standard Java disclaimer about not running it on a nuclear reactor or air traffic control system I would imagine that Sun does make software intended for such use. The disclaimer is a notice that this particular software (Java) is not that kind of software despite the Sun brand. At this kind of level, failure modes become important. Which way it fails is more important than being correct. Not easy and not cheap.
The compiler generates different code depending on whether it's comparing signed or unsigned values. To pick a nit, on a number of architectures, the difference is not in the code to compare the quantities but the code in the conditional jump. Somehow casting a signed value to an unsigned value sounds like an opportunity for lots of subtle mischief. The Apache team is wise to examine this stuff carefully and not let themselves get panicked into doing something stupid.
The spin from the linux camp on this one has been pretty funny to read.:-) Yep. IIS holes are more anoying (logs full of CodeRed/Nimda) than Apache exploits.
by Second_Derivative (#3719346) "I've already created an exploit that causes tons of children to crash and tested it against my server. Effects are negligible. So much for a DoS attack."
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's a fairly well balanced system-- as it would have to be to have lasted as long as it has. The notion that we humans could actually "break" such a system is the most ludicrous form of arrogance. We're not nearly as powerful as we think, man. Mostly I agree with you, but there is no good reason to believe that there is just one equilibrium point. To oversimplify, the weather/climate is basically what we observe of a heat engine that adsorbs heat at the equator and radiates it out into space at the poles. We've got a kinda-sorta handle on land and air, extremely poor handle on water and no handle on where the edges are from one equilibrium to another. Increased CO2 would lead to increased average global temperature, other factors being equal. With a big and complicated heat engine that builds its engine walls out of air and water, I just don't believe in "other factors being equal". This thing will tend to push back harder than you push it. It's not all that farfetched for the effect of global warming to be another ice age. The key is probably what triggers the ocean currents.
"Language determines design" is a Bell Labs aphorism. The language determines the edge between what is worth doing and what is not worth doing, and therefore determines design. Of course a lot of the design will be much the same for a lot of languages, at least kinda-sorta. You don't use the same language for the measurements of camshafts and for the fish that got away.
The linguistics side of that is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in its strong form (the one you stated) generally isn't taken very seriously. However, language does influence thought, that's certain. What happens is jargon, which fills in the missing concepts and terminology.
The problem with software is that when a virus/cracker compromises your system, any resulting damage can not logically be attributed to the software developer. The problem with Firestone tires is that when road conditions compromise your tires, any resulting damage can no logically be attributed to the tire manufacturer.
If IIS blew up on it's own and erased your disk you would have a legitimate case. As soon as a third party maliciously tries to compromise it, the case is off. If Firestone tires blew up on their own and flipped your SUV over you would have a legitimate case. As soon as you subject the tires to actual road conditions, the case is off.
Your contention is that Microsoft software is not fit for any actual use?
Right on. The one thing a high price tag always buys is a high price tag, and the right to complain if something doesn't work as expected.
No one expects merchantibility for freely downloaded software. If I spend $199 on a word processor and it fails to process words I want recourse. The exact same word processor could sell for $199, $19.99, $1.99, or downloaded for free. The recourse available for each of those prices would be substantially different.
This is too complex ??? $5 CheapBytes copy of RedHat (maybe called Pink Bow Tie Linux) For $5 you expect it to not be a coaster. Probably includes what it should, but untested. Neither CheapBytes nor Red Hat responsible for any bugs.
If you modify the software, the author *cannot* be responsible for your modifications.
What's stupid about "Unbreakable"? Anytime somebody manages to break it, they will fix it. The effect of the posturing is that for most everybody it *is* unbreakable.
Backfire? Nah, not likely. It's a $300 computer not a $3000 computer. Microsoft's attempted fud campaigns are more likely to backfire. Walmart will sell a lot of these computers. Next year they will sell a lot more. Walmart also sells a lot of calculators. If Walmart is selling a useable product at a reasonable price they should do just fine. Whether it's bare or Lindows or AOLinux or Debian or Redneck Linux isn't going to make a lot of difference.
I'd say that he was very on-target. This is consumer electronics at a few hundred a pop instead of home computing at a few thousand a pop. That Walmart has experience on the bleeding edge of "new" technology is quite relevant.
And probably a few other places too. Of course, the hard thing is to figure out EXACTLY what the bug is. (Better make that "bugs are";) Pretty easy to see from all this why Open Source is better. No magic bullets, but it sure improves the odds.
