If everything else was simple, if everything else was easy, if everything else was entirely and exactly right, all you would need is an API. Maybe. Intel even managed to botch it for something as simple as binary floating point division. "That's generally not the situation..." EXACTLY. You are going to have your five 9's results depend on a mess of "... generally..." ???
"The source, after all, is the truest documentation of how the code works."
Counterexample. The grand hack of a early C compiler, which would compile in a backdoor to login, was NOT in the source of login or in the source of the compiler.
The irrational mob gets introduced to the DC cops, thanks. It takes very little media distortion or misinterpretation to make a mountain out of a molehill. You have things like the right to peaceable assembly (matter of interpretation as to what is peaceable) or anything that can be construed as police brutality. Calling the cops doesn't end the problem, it's likely to start it.
I would much prefer an API that is written well enough that I do not need to see the source to work out what is going on.
How many APIs, commercial or free, do you trust to that level? I've seen, maybe, one. Vienna Definition Language to explain PL/I. Looked nasty enough to make algebraic topology look reasonable. The problem is that the API has to cover accurately all the edge and corner cases, which is never as simple or easy as it should be.
The source, after all, is the truest documentation of how the code works. The truest is to trace out the machine states of what the code actually does. Long tedious and messy. To be avoided if at all possible, but sometimes what the code does and what it looks like are not the same thing. The difference between what the code does and what the API would lead you to believe can be rediculous. The source is the cheapest, most convenient, most accurate documentation you can get. The net effect is to get 1 or 2 more 9's reliability at almost no cost. (The reason 5 9's is "fabled" is that when that one-in-a-million freak does hit, you fix it, fast)
amateurs care more about their work than professionals One point to consider is that if the amateur does not care, (s)he will most likely be doing something else. You can get some interesting horse races between an amateur's enthusiasm and a professional's skill.
Ok, if you are a congresscritter, would you rather be faced with an irrational unreasonable mob, or some nice people that show reason and restraint? There's nothing wrong with calm and rational, but for such as this, the burden of proof is on the other side. I don't even need a reason, rational or otherwise.
Enough yelling and screaming, they don't. If we just quietly watch, they do. Much easier to prevent than reverse a done deal. Rationality and reason have nothing to do with it.
It's called FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. When will your Microsoft Windows XP box go bonkers and refuse to run because it thinks too many things have changed? Or the next Microsoft worm/virus decides to mess with the product activation?
Several people have more than one credit card. Some pay cash sometimes, credit card other times. There is enough variability to make invasive data mining difficult at best. A lot of myprivacy comes from my neighbors' unpredictability.
Yeah, it's incorrect, but I got their point, and that's what counts. Yes, but. It's the difference between on target and close enough, between a program working correctly and kinda-sorta. It raises reactions when it's almost, but not quite right, when "it's a diamond in the rough" has one smallish "rough". Great point, BTW, and expressed eloquently. If it were weaker, nobody would care about the precise usage.
Since the OEM licensed software can only be legally used on the system it came with, the presumption should be that in the absence of something explicit to the contrary, all the licences were transferred along with the hardware. That mess sounds more like an extortion racket.
There's an easy way to find out. Discontinue all the free listening to major artists on AM, FM, MTV etc, and see how those major artists' record and album sales do.
They're so you can upgrade from 7.2 to 6.2. Depending on exactly what version of what you are running, it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Seriously, RedHat is becoming pro-active, like OpenBSD and later FreeBSD, and closing up the hidey-holes where bugs and exploits might be lurking. If you want to compare security, look at how hard it is to find a new exploit. Microsoft Windows looks like it still has a lot of low-hanging fruit.
You can laugh or you can cry. Laughing's better. The situation is so ridulous that I've stopped worrying about keeping up with patches for a year or so. An up-to-date patched system is not fundamentally any safer than an old unpatched system, and considering things like "Really Safe Back Button", may well be even riskier. "Trustworthy computing". In a world where Microsoft Windows Me quickly recovers from deleting the software that runs worms and viruses, it's not gonna happen.
Disclaimer: I hate accounting, I do not believe in it, but they (accountants) do try and sometimes succeed in doing things right. Easiest way to see what's going on is to look at the expenditures as before tax dollars and after tax dollars. Depending on such as cash position and tax status, one after tax dollar can be worth two before tax dollars. Capital assets are bought with after tax dollars. Expenses are paid with before tax dollars. Essentially the difference is that if you buy an asset, you pay income tax on the asset until it has been depreciated. The total dollar effect is essentially a wash, but you pay now and get back later.
that add insult to injury. The effect is similar to someone misspelling or misusing obscure words. It impresses all right, but not the way intended. Maybe it's just me, but I find all the gizmos extremely irritating even when the do work right, too much like an accident looking for a place to happen. With vaious window sizes, font sizes, screen depth and resolution, you will have problems "supporting" even one browser. For web-apps, once PDAs become ubiquitous and internet enabled, targeting any one browser becomes suicidal.
Simply put, you name boxes, you number boxen. Ah, now it makes sense. Seems like boxen is a play on box like vaxen is (was) a play on vax, particularly a bunch of them.
Slashdot Mirror
DON'T EAT THAT PUDDING.
I do not know what leaky fingers do to pudding.
I do not want to know what leaky fingers do to pudding.
If everything else was simple, if everything else was easy, if everything else was entirely and exactly right, all you would need is an API. Maybe. Intel even managed to botch it for something as simple as binary floating point division. ..." EXACTLY. ..." ???
"That's generally not the situation
You are going to have your five 9's results depend on a mess of "... generally
IIRC some very early computer storage was CRT based.
Techtronics 4014 4096x3072 storage tube display (ancient cad systems) was readable.
