And the fact that programming has the least sense of professional responsibility of any profession I can think of, even less than lawyers. (Gasp! But it's generally true.)
Hey! I honestly resent that remark. I have not one but two codes of ethics that I adhere to strictly. I know that the majority of programmers out there are only in it for the money, but I am not.
I hold myself as having more of a burden than almost any other profession, because let's face it: while a surgeon can maim one person at a time on the operating table, the nature of software makes it so that everything I do can affect the lives of hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions.
Don't need AV software. To answer your question, "what kind of idiot runs mailservers without AV software installed?" I say: the kind of administrators who don't need it. Believe it or not, some of us actually use a non Microsoft platform. I feel no pity for those who use Microsoft products willingly. They are digging their own hole.
. . . and supposedly you are supposed to be kicked out if you break them. See ACM's code of Ethics and IEEE's code of Ethics. There is a third one around somewhere that is made jointly by IEEE-CS and ACM, but I can' remember the URL (I think someone else posted it already).
As for what I think of them, since I am a member of ACM and IEEE, I stand by them. This may sound a little idealistic; I believe I am just being realistic and trying to set an example for the rest of industry. And for those that say "good luck getting a job", think about a couple of things: 1) If enough people do it, it will work and 2) I work for the US government. One of the big things is that you have to be responsible with your client's (the military) information, or else you are fired and put on trial for treason. A bit ironic that the US government is leading the way in this area.
On a side note, I think it would be great if we could create an organization that functioned as both a union/lobbying group and one that certified people and held them to a higher standard of ethics and excellence. It might seem like it would be too hard for one group to cover so many goals, but think of the power that group would have if it worked: Want good software that doesn't violate people's rights? Then treat us with respect!
. . . although it was originally going to be for my consulting business that flopped. I haven't really done a whole lot with it recently, but it is really nice to have your own server that you have root on.
As for bandwidth fees, I'm sorry, but you are just not going to be able to avoid them. Even if you get your own T1, you will still be paying for it. My recommendation is to look around for really cheap colocation (what I'm doing), set it up and administer it remotely. Then YOU have total control over the server and your only limitations are bandwidth and the law.
...Microsoft, sensing that they can copy another great idea, changed its EULA today to uninstall Linux when any of its software is run on a machine in the same building.
You think this is funny. Did you ever try running OS/2 on the same hard drive as Windows 95/98 for any period of time? Windows would trash any OS/2 partitions it found!
Microsoft won't lose this. They have far more plans for this system than a simple game console. Give them another year to get even more good games out and we'll see what happens.
Like, selling an addon for $30 that comes with the PS2 for free?
It's been said before, but I'll say it again: the XBox is going to fail, for a number of good reasons, not the least of which are that the PS2 is three times as useful as an XBox (it plays PSOne games, PS2 games and DVDs out of the box).
Sure, the XBox may have better hardware. But is that really going to make a difference to the majority of people who will be running it on a shitty TV with shitty sound? In case you are thinking that there is a large market for high end consoles and the XBox will prevail, let me remind you of the NeoGeo . . .
. . . with barely a year's experience after college, and being laid off in the middle of the tech recession. It took me more than half a year to find a new job, and it's government. Not that I'm whining; but I'd just like to point out that it's a bitch getting a job when everyone wants "5+ years experience in environment that came out last year" and all you have is basically nothing in experience. Do I know what I'm doing? Those who know me would generally say yes, but does that matter to these idiot MBAs?
Yeah, I have a pretty beatup PowerBook G3 (a wallstreet, I believe). Works
beautifully under Linux, except for a few noted exceptions (which are really
hardware problems):
1) Only one mouse button. You might think this doesn't matter. Well, just
try using only one mouse button on your desktop Linux box for a week. Can't
do it, can you? Two mouse buttons are really essential to running under
Xwindows.
2) It's dying. The power management unit is faulty, so every once in a
while it justs turns itself off. No warning, just blank screen off.
3) Doesn't like my PCMCIA NICs. Even though it has a NIC built in, it's
only 10bT. I like 100bT:) But my PowerBook doesn't like my cheap ass
noname brand NICs which work fine on other platforms (Alpha and ia32
included).
4) Screen blanking kills X. The best power saving feature in the world, and
it doesn't work. Everytime my screen blanks, it kills my Xwindows session.
Other than that, the machine's a beaut. Not the fastest or top of the line,
but considering it was made about 1997-1998, it does pretty decently. It's
also a little heavy (I'm guesstimating about 7lbs. with a battery in each
bay), but us geeks could always use some excercise.
