one of the biggest challenges in OSS: it's "free" as in speech, so it should also be "free" as in beer.
Personally, I think the OSS community could do a great job on DVD authoring (having been personally impressed with Blender). But first? They'd need to have money to pay all them developers. DVD Authoring is not some piddlyshit task. It will require a devoted team to create a cohesive interface that will attract DVD creators from all walks of life. And to acheive this, might I suggest *gasp* paying the team? Set up a foundation. Take pledges and donations. Give money to the guys who make the software.
Somebody's got to be willing to do business. Otherwise, OSS really is nothing more than "free toys." Come on, guys, the ACLU does alright for itself...why not create an FSF that actually does something MORE than advocacy?
Either way, this is no solution for a guy asking for "prosumer" features. I wouldn't be surprised to find that this was the "cookie cutter" software he was talking about...
Houses look "cookie cutter" when they're new because the builders use all the same types of materials to save costs. They use "safe" colors to preserve their investment...and use a minimum of landscaping for the same reason (which is why landscaping your home is worth so much...regrading our overgrown lawn alone raised our appraisal nearly $10k).
These features that look "cookie cutter" to you probably look equally bad to the owners. As these houses age, their owners replace parts with new ones according to taste and function.
The result? A housing development that looks "cookie cutter" now will look completely different in 5 to 10 years. And by buying one of these ugly, conformist houses, you can often get a better deal that if you bought an older house for its "character" and sunk a few grand into fixing everything that's wrong with it.
Oh please. If they didn't pick a winner, fanboys wouldn't have anything to pout about.
Personally, I gave up gloating about my superior hardware when 3dFX fell apart. I looked at my very nice 16 meg TNT2 graphics card and said to myself, "You know? Without the Voodoo2, this card would never have been made. The TNT1 was sped up to take market share from the Voodoo1. The GPU was invented to stave off ATI and PowerVR. Competition resulted in me getting a better product faster."
So you know what? I don't care that ExtremeTech picked DivX over Quicktime to compress Monster's Inc. Because I know that's going to get Jobs' goat. End result? Better Quicktime for me!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the factor of this story which made it Newsworthy for Nerds was not the existance of the virus, but rather its novel method of conveyance, the apparent complexity of its API, and the level of sophistication it displays. We are interested in that kind of thing.
/.
There are DOZENS of new viruses and variants discovered every month. Slashdot only reports the ones we might find interesting, the ones that are really nasty, for one reason or another. That's why for a complete list of viruses to watch out for, you'd check out Symantec and others. For the "gee that's scary, let's bash Microsoft" list, you check
Close as I can tell, the only useful information you can get from a paypal cookie is a user's email address. Paypal doesn't let you store your password in a cookie like some sites (*cough* slashdot). And the unique session ID is worthless unless you're using SSL on the same machine...
Why can't the average user use Registry Editor? If you can leaf through a card catalog at a library, you can use registry editor.
It's a pretty simple concept -- that the settings in your computer are stored as a bunch of values branching off from each other. Registry editor lets you search them without caring about what the branches mean, and remove them without knowing what a DWORD is. Shit, I've been using the registry editor for almost ten years and I still don't know what the branches mean. It has never hurt me.
Dude, he's a PIMP.
He has the bitches write code for him.
be a tad more dramatic
Oh, the humanity.
This is crap.
.NET's IList derived classes (there are dozens, each with its own specific purpose, from strong typing to execution speed to in memory size) have some twenty common functions that represent hundreds of lines of code you never have to optimize, debug or even think about, what does it matter? With .NET, I can write code to instantiate, fill, sort and output a hundred lists in the time it takes you to make and debug one linked list from scratch.
First off, what do you consider "real programming?" I always felt it was the ability to take an input, process it, and create an output. You don't need to understand ANYTHING about data structures to do that.
Or is it not "real programming" unless you avoid all of the convenient shortcuts which permit programmers to do things that are more complex than the addition and transformation of bytes?
You don't need to understand the cellular biology behind tree growth to be a carpenter. I'm sure it might help a little, but you can build some fairly impressive structures without knowing anything.
Similarly, when
Which is why I choose not to waste my time.
Another thing to remember is that while processor speeds double fairly often, programmer speeds are a constant given a distinct set of tools. If picking a language that executes slower allows a programmer to write more software in a given period of time, then that language is superior choice for all but the most time sensitive applications.
