Microsoft will promise what they think the audience wants to hear, regardless of any connection to reality. Open Source tends to much less inclined to making unwarranted claims, even the advocacy groups. There are no "magic business beans", but Microsoft does manage to sell a lot of them.
Nothing about Open Source definition excludes Microsoft. But everything about Microsoft excludes Microsoft. If I were using just Open Source, I wouldn't particularly care which venues were open to Microsoft, but I do use mostly Microsoft and there is a vast difference between the promise and the reality. If I go to any Open Source whatever I do not want to be subjected to more of Microsoft's noise. I want to be able to pick up the faint glimmer of hope for a better world.
Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap. Effective oversimplification of power law. Seems like it's almost universally applicable. You'd like to get rid of the 90% that's crap, but it doesn't work that way. You get the 90% crap regardless. You just don't waste much attention on it. 90% of the damage is done by 10% of the bugs.
The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will have implemented a just society. Won't work. The point is that you *cannot* implement a just society. Even if you start out with everything flat and everyone equal, you will get clustering effects that drive the system toward unequality. What we *can* do is make a few stabs that try to make the system somewhat less unfair.
L 1,=A(parameter_list) L 15,=A(subroutine) BALR 14,15
14 -- return address 15 -- entry point of subroutine 13 -- save area 1 -- parameter list (list of addresses, last one had high bit set) 12 -- where PL/I (F level at least) keeps its state
STM 14,12,12(13) -- IIRC Chain new save area (register 13) to old save area
new save area at the beginning of block of storage for this subroutine.... L 13,???(13) -- get old register 13 back LM 14,12,12(13) BR 14
You're right about recursion. A calls B calls C calls D calls B Going in works, B returns to D works. D returns to C works, C returns to B works. B returns to A does NOT work, goes back to now defunct D.
"As the original author of Samba I am delighted that this split has occurred. Many of the design decisions in Samba are showing their age, but as Samba is so widely used it can be difficult to try radical new approaches while keeping the code as stable as users have come to expect. With a new project developers have a lot more freedom to try innovative solutions to problems without any concern about stability. While we don't yet know how the TNG project will work out, it will certainly teach us something about how their proposed approaches work when they are given the chance to be fully tested."
"I look forward to seeing more development in TNG now that the developers are not constrained by the more conservative elements of the Samba Team (such as myself!) and I will be delighted to see the project flourish. There has been only one viable SMB server solution for the free software community for far too long, and a world with only one choice is a boring place indeed."
Anyone holding bills from the previous three hold nothing. Try telling that to a collector. Even Confederate currency is worth something nowadays. I can't imagine I'd have *any* trouble spending Silver Certificates.
Agreed. The article feels like it was written by an outsider not by an insider,
The complaints may have some validity. I'm not enough into Java to have an opinion, BUT the raisone d'etre of Java is not what it can easily and efficiently do, but to be sufficiently constrained that a large class of bugs will NOT happen. The language will continue to evolve, but it will be more to close any remaining boobyhatches than to make it "programmer friendly".
De-Sign, not de-bug. Rubbish. For example. Walk into the next room. Plan each and every step including all shifts of weight to keep your balance. Now follow *exactly* that plan. Doesn't work. What does work is to do something, find the consequences and compensate. Parent is quite right in that there are strong limits to what can be done automatically. Design works for reinventing wheels. The wheel doesn't start nice and round. The wheel starts rather lumpish with various strange protrubances. Only by reinventing does the "wheelness" emerge.
Hmmm, actually, I do. Critical distinction. If it really is a *license*, then are the mechanisms in place to obtain replacement media for a *very* nominal charge?
The problem is these things almost never do *exactly* as intended and they tend to have unintended collateral effects. Something fired back in the heat of battle *might* do more good than harm. If it's left in place too long, there are too many ways to exploit the "cure". Imagine spoofing an attact on DOJ that seems to be coming from inside Microsoft.
The "stealth worms" already exist. They are called "bugs". Intentionally creating them is maybe hard. Accidentally creating them happens often enough.