This saying rings very true, I think. You may claim not to hate C or C++, and I agree that you probably do not openly dislike them. But deep down inside, I think you despise the thought of programming in either of these languages because it makes you have to think. C and C++ don't allow you to just gloss over the details and assume that "the compiler will take care of it". Anyway, enough with ad hominem attacks, let me get on to the real crux of my disproof of your ridiculous argument.
First, because a large amount of system software is written in C and C++ there will obviously be more system software with bugs written in C and C++ than other programming languages. Buggy, insecure code can be written in any language. Good, secure code can be written in C and C++, it just takes someone who is truly qualified to do so, not some loser IT with an MCSE to be able to do it. Just look at OpenBSD, it's written in C.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that we trust our computer security, privacy and even lives to something as hideous as Java? Or another one of the "new and improvised" programming languages that seems to allow script kiddies whole new ways of breaking your system? Were you awake for the last half a decade? How many more Melissa viruses will it take to convince you that just about any language _other_ than C doesn't have what it takes to do reasonable security? Sure, Java may have it's sandbox, but the walls holding the sand in seem to be made out of paper.
So basically I guess what I'm trying to say is C and C++ are just fine, if not much better, for programming secure software than other programming languages. We need to improve the programmers, not the programming languages. It's time to stop coddling software engineers and teach them what responsible programming really means. Courses on secure programming (in any language), and zero defect software design should be required curriculum for _anyone_ writing _any_ software. If you don't know how to program well, your software is junk and should be deleted immediately.
Yeah, that makes me wonder why they didn't have a previous article entitled "Hubble observes large fart".
And remember, in space, no one can hear you fart.
Re:Privacy is dead: welcome to the Internet
on
The Eroded Self
·
· Score: 3
i wholeheartedly agree! i've been thinking about this subject for some time myself and i keep asking myself "if openness in software leads to better software, wouldn't openness in other areas lead to those areas improving?" Think about it: what if we knew _everything_ that our politicians and public servants did? No more wondering what the NSA is doing behind our back.
What if everything _we_ did was open to scrutiny not just by police and judges and juries, but the entire world? Much less crime, that's for sure. i seem to remember a story a while back about a city where they had cameras installed to watch for crime, but _anyone_ was allowed to watch the output of the cameras, not just the police. This led to the crime rate going down immensely.
In any interpersonal relationship, openness and honesty are what keep the relationship going. If you don't let the other person know how you feel, or you lie to them in some other way, that relationship will not last very long, and it won't be very enjoyable for either person.
i'm beginning to think that privacy is just a made up thing like intellectual property. Natural law doesn't guarantee us privacy any more than it guarantees that we have the right to copyright a work of art or patent an algorithm.
For those of you who saw the subject of this post and thought "WRONG!!", here me out. i can think of several very good reasons why printed manuals will (and should) quickly be superseded by soft copy:
Searchability - sure, it's been said before, but i'll say it again. It's very hard to search most large volumes of text by hand. Even indices in modern printed books aren't all that helpful. You still have to search the index for what you want to find. With better search techniques being researched everyday, and "intelligent" systems offering the added bonus of finding things better than traditional searches, indices and tables of contents just don't compare. Hyperlinking - This is one of the greatest benefits of online manuals over hardcopy. Just the other day i was reading a textbook for a philosophy class which had an abundance of footnotes. Every time i wanted to read a footnote, i had to flip to the back of the book and flip through about thirty other pages of footnotes just to find the current one i was interested in. If it had been a book in HTML, i could have simply clicked on the footnote and it would have taken me immediately to the reference. Physical space - i'm still a college student, so i move around a lot. Having to pack up, then cart over 100 pounds of books is not a task i look forward to. On the other hand, the entire Project Gutenberg, bzipped, fits on a single CDROM. Usability - Some would counter that a manual is still necessary for first installation and setup, or when something goes wrong. i would counter that if computers were designed properly (software and hardware) then you wouldn't need much more than a sheet that shows where to plug in cables and where the power button is. Also, if you design the system properly, nothing should go wrong. i'm not saying that computer manufacturers should attempt to develop the perfect computer; that's impossible. But, at the very least, software engineers should make their software stable and robust with very obvious ways to get online help. The only reason some people complain that paper books are easier to use is that they are. If we design computers better, there would be no need for paper books.