Comparing IT support for Microsoft Windows and Linux is worse than comparing apples and oranges. First rule of effectively supporting Microsoft Windows is to crush any and all expectations of anything great. If you don't know what you're doing, you can put something in Microsoft Word and it will look halway decent. If you care about what it looks like, you will fight Microsoft and Microsoft will win. Basically my NT servers and workstations stay up as long as the power is on. It's not that Microsoft Windows is stable, it's a "don't rock an unstable boat". With Linux it pays to sets your sights higher, so more *will* be supported.
So what your saying is People outside of North America and Europe are too stupid to use open source software and should therefore be forced to use windows? "should" is the wrong word. It's more the phenomenon that the rich tend to pay less for goods of better quality than the poor. The poor are also much more easily prey to impossible promises that will never be kept, XP's "you can fly" for example. With Microsoft Windows they can set up something that will look like their part works and the problems are always somewhere else. If they're setting up networks, their odds are much better with Linux or *BSD even if the installs are "more difficult". Actually, the first round is probably easier now with Linux than Microsoft Windows. The second round, where you need to be able to see what's going on tends to be more trouble than it's worth with Microsoft Windows. If Microsoft can't or won't fix a gopher hole, the odds of Microsoft actually helping with anything you run into is pretty slim.
If my employer makes a change to gcc, and lets me use the binary 1. as an employee using the employer's computers. 2. as an outside individual doing something other than company business. Seems you would have a right to the source in case 2 but not in case 1.
Good point about reliability. I think there's a distinction between userland reliability and hackerland reliability. Userland reliability really requires that all of the config tools work correctly all of the time. Userland reliability requires that things like browsers and mail and office software "just work". Not easy, but it's getting close.
What is to stop someone within your organization from taking the source from your internal app and distributing it outside the company? The computers, software, office furniture, etc. belong to the organization not to the someones who are using them. You don't get to sell off "your" office desk. What will happen is that for any bug-fixes and generally-usable improvements to the GPL software, it is to the organization's benefit that those changes are either fed back or generally available. Much easier if you don't have to keep redoing the changes if you pick up something newer. This behavior is somewhat expected, but nothing in the GPL requires it. Your internal app is some mixture of original GPL, desirable bug-fixes and modifications, and some changes that are unique to your own organization. The thing is that even though maybe interesting to some other parties, nobody else wants the stuff that's unique to your organization. Somewhere along the line the stuff that's unique to your organization will be dropped, either by the maintainer of the GPL stuff, or by the organization itself.
3. *ability* to scare vendors when necessary into giving you a better deal Helps with problem resolution when you have in house expertise on competing systems and can demonstrate this works, this works, this works, that fails.
win95 for your servers and Red Hat 3 for your desktops Sounds horrible, but. High-end machines designed at great expense to eliminate the bottlenecks you do not have can be even worse. Two different platforms *will* have different strengths. If you think benchmarks are rigged, wait until you try real-world apps on different platforms.
That's true for asynch serial lines, but not for other types, such as ethernet. True. More like 15-20 bits = 1 byte. kbps measures the bit speed, the time from one bit to the next, excluding the effects of overhead. kBbs measures the rate at which bytes are sent down the pipe, including the effects of overhead.
Sounds like an uninterested party is complaining about indadequate information to convince them that they should stay uninterested. If you are an interested party, like you're using Starband, just the word "Starband" is enough. It's talking about bit rates and proxys. Obviously something to do with internet connections. It could mention long ping times, but that starts to get far too wordy.
Ah, to return to the days of my youth when I really knew everything... From an old fart, twice 30 is young. /. editors are really headline writers with the object being to stir up controversy. Generally, any journalism is in the comments. Still the headline blurb was significantly more informative than the linked blurb from the CEO of Starband.
From the parent post. And to think I once saw Slashdot as journalism's great shining democratic hope. For all I know it is. It does tend to be the only source of unbiased information. Sure there's bias and best to take everything with a few lumps of salt, but if there is unbiased information to be had, the most likely place to find it is/. The information is not politically correct, no bias showing, predigested pablum.
Slashdot Mirror
standard Java disclaimer about not running it on a nuclear reactor or air traffic control system
I would imagine that Sun does make software intended for such use. The disclaimer is a notice that this particular software (Java) is not that kind of software despite the Sun brand. At this kind of level, failure modes become important. Which way it fails is more important than being correct. Not easy and not cheap.
Sites don't "ask" what browser you're using
Agreed. "ask" is not the right term.
from microsoft.com
<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
var userAgent = navigator.userAgent;
var MSIEIndex = userAgent.indexOf("MSIE");
"demanding" maybe more like it.