In other words, I don't want to waste time fucking around with pointers when I could be working on something more pertinant to the task at hand. I don't care HOW my matrix gets sorted. I just care that it does. If I waste some cycles, so what? This computer performs 53 MILLION in between each monitor refresh. If writing in a more abstract language permits me to get twice as much done per day of programming (and in my experience, it's more like 5-10 times), I'm willing wait.
Besides, while computers may no be able to "think," code optimization is not reasoning as much as it is pattern based. In fact, modern refactoring tools are better optimizers than most programmers, because they know more of these patterns. And unlike human programmers, refactoring tools aren't tempted to glaze over modern day essentials like bounds or type checking, resulting in fewer bugs and better security.
Really?
Because I seem to remember the days of the Commordore 64, the Apple ][ and the PC Jr, when EVERY game was on a bootable disk.
And I remember being very happy when DOS reared its mighty head, and I no longer had to reboot my machine to start a new program.
Why should we take a step back in time JUST so developers can have a Linux based platform when they already have a ubiquitous development environment in the Windows PC?
Postgresql is a VERY good database (I use it as the backend for dasmegabyte.org), and its license is more "open" than MySQL's. But it's no MS SQL. It's another "Apache vs. IIS" comparison (no, I'm not talking security). IIS really is an "Internet" server, incorporating every service from DNS to webscripting. Apache is "just" a web server. In the same way, Postgresql is a great, reliable database. But MS SQL does SO much more than just selects and inserts...
"Standard SQL" can't be relied on to do all that much, and what it does is slowwww. From server to server, you can't rely on syntaxes being the same for things like subqueries, LIKE statements or even cross-database selects (which some servers allow and others don't). So while yes, you CAN write cross-database compatible script, your best bet for performance is to optimize for one.
And much of the speed boost you see in using SQL instead of a flat file is in the compilation of stored procedures. Which is why MySQL is so much faster than SQL Server in some tests. If you "SELECT date, article FROM Table1", MySQL is great. But if you "SELECT t1.article, min(t2.date) FROM Table1 t1 CROSS JOIN Table2 t2 on t1.table1id = t2.table2id WHERE table1.tableenum IN (2,3,1) GROUP BY t1.article", your best bet is to compile that into a stored procedure and use MS SQL or one of its companions.
See, cross-platform, cross-product methodologies are a good practice in theory. But if you know that none of your clients is likely to use an alternative platform or alternative server, you may as well write them the best software you can. You can't do that without breaking compatibility.
1) You're right. Enterprise systems don't work that way. They upgrade slowly over time, because you can't just slap new software on a working system and expect it not to change the way the system works. For the enterprise, the manpower cost to upgrade a server's software and test every aspect of its use always eclipses the cost to upgrade the software alone. I know plenty of servers still running MS SQL 6 or 7, even though they have bought copied of 2000 for that machine, simply because they don't have the time to devote to the upgrade. This whole "forced upgrade" thing is not as big an issue as OSS evangelists make it out to be.
2) MS' SQL Servers have always been relatively bug-free. They're quite stable. So, for that matter, have their more recent OS releases. There was a security hole in SQL Server that propagated a virus, but that hole had been patched for quite some time. Where the hell's this "let's see it work properly" comment coming from? It surely isn't from experience, because during the five years I've used SQL Server, I've seen it die a FRACTION of the times I've seen Postgres or MySQL go down. They're much more stable now, but it's MS who has the edge and the reputation.
And that's why we can't edit posts ;)
Word. Licensing costs are a big issue with any database. A few months ago I had to devote about three weeks porting our app to Sybase. We wrote it originally for the MSDE (Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine) for our customers who couldn't afford a SQL server. MSDE is a really nice idea, but it only works with up to 5 connections before it tanks quality bigtime. And it seems our customers always needed 6 computers, which made the cost to add that last computer about $3000. Sybase ASA has a much nicer per-connection pricing.
Why couldn't I use MySQL? Well, we'd already written the procs in T-SQL for ADO.NET. Using Sybase ASA allowed us to write a single set of procs that would work on both servers (after quite a bit of wrangling). Using MySQL would have required either using MySQL everywhere (which would have been no good for our clients who already have SQL Server and just want us to put our app on there) or maintaining two distinct sets of procs, which would have not flown with our QA team (already upset about testing the SAME procs on two servers).
MySQL...is ten times easier to manage and work with then SQL Server 2000.