Those are just my opinions, i'd like to hear if others have other good reasons for or against hard copy documentation.
i must say, i find your point of view rather sickening. Not in it's entirety of course; i will agree with you that there are some people out there who are greedy and abuse the system. They will always be there, and the best you can do is avoid them and ignore them. But some of us could care less about Microsoft. Again, they are just another entity that only exists to abuse the system and get rich off of it; ergo, i ignore them.
As for me, there is a really good reason i am going to graduate school. i could be making a lot of money in the real world. But i don't care about money. i don't care about politics. i care about code. i'm in this industry because it interests me. i write code not because i want to trample Microsoft into oblivion. i write code because i think i can do it better or because what i am writing doesn't exist already.
What i'm trying to say is, don't judge the whole based on a few. Don't lump me in with all those Microsoft bashers. The reason i don't use Microsoft software is not political; it's because better software exists.
Isn't a LART a Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool? i've already got one of those! It's about a meter long and some (confused) people like to call it a "baseball bat".
It looks like it's not really a kit that let's you write drivers specifically for each different kernel, but rather you write user level code for a kernel module that adds the appropriate interface. This leads to a couple of problems, most of which are addressed by Linus' chapter in "Open Sources".
Here's a brief overview of the problems i see with this:
Loss of speed because it's not in the kernel
Adding another interface to the kernel
Possible security holes might be added this way
Of course, it would be nice to be able to just grab the DLL for the latest hardware and use it on both the Windows and Linux side. One has to wonder, though, how well this works on other platforms (ie Alpha, Sparc, and PPC).
Being a programmer, i find it hard to write documentation, much less good documenation. i have always seen packages that take source and turns it into documents (like cxref) and wondered if they are really worth using, or if i should just stick with SGML. Do you have any thoughts on systems such as these?
i know i'm only supposed to ask one question per post, but as a followup, are there any really good documentation systems you recommend? SGML and LaTeX are nice, but are very often inflexible and obfuscated. Usually when i want to make portable docs with graphics i just whip out one of my standard HTML templates and go to town.
I have nothing wrong with BSD. I've never used it personally, and since Linux fits my needs right now, I'm not bloody well likely to anytime soon. I admire it for what it is and it's development model. What I'm tired of is hearing this crap from *BSD users who usually appear to have this "holier than thou" tone about their OS.
So what's wrong with Linux? Can you point out specific details? And, excuse me for cutting away the BS, but I don't care about how *BSD does it right or wrong (except to learn from it); I care about what's wrong with Linux so that I can fix it.
So, after much thought, I've decided that one of the major ways to cut out the credible allegations against Linux is to do a thorough audit of the code, starting with the kernel and working my way up, just like they did with OpenBSD. Although I'd like to focus primarily on security bugs, I would be open to fixing and improving (read: make more efficient) the code wherever possible.
I have been studying the security patches for OpenBSD for the past couple of months, but I am still not entirely clear on what to look for when doing security auditing. I am aware of Zero-Defect software design techniques, but in my opinion, these would not be easily applied considering that most of the code has already been written and we'd have to write specs to the code then check that the specs are correct. So, I guess basically what I'm asking is, can anyone help me? Can you point me to good documentation on code auditing and making code secure? Also, is there anyone interested in this like I am?
Maybe most computer professionals consider Microsoft sotware a waste of time. Perhaps the time put into Microsoft software could be better used to improve Linux (and other opens source software).
I for one believe that Microsoft software is a sinking boat that should be abandoned. In more commercial terms, if Linux and Windows were commercial OSes produced by the same company, Windows would have been dropped a long time ago because it is a losing investment. Why waste time taking all the bugs out of outdated software when you could be improving and enhancing a much more powerful, stable and bug-free product?
------------------------------------------------ for a good time, `finger npsimons@nmt.edu | less`
Maybe most computer professionals consider Microsoft sotware a waste of time. Perhaps the time put into Microsoft software could be better used to improve Linux (and other opens source software).
I for one believe that Microsoft software is a sinking boat that should be abandoned. In more commercial terms, if Linux and Windows were commercial OSes produced by the same company, Windows would have been dropped a long time ago because it is a losing investment. Why waste time taking all the bugs out of outdated software when you could be improving and enhancing a much more powerful, stable and bug-free product?
------------------------------------------------ for a good time, `finger npsimons@nmt.edu | less` ________________________________________________
You know, I would take the time to construct an intelligent and insightful response to this article, but I am too busy studying to get my CS degree and working on programming projects of my own.
