I believe it's a problem with the fact that PHP doesn't follow an OO paradigm. Why do I say that, as if it has importance? Because it has some berring on security.
For instance, if there was a file class that managed these permission problems, and it was deemed secure, then that's it. If someone managed to bypass this security check, the security manager is busted.
PHP also has a very archane architecture to it that is a lot of spaghetti code. If you ever have to develop a plugin for php, you wind up using a bunch of predefined macros but no real api's for creating a plugin.
For instance, take a look at stxx and struts. Struts created a base class, a plugin class, and stxx implements it. If struts's security manager doesn't want you to use its api in certain ways, you simply can't. No pointer arithmatic to simply start reading memory. Granted, you MIGHT be able to use relfection to read some information about the classes that struts uses, you can't really get it to execute them unless you write a malicious plugin.
In this case, it's just php and the spaghetti code that realizes it.
Nonononoo... some jdk implementations are really good for the machines they run on. Distributing moz with and without the blackdown jdk is a better idea.
Because, there wasn't one on slashdot before. I never knew of the book and it certainly doesn't hav ethe same popularity as say, the first book of harry potter. So it's not being talked about by anyone and everyone.. still.
Postgres is a nifty mid-weight database. Oracle has many more of the features to scale (think parallelism and other features), be safe (various backup mechanisms) and be secure. Granted, no software achieves the secure part perfectly, Oracle is making leaps and bounsd in the DB sector where mysql and postgresql are slowly following.
Postgres has its uses. Hell, Berkley DB has its uses. I think that in terms of Gov't, support contracts, extreme usage, Oracle and RedHat have come a long way. I'm not surprised that Postgresql isn't being pushed.
It's the sum of "things" driving the direction your sector is in. i.e. 9/11 and security or christmas
"solution" instead of "product" or "suite of products"
Some solutions aern't products. Products when applied in certain ways solve problems. i.e. word isn't a software solution for solving math problems or a floppy drive isn't a hardware solution for backing up large servers.
This is why we have systems and biz analysists between business and technology. They can cut through the bullshit and usually give technologists specifications to us, the software engineers of the world.
And believe you me, they think the same of us. SDSL and ADSL. It's a freakin' DSL line. They work pretty much the same as each other, except one has the same upload speed. In the technology world, we just love acronyms, really. We have HTML and XHTML, granted, one is a derivative of the other, would it be bad to call it HTML 5.0? I really doubt it. At least we got it right with L2 and L3 cache... I think. L just stands for level.
What's the selling point of Java? Write once, run any/everywhere?
No, that's not the point, but a featuer. Java is a to-byte code compiled, object oriented language that supports serialization, garbage collection and other fancy stuff.
I know something else that's like that. C/C++ source code, Makefiles, configure scripts.
Java is just an alternative. I particularly like it, but to each their own, right?
make has its own problems, like not being universal like ant could be. I say could, since most systems do have jvm's, i'm sure there's that one system taht doesn't where make exists. Point being, an does things in a very organized manner that's quite portable.
c/c++, well.. strict c++ is very organized as well, but it has its own share of problems, like pointers and using c as a subset language. last thing i want to see is an object passed to a function, and not a method. like int x(Object a) { printf( "%s", a->getSomething() ) }
Having said that, java has its own problems, not in the JVM though, as a general concept. The solaris implementation seems to be a little borked now. Does that stop IBM or blackdown from creating a superior product? Not really. Though I'm not fond of how they initially created int and Integer and not make them assignment compatable.
Granted you want very very low latency, you'd need decent latency to support really high bandwidth.. unless your packets are friggin' huge. If you can do a 1 gig packet for your 1 gig file, you are fine, no latency. But if you have to do it as 1 byte packets with 1s transmition time and 1s latency.. things would be a lot slower.
No, I'm not implying anything. Think if you had a 10 meg drive and all your data that you'd ever want could fit on it. We'd be pretty close to this situation of no bottle necks. Problems is, some people fill up terabytes.
As forpeople downloading someone else's hard drive? Well, imagine if you served mp3's and you were part of a big p2p network. Replication and distribution would be really REALLY fast. It'd come to the point that if you replaced all your data, you could distribute it really fast and duplicated within minutes.
I'm using limits to exaggerate my point. Infinite bandwidth, constant hard drive, constant demand mean s you can't saturate it as drive space and demand stay near 0 somewhere:)
At the current state of the net, your hard drive is of N size. You can transmit all the data at some relatively large time.
Now imagine if the numbers were reversed, that you can transmit your entire hard drive at the speed of your hard drive. Sure, you can saturate the line if everyone transmits at the same time, but imagine once the initial burst of everyone hitting the button at once. You might have that one person who wants to download someone else's hard drive, but it'd be over fast enough that if it were queue'd, it would be a short waiting time.
Esentially, all bottle necks would go away as speed goes infinite. If we can get the bandwidth high enough, it will be close to infinite, and the bottle necks would go away. Of course, that is as long as the speed of transmiting your entire drive is much MUCH lower than your bandwidth and the number of requests die down. Hopefully you wouldn't hve 1k people asking for a copy of your drive every 10 seconds:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. CGI's work over HTTP in terms of the get and post methods. In terms of their encoding and all.
See my journal entry about this. I had an entire rant about this.
http://slashdot.org/~sporty/journal/20356
I believe it's a problem with the fact that PHP doesn't follow an OO paradigm. Why do I say that, as if it has importance? Because it has some berring on security.
For instance, if there was a file class that managed these permission problems, and it was deemed secure, then that's it. If someone managed to bypass this security check, the security manager is busted.
PHP also has a very archane architecture to it that is a lot of spaghetti code. If you ever have to develop a plugin for php, you wind up using a bunch of predefined macros but no real api's for creating a plugin.
