I am aware of the problems of automatic parallelization with current methods (and I did not state 'automatic'). If there was a simple/simplistic solution I would like to post it here (but I don't know one).
Your statements have so many assumptions (and not all are true) that you make it hard for yourself to find a solution. Imho one has to think simple to find solutions to hard problems.
Rewriting all software in the world using Erlang will not happen. It is not about a rewrite of the world imho, it is about the possible path, starting where we are now, to a new situation.
My opinion is that you should not require software to be parallelized from the start. You parallelize it during runtime or at compile time.
This makes sense because parallelization does not add anything in functionality (the outcome should not change). My point is: program functionality and configure/compile parallelization afterwards (possibly by power-users). There could be a unique selling point for open source: parallel performance because you can recompile.
The link that googlebot visits is not public (it is not even valid, nor will it ever be). I know google scrapes and tries to see where it leads to. I therefor asked Google about the origins (because I'm very interested in people munging my urls).
This specific url for our cms is sent via email and the specific page only knows 1 command: view (and all other commands are invalid). It then redirects you somewhere else (it is an url shortening service for our cms).
Why is everybody so full of expectations of how a CMS should work?
We send links via email. These links prefill forms. We do not expect these links to be published. They are, however (no problem with that). I just wanted to know what the origin was of the link because it was garbled in a way that does not make sense. I asked about the origins because these garbled requests are very rare and I am security minded. Google doesn't care (: back where we started).
No we don't get a spew of messages. Google is the only one. FWIW: I wanted to know the origin of the link they requested and they did not bother to reply.
It is not one of my worries: I mentioned Googles response policy and this is an example.
It does not matter if you are a bot or not. I would find it very interesting if my sql injection attacks can be executed by Google. I would just make a page with links which Google would follow so I would not have to make the illegal GET's myself to see if there are vulnerabilities.
Did I mention the link was not found in Google itself?
Google doesn't respond to its own abuse either. Via their cache they often do requests (to check if the pages still exist?) on our servers. These sometimes trigger our www-burglar-alarm (they actually do something that is not allowed). When you send an abuse mailing you never hear again.
Slashdot Mirror
In a 'new' situation I agree with your statements. The problem is the old repository of code.
I am aware of the problems of automatic parallelization with current methods (and I did not state 'automatic'). If there was a simple/simplistic solution I would like to post it here (but I don't know one).
Your statements have so many assumptions (and not all are true) that you make it hard for yourself to find a solution. Imho one has to think simple to find solutions to hard problems.
Rewriting all software in the world using Erlang will not happen. It is not about a rewrite of the world imho, it is about the possible path, starting where we are now, to a new situation.
My opinion is that you should not require software to be parallelized from the start. You parallelize it during runtime or at compile time.
This makes sense because parallelization does not add anything in functionality (the outcome should not change). My point is: program functionality and configure/compile parallelization afterwards (possibly by power-users). There could be a unique selling point for open source: parallel performance because you can recompile.
Instead: IE just waits for all of the html to arrive before showing anything. In single-page-manuals that really nags me.
The link that googlebot visits is not public (it is not even valid, nor will it ever be). I know google scrapes and tries to see where it leads to. I therefor asked Google about the origins (because I'm very interested in people munging my urls).
This specific url for our cms is sent via email and the specific page only knows 1 command: view (and all other commands are invalid). It then redirects you somewhere else (it is an url shortening service for our cms).
Granted, your first post I replied to, I didn't take you that seriously. Then I did. But now you say that? o_O (j/k)
And you ask me to make sure it is a googlebot ;-). LOL.
It is true but I do not think there is a breach from automated skimmers: the requests by itself are harmless.
66.249.66.8
We have an url shorting service in our cms so I do not control all target domains.
Yes...
Why is everybody so full of expectations of how a CMS should work?
We send links via email. These links prefill forms. We do not expect these links to be published. They are, however (no problem with that). I just wanted to know what the origin was of the link because it was garbled in a way that does not make sense. I asked about the origins because these garbled requests are very rare and I am security minded. Google doesn't care (: back where we started).
Do not treat me like an idiot, look at my id.
yes, we have our own cms. Falsified.
it's a webapp, not directory based.
No we don't get a spew of messages. Google is the only one. FWIW: I wanted to know the origin of the link they requested and they did not bother to reply.
It is not one of my worries: I mentioned Googles response policy and this is an example.
In the Netherlands you can view http://example.com/command=view&id=12345 but you are not allowed to change that to http://example.com/command=edit&userid=5&id=12345 because you are pretending to be someone you are not (like a failed login attempt). It is about intention in the Netherlands: you do not have to succeed to break the law.
It does not matter if you are a bot or not. I would find it very interesting if my sql injection attacks can be executed by Google. I would just make a page with links which Google would follow so I would not have to make the illegal GET's myself to see if there are vulnerabilities.
Did I mention the link was not found in Google itself?
Btw Links are fictional.
the link is fake and was never created by our cms.
The robots.txt file is ignored if the final target is not in the domain.
Thanks for the header-reminder.
Well, changing commands in my cms is not allowed in the Netherlands. It isn't a valid link but they should not be trying either.
Google doesn't respond to its own abuse either. Via their cache they often do requests (to check if the pages still exist?) on our servers. These sometimes trigger our www-burglar-alarm (they actually do something that is not allowed). When you send an abuse mailing you never hear again.
Feedback is not one of their strong sides.
And please get your car skills tested every 12 months by an examiner.
No, they don't.
since you guys beat the Russians financially I think that is debatable.
copyright.
then you heard it now: An architect often has the right that changes have to be approved/done by him.