But seriously, even though LOC doesn't mean jack in terms of programmer productivity, people from other countries are going to work harder because it might give them a chance to live in the US. Once they come to the US and become Americanized, they will become "lazy". Why work harder when you can do less and still live at a relatively high standard of living?
Not to mention the fact that laziness is often the stimulus for invention or efficiency. If you don't understand what I mean, try looking up a story from the novel "Time Enough for Love" by Robert A. Heinlein. The story is the one about "The Man who was so Lazy he Couldn't Fail."
Lastly, I would be the first to point out tha patriotism and nationalism are rarely useful and more often destructive (in the long term). We're all programmers/hackers. If we love to program and hack, and we do it well (and not just write more lines of code than other hackers), what difference does it make what country we are from?
Boy, I've seen a lot of ignorant comments here (most of which are well worded, mind you). Most of them fall into the following categories:
1) It's not Microsoft's fault. 2) Lynch the bastard! (the guy who made the virus) 3) See? GUID's are good!
Let's rationally evaluate these ideas, shall we?
1) "It's not Microsoft's fault."
Of course it isn't Microsoft's fault. Not completely. But when you have a software product (of any sort) and you find a major flaw in it, you fix it dammit. If something like this were to occur in the Linux or BSD kernel (or probably any free software in general) the feature would be disabled until it could be fixed. In fact I can almost guarantee that if someone persisted in including said feature, they would be virtually cut off from the rest of the community and no one else would use it.
So why are people still using Microsofts products? Are they stupid? Stubborn? I don't know, I just know that I don't use their products. But I am still affected. This is really annoying because it doesn't just affect Microsoft users, it crashes mail servers that are run on *N*Xes! So what's the solution? 1) Bug Microsoft until they fix it (ha!) 2) Don't use software with these problems
2) "Lynch the bastard!" (the guy who made the virus)
No. Plain and simply, no. People don't deserve to be killed for this. If you are going to lynch him, you might as well lynch all the people that were stupid enough to allow this to happen (by autoexecing programs and having macros turned on in Word or for even using MS products), and lynch Microsoft.
This person is obviously smart. He was able to think up this virus and distribute it. But he wasn't smart enough. He allowed the GUID to remain in the document so he could be tracked. He was also stupid enough to distribute the virus (whether by accident or not).
Writing viruses is illegal, which I disagree with. People should be allowed to write viruses for research purposes. People should be allowed to crack security on their own system for research purposes. However, if someone distributes a virus with malicious intent, then and only then should they be prosecuted. In case you can't see why research is a Good Thing and should be allowed when it does not cause harm, then you won't understand, so you might as well skip to the next part.
Research needs to be done so that holes and vulnerabilities can be found and fixed. People need to learn so they can write better anti-virus software. Security is best practiced as a preventitive measure, not a last minute fix to problems that your enemies found and used against you.
3) "See? GUID's are good!"
Again, no. Plain and simply, no. Someone here mentioned how the government already has private data on you. Well, the government doesn't bombard you with advertisements or sell that data to anyone else, now do they? We also have control over our government. When we say "jump" they say "how high?". I'd like to see you get that sort of responsibility and commitment out of a company. I'm not saying I completely trust government, but at least their motivation isn't always trying to steal my money.
Not only that, but in my opinion, GUID's are useless for tracking illegal activities. There are probably a zillion ways to change the GUID. If the person is smart enough, they will find a way around it. For example, I could write a macro virus, copy a document from a friend, then stick that macro virus in the document and distribute it. Or, better yet, I could write the macro virus so that it changes the GUID each time it get sent!
I've seen a lot of people using the car/computer analogy here (a bad analogy, probably encouraged by the "Information Superhighway" catchphrase) and what amazes me is that they use it to justify user ignorance/apathy.
Let's try taking that analogy and turning it around:
A person who has never driven a car before goes to a car dealership. The car dealer sells them a car and tells them they should read the manual and take good care of it. The car "user" thinks "it can't be that hard" and promptly drives the car (if they can even figure out how to get it started) off the lot and into the path of an oncoming semi.
I'm not saying that every computer user should be an expert in the field, but they should at least know how to use the computer. I can't stand it when people ask me a question that could be easily answered just by looking it up in the manual or if they had taken a basic computer course.
I believe that computers will become common tools, like the car and pen and paper, but I also believe that they will require some training like a car and pen and paper.