The compiler generates different code depending on whether it's comparing signed or unsigned values.
To pick a nit, on a number of architectures, the difference is not in the code to compare the quantities but the code in the conditional jump. Somehow casting a signed value to an unsigned value sounds like an opportunity for lots of subtle mischief. The Apache team is wise to examine this stuff carefully and not let themselves get panicked into doing something stupid.
neither is IIS expected to survive Code Red attacks nor other cracking attempts.
That's why I use Apache.
The spin from the linux camp on this one has been pretty funny to read. :-)
Yep. IIS holes are more anoying (logs full of CodeRed/Nimda) than Apache exploits.
by Second_Derivative (#3719346)
"I've already created an exploit that causes tons of children to crash and tested it against my server. Effects are negligible. So much for a DoS attack."
It's a fairly well balanced system-- as it would have to be to have lasted as long as it has. The notion that we humans could actually "break" such a system is the most ludicrous form of arrogance. We're not nearly as powerful as we think, man.
Mostly I agree with you, but there is no good reason to believe that there is just one equilibrium point. To oversimplify, the weather/climate is basically what we observe of a heat engine that adsorbs heat at the equator and radiates it out into space at the poles. We've got a kinda-sorta handle on land and air, extremely poor handle on water and no handle on where the edges are from one equilibrium to another.
Increased CO2 would lead to increased average global temperature, other factors being equal. With a big and complicated heat engine that builds its engine walls out of air and water, I just don't believe in "other factors being equal". This thing will tend to push back harder than you push it. It's not all that farfetched for the effect of global warming to be another ice age. The key is probably what triggers the ocean currents.
"Language determines design" is a Bell Labs aphorism.
The language determines the edge between what is worth doing and what is not worth doing, and therefore determines design. Of course a lot of the design will be much the same for a lot of languages, at least kinda-sorta. You don't use the same language for the measurements of camshafts and for the fish that got away.
The linguistics side of that is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in its strong form (the one you stated) generally isn't taken very seriously. However, language does influence thought, that's certain.
What happens is jargon, which fills in the missing concepts and terminology.
The problem with software is that when a virus/cracker compromises your system, any resulting damage can not logically be attributed to the software developer.
The problem with Firestone tires is that when road conditions compromise your tires, any resulting damage can no logically be attributed to the tire manufacturer.
If IIS blew up on it's own and erased your disk you would have a legitimate case. As soon as a third party maliciously tries to compromise it, the case is off.
If Firestone tires blew up on their own and flipped your SUV over you would have a legitimate case. As soon as you subject the tires to actual road conditions, the case is off.
Your contention is that Microsoft software is not fit for any actual use?
Right on. The one thing a high price tag always buys is a high price tag, and the right to complain if something doesn't work as expected.
No one expects merchantibility for freely downloaded software.
If I spend $199 on a word processor and it fails to process words I want recourse.
The exact same word processor could sell for $199, $19.99, $1.99, or downloaded for free. The recourse available for each of those prices would be substantially different.
This is too complex
???
$5 CheapBytes copy of RedHat (maybe called Pink Bow Tie Linux)
For $5 you expect it to not be a coaster.
Probably includes what it should, but untested.
Neither CheapBytes nor Red Hat responsible for any bugs.
If you modify the software, the author *cannot* be responsible for your modifications.
What's stupid about "Unbreakable"? Anytime somebody manages to break it, they will fix it. The effect of the posturing is that for most everybody it *is* unbreakable.
Backfire? Nah, not likely. It's a $300 computer not a $3000 computer.
Microsoft's attempted fud campaigns are more likely to backfire.
Walmart will sell a lot of these computers. Next year they will sell a lot more. Walmart also sells a lot of calculators. If Walmart is selling a useable product at a reasonable price they should do just fine. Whether it's bare or Lindows or AOLinux or Debian or Redneck Linux isn't going to make a lot of difference.
I'd say that he was very on-target.
This is consumer electronics at a few hundred a pop instead of home computing at a few thousand a pop. That Walmart has experience on the bleeding edge of "new" technology is quite relevant.
And probably a few other places too.
Of course, the hard thing is to figure out EXACTLY what the bug is. (Better make that "bugs are";)
Pretty easy to see from all this why Open Source is better. No magic bullets, but it sure improves the odds.
Comparing IT support for Microsoft Windows and Linux is worse than comparing apples and oranges.