Loud worms probably end up helping us by rubbing our noses into vulnerabilities Exactly! The real risk isn't from the Black Hats, its from some yoyo in shipping who mashes a few wrong keys and hoses the system.
Why is the parent modded "Funny"?! At the very least it should be Insightful, it's a shame/. doesn't allow for "bloody accurate". Our 'merkin cousins may thing this is funny, but it is a lot closer to the truth than you think. Accurate would be insightful or informative. Bloody accurate seems to get moderated as "Funny". Try it this way. You can laugh or you can cry. Laughing's better. Much more like gallows humor than enjoyable humor, but then humor is a serious business.
You can leave a bank with the front door open and the safe open.
And also it has a privilege "grant yourself any privilege Seems just as reasonable as having to login as a member of the wheel group to be able to su to root. Better to be running around without all those privileges you could grant yourself.
Bingo! Like literature that gains in the translation.
Slashdot will never see the last troll. The internet will never see the last worm. Maybe better to learn how to control the damage and keep it from spreading than to attempt to remove all the point sources of infection.
Lets ignore the fact that MS basically put ALL their products on hold to do this, and released a swarm of patches to fix problems they found.
Not very effective were they? A swarm of patches that Microsoft itself can't patch its own computers?
For some years, OpenBSD has had the annoying habit of closing holes about six months before the exploits are discovered. It's called being proactive;-)
I should hope OpenBSD is the most secure OS out there. That is the main goal of the project. Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years! Uber secure? Yes. Secure? Probably not, but they're working on it. Actually that one remote hole is a stronger statement for OpenBSD than when there were none known.
It also lowers the bar for the amount of expertise required to properly keep a system secure. [emphasis added]
Keep???? Resecure a vulnerable system is more like it. If the system is secure, messing with it can only make it insecure. There is no keeping a system secure. (or pixie dust;)
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft will promise what they think the audience wants to hear, regardless of any connection to reality. Open Source tends to much less inclined to making unwarranted claims, even the advocacy groups. There are no "magic business beans", but Microsoft does manage to sell a lot of them.
Nothing about Open Source definition excludes Microsoft.
But everything about Microsoft excludes Microsoft.
If I were using just Open Source, I wouldn't particularly care which venues were open to Microsoft, but I do use mostly Microsoft and there is a vast difference between the promise and the reality. If I go to any Open Source whatever I do not want to be subjected to more of Microsoft's noise. I want to be able to pick up the faint glimmer of hope for a better world.
Otherwise I'd be doing something useful instead of venting my aggravation.
How long can this go on for?
Just as long as there's a microsoft.
Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap.
Effective oversimplification of power law.
Seems like it's almost universally applicable.
You'd like to get rid of the 90% that's crap, but it doesn't work that way. You get the 90% crap regardless. You just don't waste much attention on it.
90% of the damage is done by 10% of the bugs.
It's also quite possible that she has no motive not to put the journal online.
The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will have implemented a just society.
Won't work. The point is that you *cannot* implement a just society. Even if you start out with everything flat and everyone equal, you will get clustering effects that drive the system toward unequality.
What we *can* do is make a few stabs that try to make the system somewhat less unfair.
beCAWS.
IIRC, standard calling conventions:
...
L 1,=A(parameter_list)
L 15,=A(subroutine)
BALR 14,15
14 -- return address
15 -- entry point of subroutine
13 -- save area
1 -- parameter list (list of addresses, last one had high bit set)
12 -- where PL/I (F level at least) keeps its state
STM 14,12,12(13) -- IIRC
Chain new save area (register 13) to old save area
new save area at the beginning of block of storage for this subroutine.
L 13,???(13) -- get old register 13 back
LM 14,12,12(13)
BR 14
You're right about recursion.
A calls B calls C calls D calls B
Going in works,
B returns to D works.
D returns to C works,
C returns to B works.
B returns to A does NOT work, goes back to now defunct D.
"As the original author of Samba I am delighted that this split has occurred. Many of the design decisions in Samba are showing their age, but as Samba is so widely used it can be difficult to try radical new approaches while keeping the code as stable as users have come to expect. With a new project developers have a lot more freedom to try innovative solutions to problems without any concern about stability. While we don't yet know how the TNG project will work out, it will certainly teach us something about how their proposed approaches work when they are given the chance to be fully tested."