------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Nathan Paul Simons | "For a good time, 'finger http://www.nmt.edu/~npsimons | npsimons@rainbow.nmt.edu | less'" ------------------------------------------------ ------------------
"The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for computing than it is for other tools (e.g. automobiles, airplanes, guns, power saws)." -- Doug Gwyn
I firmly believe that this is entirely true of any computer system. Even with systems like the one on Star Trek, you have to learn which words and phrases will be accepted by the computer. Even MacOS, which Apple loves to claim is "completely natural" an easy to use even for a first time computer user, is not. I've seen people with PhDs struggle with the fact that when you open a program under MacOS, it isn't always obvious that the program is running (ie, ResEdit doesn't even bring up a window, it only changes the menubar at the top of the screen).
With all this being said, I'd like to end with one last quote:
IBM Pollyanna Principle: Machines should work. People should think.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! I honestly resent that remark. I have not one but two codes of ethics that I adhere to strictly. I know that the majority of programmers out there are only in it for the money, but I am not.
I hold myself as having more of a burden than almost any other profession, because let's face it: while a surgeon can maim one person at a time on the operating table, the nature of software makes it so that everything I do can affect the lives of hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions.
Don't need AV software. To answer your question, "what kind of idiot runs mailservers without AV software installed?" I say: the kind of administrators who don't need it. Believe it or not, some of us actually use a non Microsoft platform. I feel no pity for those who use Microsoft products willingly. They are digging their own hole.
As for what I think of them, since I am a member of ACM and IEEE, I stand by them. This may sound a little idealistic; I believe I am just being realistic and trying to set an example for the rest of industry. And for those that say "good luck getting a job", think about a couple of things: 1) If enough people do it, it will work and 2) I work for the US government. One of the big things is that you have to be responsible with your client's (the military) information, or else you are fired and put on trial for treason. A bit ironic that the US government is leading the way in this area.
On a side note, I think it would be great if we could create an organization that functioned as both a union/lobbying group and one that certified people and held them to a higher standard of ethics and excellence. It might seem like it would be too hard for one group to cover so many goals, but think of the power that group would have if it worked: Want good software that doesn't violate people's rights? Then treat us with respect!
As for bandwidth fees, I'm sorry, but you are just not going to be able to avoid them. Even if you get your own T1, you will still be paying for it. My recommendation is to look around for really cheap colocation (what I'm doing), set it up and administer it remotely. Then YOU have total control over the server and your only limitations are bandwidth and the law.
You think this is funny. Did you ever try running OS/2 on the same hard drive as Windows 95/98 for any period of time? Windows would trash any OS/2 partitions it found!
Like, selling an addon for $30 that comes with the PS2 for free?
It's been said before, but I'll say it again: the XBox is going to fail, for a number of good reasons, not the least of which are that the PS2 is three times as useful as an XBox (it plays PSOne games, PS2 games and DVDs out of the box).
Sure, the XBox may have better hardware. But is that really going to make a difference to the majority of people who will be running it on a shitty TV with shitty sound? In case you are thinking that there is a large market for high end consoles and the XBox will prevail, let me remind you of the NeoGeo . . .
. . . with barely a year's experience after college, and being laid off in the middle of the tech recession. It took me more than half a year to find a new job, and it's government. Not that I'm whining; but I'd just like to point out that it's a bitch getting a job when everyone wants "5+ years experience in environment that came out last year" and all you have is basically nothing in experience. Do I know what I'm doing? Those who know me would generally say yes, but does that matter to these idiot MBAs?
A: No. Next question.
Yeah, I have a pretty beatup PowerBook G3 (a wallstreet, I believe). Works
:) But my PowerBook doesn't like my cheap ass
beautifully under Linux, except for a few noted exceptions (which are really
hardware problems):
1) Only one mouse button. You might think this doesn't matter. Well, just
try using only one mouse button on your desktop Linux box for a week. Can't
do it, can you? Two mouse buttons are really essential to running under
Xwindows.
2) It's dying. The power management unit is faulty, so every once in a
while it justs turns itself off. No warning, just blank screen off.
3) Doesn't like my PCMCIA NICs. Even though it has a NIC built in, it's
only 10bT. I like 100bT
noname brand NICs which work fine on other platforms (Alpha and ia32
included).
4) Screen blanking kills X. The best power saving feature in the world, and
it doesn't work. Everytime my screen blanks, it kills my Xwindows session.