"The source, after all, is the truest documentation of how the code works."
Counterexample.
The grand hack of a early C compiler, which would compile in a backdoor to login, was NOT in the source of login or in the source of the compiler.
The irrational mob gets introduced to the DC cops, thanks.
It takes very little media distortion or misinterpretation to make a mountain out of a molehill. You have things like the right to peaceable assembly (matter of interpretation as to what is peaceable) or anything that can be construed as police brutality. Calling the cops doesn't end the problem, it's likely to start it.
I would much prefer an API that is written well enough that I do not need to see the source to work out what is going on.
How many APIs, commercial or free, do you trust to that level?
I've seen, maybe, one. Vienna Definition Language to explain PL/I. Looked nasty enough to make algebraic topology look reasonable. The problem is that the API has to cover accurately all the edge and corner cases, which is never as simple or easy as it should be.
The source, after all, is the truest documentation of how the code works.
The truest is to trace out the machine states of what the code actually does. Long tedious and messy. To be avoided if at all possible, but sometimes what the code does and what it looks like are not the same thing. The difference between what the code does and what the API would lead you to believe can be rediculous. The source is the cheapest, most convenient, most accurate documentation you can get. The net effect is to get 1 or 2 more 9's reliability at almost no cost. (The reason 5 9's is "fabled" is that when that one-in-a-million freak does hit, you fix it, fast)
amateurs care more about their work than professionals
One point to consider is that if the amateur does not care, (s)he will most likely be doing something else.
You can get some interesting horse races between an amateur's enthusiasm and a professional's skill.
Ok, if you are a congresscritter, would you rather be faced with an irrational unreasonable mob, or some nice people that show reason and restraint?
There's nothing wrong with calm and rational, but for such as this, the burden of proof is on the other side. I don't even need a reason, rational or otherwise.
Enough yelling and screaming, they don't.
If we just quietly watch, they do.
Much easier to prevent than reverse a done deal.
Rationality and reason have nothing to do with it.
It's called FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
When will your Microsoft Windows XP box go bonkers and refuse to run because it thinks too many things have changed? Or the next Microsoft worm/virus decides to mess with the product activation?
Several people have more than one credit card.
Some pay cash sometimes, credit card other times.
There is enough variability to make invasive data mining difficult at best.
A lot of myprivacy comes from my neighbors' unpredictability.
Yeah, it's incorrect, but I got their point, and that's what counts.
Yes, but.
It's the difference between on target and close enough, between a program working correctly and kinda-sorta.
It raises reactions when it's almost, but not quite right, when "it's a diamond in the rough" has one smallish "rough".
Great point, BTW, and expressed eloquently. If it were weaker, nobody would care about the precise usage.
Where does it say permanently and irrevocably limited to ... ?
That's all they're doing now does not imply that's all they might do ever.
Since the OEM licensed software can only be legally used on the system it came with, the presumption should be that in the absence of something explicit to the contrary, all the licences were transferred along with the hardware.
That mess sounds more like an extortion racket.
There's an easy way to find out. Discontinue all the free listening to major artists on AM, FM, MTV etc, and see how those major artists' record and album sales do.
Snicker. Oh, you want a working patch.
;)
Ever wonder why Microsoft doesn't want exploit code published?
Should it be wehavethewayout^H^H^Hback.com
They're so you can upgrade from 7.2 to 6.2.
Depending on exactly what version of what you are running, it's not as ridiculous as it sounds.
Seriously, RedHat is becoming pro-active, like OpenBSD and later FreeBSD, and closing up the hidey-holes where bugs and exploits might be lurking.
If you want to compare security, look at how hard it is to find a new exploit. Microsoft Windows looks like it still has a lot of low-hanging fruit.
Microsoft Windows XS ;)
( for Xtra Secure
You can laugh or you can cry. Laughing's better.
The situation is so ridulous that I've stopped worrying about keeping up with patches for a year or so. An up-to-date patched system is not fundamentally any safer than an old unpatched system, and considering things like "Really Safe Back Button", may well be even riskier.
"Trustworthy computing". In a world where Microsoft Windows Me quickly recovers from deleting the software that runs worms and viruses, it's not gonna happen.
Personally I prefer E:\WINNT where D: is the CD-ROM. ;)
It also messes with some stuff you don't really want running.
One more degree of separation
Disclaimer: I hate accounting, I do not believe in it, but they (accountants) do try and sometimes succeed in doing things right.
Easiest way to see what's going on is to look at the expenditures as before tax dollars and after tax dollars. Depending on such as cash position and tax status, one after tax dollar can be worth two before tax dollars. Capital assets are bought with after tax dollars. Expenses are paid with before tax dollars.
Essentially the difference is that if you buy an asset, you pay income tax on the asset until it has been depreciated. The total dollar effect is essentially a wash, but you pay now and get back later.
that add insult to injury. The effect is similar to someone misspelling or misusing obscure words. It impresses all right, but not the way intended. Maybe it's just me, but I find all the gizmos extremely irritating even when the do work right, too much like an accident looking for a place to happen.
With vaious window sizes, font sizes, screen depth and resolution, you will have problems "supporting" even one browser.
For web-apps, once PDAs become ubiquitous and internet enabled, targeting any one browser becomes suicidal.
I was thinking of vixen being the plural to fox, but oxen as the plural of ox seems more apropos to the idea of boxen as the plural of box.
Simply put, you name boxes, you number boxen.
Ah, now it makes sense. Seems like boxen is a play on box like vaxen is (was) a play on vax, particularly a bunch of them.
"put other *unix* boxes to /dev/null"
It's rather blatant flamage, but it changes the implicit question from "PC or Mac?" to "Which unix?".