For instance, take a look at stxx and struts. Struts created a base class, a plugin class, and stxx implements it. If struts's security manager doesn't want you to use its api in certain ways, you simply can't. No pointer arithmatic to simply start reading memory. Granted, you MIGHT be able to use relfection to read some information about the classes that struts uses, you can't really get it to execute them unless you write a malicious plugin.
In this case, it's just php and the spaghetti code that realizes it.
Rip one for me.. and rip one for my homies.
Hrm.. I wonder if someone has tried to get the reverse to work yet.
btw, get on efnet sometime, slashdot channel.
But isn't win2k supposed to be a secure un-networked machine determined by the gov't? And like, completely secure as well?
Nonononoo... some jdk implementations are really good for the machines they run on. Distributing moz with and without the blackdown jdk is a better idea.
I rather use Apple's jdk tyvm
Because, there wasn't one on slashdot before. I never knew of the book and it certainly doesn't hav ethe same popularity as say, the first book of harry potter. So it's not being talked about by anyone and everyone.. still.
Let chrisd have has review and stop whining.
You have the machine code, no? Dont' be ungrateful.
Postgres is a nifty mid-weight database. Oracle has many more of the features to scale (think parallelism and other features), be safe (various backup mechanisms) and be secure. Granted, no software achieves the secure part perfectly, Oracle is making leaps and bounsd in the DB sector where mysql and postgresql are slowly following.
Postgres has its uses. Hell, Berkley DB has its uses. I think that in terms of Gov't, support contracts, extreme usage, Oracle and RedHat have come a long way. I'm not surprised that Postgresql isn't being pushed.
Having .name is a right? I thought free speech was a right, at least according to the constitution.
.name registry in the constitution again? Bad bad president.
Bush, did you slip the
Sorry to tell you this.. but the exploit was trying to help you, not hurt you. :\
The early 90's are calling. THey want their phrase back.
Sorry, couldn't help it
Bah, Advantage. I had the NES Max. At least it was.. smaller.
It's the sum of "things" driving the direction your sector is in. i.e. 9/11 and security or christmas
Some solutions aern't products. Products when applied in certain ways solve problems. i.e. word isn't a software solution for solving math problems or a floppy drive isn't a hardware solution for backing up large servers.
This is why we have systems and biz analysists between business and technology. They can cut through the bullshit and usually give technologists specifications to us, the software engineers of the world.
And believe you me, they think the same of us. SDSL and ADSL. It's a freakin' DSL line. They work pretty much the same as each other, except one has the same upload speed. In the technology world, we just love acronyms, really. We have HTML and XHTML, granted, one is a derivative of the other, would it be bad to call it HTML 5.0? I really doubt it. At least we got it right with L2 and L3 cache... I think. L just stands for level.
Is it possible that this is NOT a dupe? Say it ain't so!
4 pages max. Unless it was an essay.
Non validated. We'll have to discard your entry if we just don't find it to conform. sorry.
No, that's not the point, but a featuer. Java is a to-byte code compiled, object oriented language that supports serialization, garbage collection and other fancy stuff.
Java is just an alternative. I particularly like it, but to each their own, right?
make has its own problems, like not being universal like ant could be. I say could, since most systems do have jvm's, i'm sure there's that one system taht doesn't where make exists. Point being, an does things in a very organized manner that's quite portable.
c/c++, well.. strict c++ is very organized as well, but it has its own share of problems, like pointers and using c as a subset language. last thing i want to see is an object passed to a function, and not a method. like int x(Object a) { printf( "%s", a->getSomething() ) }
Having said that, java has its own problems, not in the JVM though, as a general concept. The solaris implementation seems to be a little borked now. Does that stop IBM or blackdown from creating a superior product? Not really. Though I'm not fond of how they initially created int and Integer and not make them assignment compatable.
Why can't it work in reverse? I'm required to be here 40 hours a week when the load is light. When it is heavy, i work extra.
So if they require me to be here all that extra time, what do I do then?
Granted you want very very low latency, you'd need decent latency to support really high bandwidth.. unless your packets are friggin' huge. If you can do a 1 gig packet for your 1 gig file, you are fine, no latency. But if you have to do it as 1 byte packets with 1s transmition time and 1s latency.. things would be a lot slower.
No, I'm not implying anything. Think if you had a 10 meg drive and all your data that you'd ever want could fit on it. We'd be pretty close to this situation of no bottle necks. Problems is, some people fill up terabytes.
:)
As forpeople downloading someone else's hard drive? Well, imagine if you served mp3's and you were part of a big p2p network. Replication and distribution would be really REALLY fast. It'd come to the point that if you replaced all your data, you could distribute it really fast and duplicated within minutes.
I'm using limits to exaggerate my point. Infinite bandwidth, constant hard drive, constant demand mean s you can't saturate it as drive space and demand stay near 0 somewhere
At the current state of the net, your hard drive is of N size. You can transmit all the data at some relatively large time.
:)
Now imagine if the numbers were reversed, that you can transmit your entire hard drive at the speed of your hard drive. Sure, you can saturate the line if everyone transmits at the same time, but imagine once the initial burst of everyone hitting the button at once. You might have that one person who wants to download someone else's hard drive, but it'd be over fast enough that if it were queue'd, it would be a short waiting time.
Esentially, all bottle necks would go away as speed goes infinite. If we can get the bandwidth high enough, it will be close to infinite, and the bottle necks would go away. Of course, that is as long as the speed of transmiting your entire drive is much MUCH lower than your bandwidth and the number of requests die down. Hopefully you wouldn't hve 1k people asking for a copy of your drive every 10 seconds
Just a thought...
Heh, the 20th century is calling. They want your joke and floppy drive back.
Are we going to see the same comment when the big taco dupes this story?