Other than that, the machine's a beaut. Not the fastest or top of the line,
but considering it was made about 1997-1998, it does pretty decently. It's
also a little heavy (I'm guesstimating about 7lbs. with a battery in each
bay), but us geeks could always use some excercise.
"Only a bad carpenter blames his tools"
,
This saying rings very true, I think. You may claim not to hate C or C++
and I agree that you probably do not openly dislike them. But deep down
inside, I think you despise the thought of programming in either of these
languages because it makes you have to think. C and C++ don't allow you to
just gloss over the details and assume that "the compiler will take care of
it". Anyway, enough with ad hominem attacks, let me get on to the real crux
of my disproof of your ridiculous argument.
First, because a large amount of system software is written in C and C++ there
will obviously be more system software with bugs written in C and C++ than
other programming languages. Buggy, insecure code can be written in any
language. Good, secure code can be written in C and C++, it just takes
someone who is truly qualified to do so, not some loser IT with an MCSE to be
able to do it. Just look at OpenBSD, it's written in C.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that we trust our computer security,
privacy and even lives to something as hideous as Java? Or another one of the
"new and improvised" programming languages that seems to allow script kiddies
whole new ways of breaking your system? Were you awake for the last half a
decade? How many more Melissa viruses will it take to convince you that just
about any language _other_ than C doesn't have what it takes to do reasonable
security? Sure, Java may have it's sandbox, but the walls holding the sand in
seem to be made out of paper.
So basically I guess what I'm trying to say is C and C++ are just fine, if not
much better, for programming secure software than other programming languages.
We need to improve the programmers, not the programming languages. It's time
to stop coddling software engineers and teach them what responsible
programming really means. Courses on secure programming (in any language),
and zero defect software design should be required curriculum for _anyone_
writing _any_ software. If you don't know how to program well, your software
is junk and should be deleted immediately.
And remember, in space, no one can hear you fart.
i wholeheartedly agree! i've been thinking about this subject for some time myself and i keep asking myself "if openness in software leads to better software, wouldn't openness in other areas lead to those areas improving?" Think about it: what if we knew _everything_ that our politicians and public servants did? No more wondering what the NSA is doing behind our back.
What if everything _we_ did was open to scrutiny not just by police and judges and juries, but the entire world? Much less crime, that's for sure. i seem to remember a story a while back about a city where they had cameras installed to watch for crime, but _anyone_ was allowed to watch the output of the cameras, not just the police. This led to the crime rate going down immensely.
In any interpersonal relationship, openness and honesty are what keep the relationship going. If you don't let the other person know how you feel, or you lie to them in some other way, that relationship will not last very long, and it won't be very enjoyable for either person.
i'm beginning to think that privacy is just a made up thing like intellectual property. Natural law doesn't guarantee us privacy any more than it guarantees that we have the right to copyright a work of art or patent an algorithm.
For those of you who saw the subject of this post and thought "WRONG!!", here me out. i can think of several very good reasons why printed manuals will (and should) quickly be superseded by soft copy:
Searchability - sure, it's been said before, but i'll say it again. It's very hard to search most large volumes of text by hand. Even indices in modern printed books aren't all that helpful. You still have to search the index for what you want to find. With better search techniques being researched everyday, and "intelligent" systems offering the added bonus of finding things better than traditional searches, indices and tables of contents just don't compare.
Hyperlinking - This is one of the greatest benefits of online manuals over hardcopy. Just the other day i was reading a textbook for a philosophy class which had an abundance of footnotes. Every time i wanted to read a footnote, i had to flip to the back of the book and flip through about thirty other pages of footnotes just to find the current one i was interested in. If it had been a book in HTML, i could have simply clicked on the footnote and it would have taken me immediately to the reference.
Physical space - i'm still a college student, so i move around a lot. Having to pack up, then cart over 100 pounds of books is not a task i look forward to. On the other hand, the entire Project Gutenberg, bzipped, fits on a single CDROM.
Usability - Some would counter that a manual is still necessary for first installation and setup, or when something goes wrong. i would counter that if computers were designed properly (software and hardware) then you wouldn't need much more than a sheet that shows where to plug in cables and where the power button is. Also, if you design the system properly, nothing should go wrong. i'm not saying that computer manufacturers should attempt to develop the perfect computer; that's impossible. But, at the very least, software engineers should make their software stable and robust with very obvious ways to get online help. The only reason some people complain that paper books are easier to use is that they are. If we design computers better, there would be no need for paper books.
Those are just my opinions, i'd like to hear if others have other good reasons for or against hard copy documentation.