I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? I've used both these servers extensively (as well as Sybase ASA, PostgreSQL and Oracle), and as much as I respect MySQL, it's certainly no easier to use than SQL Server. It's at best about the same, with SQL Server being much easier to pick up from 0 knowledge due to a surprisingly good set of help docs. Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer are really good tools, as well...in fact, until we discovered mssqlXpress, Query Analyzer was bar none my favorite IDE for making new statements. (sqlXpress adds sourcesafe integration, versioning, and historical reporting to a clone of Q.A. with autocomplete and automatic proc generation, it is a pretty clutch tool)
MySQL is very good, but ten times better? Not really. In fact, if I had to beg for any SQL Server regardless of price, I'd take SQL Server because it's the easiest to develop for and easiest to port FROM. This gives you an app that will run on almost any other server with a little effort. I rewrote a massive app to run on Sybase in three weeks and Postgres in a month (most of which was testing the DB core of our app).
Wtf are you talking about?
Orson Welles is old and busted.
Will Smith's the new hotness!
Of course! You can use some of the money made from selling Open Source products!
Oh.
Well, you can use some of the money the developers make for writing it!
Oh.
Well, maybe we can get one of the Fortune 500 companies that sell Linux based goods and services to sponsor us!
Not likely.
Well...maybe we can find robot parts on BitTorrent!
It was a small office, we could only afford the one. Windows admins, on the other hand, tend to smell like too much old spice.
Of course, Linux is too ubiquitous an OS to attract a single smell from its admins, whose odors range from a slight tinge of Vap-o-rub to a beer fart in an abbatroir.
(not really, of course, I just like to use the word "abbatroir" wherever possible)
It would still smell better than a rendering plant...or this one UNIX admin I worked with...
Pardon me sir. I have rewritten your post to underscore my cynicism for your viewpoint. Examine:
"Guys, I want you to go steal all of Apple's ideas. That way, you don't have to come up with an interface or features by yourselves! Innovation is best left up to Apple, a company that pays for talented developers to engineer quality products. But fucked if I'm going to pay for it! I ain't no sucker. Now, make me free software, I command it!"
Which is one of the biggest challenges in OSS: it's "free" as in speech, so it should also be "free" as in beer.
Personally, I think the OSS community could do a great job on DVD authoring (having been personally impressed with Blender). But first? They'd need to have money to pay all them developers. DVD Authoring is not some piddlyshit task. It will require a devoted team to create a cohesive interface that will attract DVD creators from all walks of life. And to acheive this, might I suggest *gasp* paying the team? Set up a foundation. Take pledges and donations. Give money to the guys who make the software.
Somebody's got to be willing to do business. Otherwise, OSS really is nothing more than "free toys." Come on, guys, the ACLU does alright for itself...why not create an FSF that actually does something MORE than advocacy?
Either way, this is no solution for a guy asking for "prosumer" features. I wouldn't be surprised to find that this was the "cookie cutter" software he was talking about...
Really?
It reminds me of a company trying to fix problems with a popular software product so that their customers' computers aren't fucked up by hackers.
But, you know, your cartoon analogy is good, too.
Brilliant! As any Mac user will tell you, Round Rects are everywhere!
Houses look "cookie cutter" when they're new because the builders use all the same types of materials to save costs. They use "safe" colors to preserve their investment...and use a minimum of landscaping for the same reason (which is why landscaping your home is worth so much...regrading our overgrown lawn alone raised our appraisal nearly $10k).
These features that look "cookie cutter" to you probably look equally bad to the owners. As these houses age, their owners replace parts with new ones according to taste and function.
The result? A housing development that looks "cookie cutter" now will look completely different in 5 to 10 years. And by buying one of these ugly, conformist houses, you can often get a better deal that if you bought an older house for its "character" and sunk a few grand into fixing everything that's wrong with it.
Oh please. If they didn't pick a winner, fanboys wouldn't have anything to pout about.
Personally, I gave up gloating about my superior hardware when 3dFX fell apart. I looked at my very nice 16 meg TNT2 graphics card and said to myself, "You know? Without the Voodoo2, this card would never have been made. The TNT1 was sped up to take market share from the Voodoo1. The GPU was invented to stave off ATI and PowerVR. Competition resulted in me getting a better product faster."
So you know what? I don't care that ExtremeTech picked DivX over Quicktime to compress Monster's Inc. Because I know that's going to get Jobs' goat. End result? Better Quicktime for me!