First rule of effectively supporting Microsoft Windows is to crush any and all expectations of anything great. If you don't know what you're doing, you can put something in Microsoft Word and it will look halway decent. If you care about what it looks like, you will fight Microsoft and Microsoft will win. Basically my NT servers and workstations stay up as long as the power is on. It's not that Microsoft Windows is stable, it's a "don't rock an unstable boat". With Linux it pays to sets your sights higher, so more *will* be supported.
So what your saying is People outside of North America and Europe are too stupid to use open source software and should therefore be forced to use windows?
"should" is the wrong word. It's more the phenomenon that the rich tend to pay less for goods of better quality than the poor. The poor are also much more easily prey to impossible promises that will never be kept, XP's "you can fly" for example. With Microsoft Windows they can set up something that will look like their part works and the problems are always somewhere else. If they're setting up networks, their odds are much better with Linux or *BSD even if the installs are "more difficult". Actually, the first round is probably easier now with Linux than Microsoft Windows. The second round, where you need to be able to see what's going on tends to be more trouble than it's worth with Microsoft Windows. If Microsoft can't or won't fix a gopher hole, the odds of Microsoft actually helping with anything you run into is pretty slim.
If my employer makes a change to gcc, and lets me use the binary
1. as an employee using the employer's computers.
2. as an outside individual doing something other than company business.
Seems you would have a right to the source in case 2 but not in case 1.
Good point about reliability.
I think there's a distinction between userland reliability and hackerland reliability. Userland reliability really requires that all of the config tools work correctly all of the time. Userland reliability requires that things like browsers and mail and office software "just work". Not easy, but it's getting close.
What is to stop someone within your organization from taking the source from your internal app and distributing it outside the company?
The computers, software, office furniture, etc. belong to the organization not to the someones who are using them. You don't get to sell off "your" office desk.
What will happen is that for any bug-fixes and generally-usable improvements to the GPL software, it is to the organization's benefit that those changes are either fed back or generally available. Much easier if you don't have to keep redoing the changes if you pick up something newer. This behavior is somewhat expected, but nothing in the GPL requires it.
Your internal app is some mixture of original GPL, desirable bug-fixes and modifications, and some changes that are unique to your own organization. The thing is that even though maybe interesting to some other parties, nobody else wants the stuff that's unique to your organization. Somewhere along the line the stuff that's unique to your organization will be dropped, either by the maintainer of the GPL stuff, or by the organization itself.
Then watch as Balmer steps into a gopher hole.
3. *ability* to scare vendors when necessary into giving you a better deal
Helps with problem resolution when you have in house expertise on competing systems and can demonstrate this works, this works, this works, that fails.
Also, the longer you know one flavor of UNIX, the more likely you are to call any new flavor you encounter ``braindead".
Except when it comes to SCO. Trust me on that one.
The longer you know one flavor of UNIX, specifically SCO,
then you are NOT likely to call ANY new flavor "braindead".
Is SCO the UNIX that Microsoft/UNISYS has the way out of?
Is NT (or whatever the current version is) "braindead" compared to SCO?
win95 for your servers and Red Hat 3 for your desktops
Sounds horrible, but.
High-end machines designed at great expense to eliminate the bottlenecks you do not have can be even worse. Two different platforms *will* have different strengths. If you think benchmarks are rigged, wait until you try real-world apps on different platforms.
That's true for asynch serial lines, but not for other types, such as ethernet.
True. More like 15-20 bits = 1 byte.
kbps measures the bit speed, the time from one bit to the next, excluding the effects of overhead.
kBbs measures the rate at which bytes are sent down the pipe, including the effects of overhead.
Sounds like an uninterested party is complaining about indadequate information to convince them that they should stay uninterested.
If you are an interested party, like you're using Starband, just the word "Starband" is enough.
It's talking about bit rates and proxys. Obviously something to do with internet connections. It could mention long ping times, but that starts to get far too wordy.
Ah, to return to the days of my youth when I really knew everything...
/. The information is not politically correct, no bias showing, predigested pablum.
From an old fart, twice 30 is young.
/. editors are really headline writers with the object being to stir up controversy. Generally, any journalism is in the comments. Still the headline blurb was significantly more informative than the linked blurb from the CEO of Starband.
From the parent post. And to think I once saw Slashdot as journalism's great shining democratic hope.
For all I know it is. It does tend to be the only source of unbiased information. Sure there's bias and best to take everything with a few lumps of salt, but if there is unbiased information to be had, the most likely place to find it is