As for me, there is a really good reason i am going to graduate school. i could be making a lot of money in the real world. But i don't care about money. i don't care about politics. i care about code. i'm in this industry because it interests me. i write code not because i want to trample Microsoft into oblivion. i write code because i think i can do it better or because what i am writing doesn't exist already.
What i'm trying to say is, don't judge the whole based on a few. Don't lump me in with all those Microsoft bashers. The reason i don't use Microsoft software is not political; it's because better software exists.
Isn't a LART a Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool? i've already got one of those! It's about a meter long and some (confused) people like to call it a "baseball bat".
Here's a brief overview of the problems i see with this:
- Loss of speed because it's not in the kernel
- Adding another interface to the kernel
- Possible security holes might be added this way
Of course, it would be nice to be able to just grab the DLL for the latest hardware and use it on both the Windows and Linux side. One has to wonder, though, how well this works on other platforms (ie Alpha, Sparc, and PPC).Being a programmer, i find it hard to write documentation, much less good documenation. i have always seen packages that take source and turns it into documents (like cxref) and wondered if they are really worth using, or if i should just stick with SGML. Do you have any thoughts on systems such as these?
i know i'm only supposed to ask one question per post, but as a followup, are there any really good documentation systems you recommend? SGML and LaTeX are nice, but are very often inflexible and obfuscated. Usually when i want to make portable docs with graphics i just whip out one of my standard HTML templates and go to town.
So what's wrong with Linux? Can you point out specific details? And, excuse me for cutting away the BS, but I don't care about how *BSD does it right or wrong (except to learn from it); I care about what's wrong with Linux so that I can fix it.
So, after much thought, I've decided that one of the major ways to cut out the credible allegations against Linux is to do a thorough audit of the code, starting with the kernel and working my way up, just like they did with OpenBSD. Although I'd like to focus primarily on security bugs, I would be open to fixing and improving (read: make more efficient) the code wherever possible.
I have been studying the security patches for OpenBSD for the past couple of months, but I am still not entirely clear on what to look for when doing security auditing. I am aware of Zero-Defect software design techniques, but in my opinion, these would not be easily applied considering that most of the code has already been written and we'd have to write specs to the code then check that the specs are correct. So, I guess basically what I'm asking is, can anyone help me? Can you point me to good documentation on code auditing and making code secure? Also, is there anyone interested in this like I am?
Maybe most computer professionals consider Microsoft sotware a waste of time. Perhaps the time put into Microsoft software could be better used to improve Linux (and other opens source software).
-
I for one believe that Microsoft software is a sinking boat that should be abandoned. In more commercial terms, if Linux and Windows were commercial OSes produced by the same company, Windows would have been dropped a long time ago because it is a losing investment. Why waste time taking all the bugs out of outdated software when you could be improving and enhancing a much more powerful, stable and bug-free product?
-----------------------------------------------
for a good time, `finger npsimons@nmt.edu | less`
Maybe most computer professionals consider Microsoft sotware a waste of time. Perhaps the time put into Microsoft software could be better used to improve Linux (and other opens source software).
- _
I for one believe that Microsoft software is a sinking boat that should be abandoned. In more commercial terms, if Linux and Windows were commercial OSes produced by the same company, Windows would have been dropped a long time ago because it is a losing investment. Why waste time taking all the bugs out of outdated software when you could be improving and enhancing a much more powerful, stable and bug-free product?
-----------------------------------------------
for a good time, `finger npsimons@nmt.edu | less`
_______________________________________________
You know, I would take the time to construct an intelligent and insightful response to this article, but I am too busy studying to get my CS degree and working on programming projects of my own.
But seriously, even though LOC doesn't mean jack in terms of programmer productivity, people from other countries are going to work harder because it might give them a chance to live in the US. Once they come to the US and become Americanized, they will become "lazy". Why work harder when you can do less and still live at a relatively high standard of living?
Not to mention the fact that laziness is often the stimulus for invention or efficiency. If you don't understand what I mean, try looking up a story from the novel "Time Enough for Love" by Robert A. Heinlein. The story is the one about "The Man who was so Lazy he Couldn't Fail."
Lastly, I would be the first to point out tha patriotism and nationalism are rarely useful and more often destructive (in the long term). We're all programmers/hackers. If we love to program and hack, and we do it well (and not just write more lines of code than other hackers), what difference does it make what country we are from?
Boy, I've seen a lot of ignorant comments here (most of which are well worded, mind you). Most of them fall into the following categories:
1) It's not Microsoft's fault.