"I look forward to seeing more development in TNG now that the developers are not constrained by the more conservative elements of the Samba Team (such as myself!) and I will be delighted to see the project flourish. There has been only one viable SMB server solution for the free software community for far too long, and a world with only one choice is a boring place indeed."
Divide and conquor.
Anyone holding bills from the previous three hold nothing.
Try telling that to a collector. Even Confederate currency is worth something nowadays. I can't imagine I'd have *any* trouble spending Silver Certificates.
Agreed. The article feels like it was written by an outsider not by an insider,
The complaints may have some validity. I'm not enough into Java to have an opinion, BUT the raisone d'etre of Java is not what it can easily and efficiently do, but to be sufficiently constrained that a large class of bugs will NOT happen. The language will continue to evolve, but it will be more to close any remaining boobyhatches than to make it "programmer friendly".
When your motherboard blows up, this article is current.
Seriously.
De-Sign, not de-bug.
Rubbish.
For example. Walk into the next room. Plan each and every step including all shifts of weight to keep your balance. Now follow *exactly* that plan.
Doesn't work. What does work is to do something, find the consequences and compensate. Parent is quite right in that there are strong limits to what can be done automatically.
Design works for reinventing wheels. The wheel doesn't start nice and round. The wheel starts rather lumpish with various strange protrubances. Only by reinventing does the "wheelness" emerge.
Hmmm, actually, I do.
Critical distinction. If it really is a *license*, then are the mechanisms in place to obtain replacement media for a *very* nominal charge?
The problem is these things almost never do *exactly* as intended and they tend to have unintended collateral effects. Something fired back in the heat of battle *might* do more good than harm. If it's left in place too long, there are too many ways to exploit the "cure". Imagine spoofing an attact on DOJ that seems to be coming from inside Microsoft.
The "stealth worms" already exist. They are called "bugs". Intentionally creating them is maybe hard. Accidentally creating them happens often enough.
Loud worms probably end up helping us by rubbing our noses into vulnerabilities
Exactly! The real risk isn't from the Black Hats, its from some yoyo in shipping who mashes a few wrong keys and hoses the system.
Why is the parent modded "Funny"?! At the very least it should be Insightful, it's a shame /. doesn't allow for "bloody accurate". Our 'merkin cousins may thing this is funny, but it is a lot closer to the truth than you think.
Accurate would be insightful or informative.
Bloody accurate seems to get moderated as "Funny".
Try it this way. You can laugh or you can cry. Laughing's better.
Much more like gallows humor than enjoyable humor, but then humor is a serious business.
You can leave a bank with the front door open and the safe open.
And also it has a privilege "grant yourself any privilege
Seems just as reasonable as having to login as a member of the wheel group to be able to su to root. Better to be running around without all those privileges you could grant yourself.
No "Garden-Fresh" salads. No raw vegetables. Everything cooked (except some fruit).
Bingo!
Like literature that gains in the translation.
Slashdot will never see the last troll.
The internet will never see the last worm.
Maybe better to learn how to control the damage and keep it from spreading than to attempt to remove all the point sources of infection.
Lets ignore the fact that MS basically put ALL their products on hold to do this, and released a swarm of patches to fix problems they found.
;-)
Not very effective were they?
A swarm of patches that Microsoft itself can't patch its own computers?
For some years, OpenBSD has had the annoying habit of closing holes about six months before the exploits are discovered. It's called being proactive
I should hope OpenBSD is the most secure OS out there. That is the main goal of the project.
Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!
Uber secure? Yes. Secure? Probably not, but they're working on it.
Actually that one remote hole is a stronger statement for OpenBSD than when there were none known.
Imagine going from 100 meg to a few TB over a span of years without ever shutting down.
Imagine that there is no such term as "scheduled maintenance".
It also lowers the bar for the amount of expertise required to properly keep a system secure. [emphasis added]
Keep???? Resecure a vulnerable system is more like it.
If the system is secure, messing with it can only make it insecure. There is no keeping a system secure. (or pixie dust;)