2) Lynch the bastard! (the guy who made the virus)
3) See? GUID's are good!
Let's rationally evaluate these ideas, shall we?
1) "It's not Microsoft's fault."
Of course it isn't Microsoft's fault. Not completely. But when you have a software product (of any sort) and you find a major flaw in it, you fix it dammit. If something like this were to occur in the Linux or BSD kernel (or probably any free software in general) the feature would be disabled until it could be fixed. In fact I can almost guarantee that if someone persisted in including said feature, they would be virtually cut off from the rest of the community and no one else would use it.
So why are people still using Microsofts products? Are they stupid? Stubborn? I don't know, I just know that I don't use their products. But I am still affected. This is really annoying because it doesn't just affect Microsoft users, it crashes mail servers that are run on *N*Xes! So what's the solution?
1) Bug Microsoft until they fix it (ha!)
2) Don't use software with these problems
2) "Lynch the bastard!" (the guy who made the virus)
No. Plain and simply, no. People don't deserve to be killed for this. If you are going to lynch him, you might as well lynch all the people that were stupid enough to allow this to happen (by autoexecing programs and having macros turned on in Word or for even using MS products), and lynch Microsoft.
This person is obviously smart. He was able to think up this virus and distribute it. But he wasn't smart enough. He allowed the GUID to remain in the document so he could be tracked. He was also stupid enough to distribute the virus (whether by accident or not).
Writing viruses is illegal, which I disagree with. People should be allowed to write viruses for research purposes. People should be allowed to crack security on their own system for research purposes. However, if someone distributes a virus with malicious intent, then and only then should they be prosecuted. In case you can't see why research is a Good Thing and should be allowed when it does not cause harm, then you won't understand, so you might as well skip to the next part.
Research needs to be done so that holes and vulnerabilities can be found and fixed. People need to learn so they can write better anti-virus software. Security is best practiced as a preventitive measure, not a last minute fix to problems that your enemies found and used against you.
3) "See? GUID's are good!"
Again, no. Plain and simply, no. Someone here mentioned how the government already has private data on you. Well, the government doesn't bombard you with advertisements or sell that data to anyone else, now do they? We also have control over our government. When we say "jump" they say "how high?". I'd like to see you get that sort of responsibility and commitment out of a company. I'm not saying I completely trust government, but at least their motivation isn't always trying to steal my money.
Not only that, but in my opinion, GUID's are useless for tracking illegal activities. There are probably a zillion ways to change the GUID. If the person is smart enough, they will find a way around it. For example, I could write a macro virus, copy a document from a friend, then stick that macro virus in the document and distribute it. Or, better yet, I could write the macro virus so that it changes the GUID each time it get sent!
Just my $0.02
I've seen a lot of people using the car/computer analogy here (a bad analogy, probably encouraged by the "Information Superhighway" catchphrase) and what amazes me is that they use it to justify user ignorance/apathy.
- ------------------ - ------------------
Let's try taking that analogy and turning it around:
A person who has never driven a car before goes to a car dealership. The car dealer sells them a car and tells them they should read the manual and take good care of it. The car "user" thinks "it can't be that hard" and promptly drives the car (if they can even figure out how to get it started) off the lot and into the path of an oncoming semi.
I'm not saying that every computer user should be an expert in the field, but they should at least know how to use the computer. I can't stand it when people ask me a question that could be easily answered just by looking it up in the manual or if they had taken a basic computer course.
I believe that computers will become common tools, like the car and pen and paper, but I also believe that they will require some training like a car and pen and paper.
-----------------------------------------------
Nathan Paul Simons | "For a good time, 'finger
http://www.nmt.edu/~npsimons | npsimons@rainbow.nmt.edu | less'"
-----------------------------------------------
"The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for computing than it is for other tools (e.g. automobiles, airplanes, guns, power saws)."
-- Doug Gwyn
I firmly believe that this is entirely true of any computer system. Even with systems like the one on Star Trek, you have to learn which words and phrases will be accepted by the computer. Even MacOS, which Apple loves to claim is "completely natural" an easy to use even for a first time computer user, is not. I've seen people with PhDs struggle with the fact that when you open a program under MacOS, it isn't always obvious that the program is running (ie, ResEdit doesn't even bring up a window, it only changes the menubar at the top of the screen).
With all this being said, I'd like to end with one last quote:
IBM Pollyanna Principle:
Machines should work. People should think.