If you're using Firefox, get the "Nuke Anything Enhanced" extension. I saw a float ad too but made it disappear with a couple of mouse clicks:) good stuff
Ok, look... I'm sorry but there is no delicate way to put this. You are talking complete batshit nonsense.
The working directory (or dataset) cannot be randomly varied by the server maintaining state in the FTP protocol or the protocol would be utterly broken. Just take 5 seconds and read what RMD does. One could argue, as you are apparently doing, that this command can remove a random directory if the argument is a relative path. You could argue that; everyone else, of course, would just ignore you from that point on as you have stopped making sense. How about that network experience again?
And this business about the FTP server's state being tied to the connection should be stated as: the FTP protocol is a connection-oriented protocol. It requires the connection, of course, but the state maintained by the protocol is above that layer. The specifically FTP state consists of things like the arguments to the USER and CWD commands, or the response to the PASV command, etc.
If FTP were stateless, it would not matter at all that the connection is maintained. The commands to the Protocol Interpreter would have no relation to prior commands received. Period. (just like HTTP).
It seems to me that you are still confusing application behavior and protocol.
The concept of a working directory, and the maintenance of that state by the Protocol Interpreter is absolutely part of the protocol. Otherwise commands like CWD and PWD have no usable semantics. And yes, it requires you to stay connected, of course. Surely you are not suggesting, by your example of the server bouncing around, that the concept of a working directory has no meaning in FTP and the server can just return random results -- are you?
This is utterly unlike HTTP. You say "The only difference is, with FTP, it knows who 'you' are based on your TCP/IP socket, whereas in HTTP it uses cookies." But you can only get away with this because of your ambiguity in the use of "it". When you say in FTP, "it" knows who you are, it is the Protocol Interpreter that has been informed of such by virtue of the USER command, a defined part of the protocol. In HTTP, the "it" is an application for which the cookie data has semantics. It means nothing at the protocol level.
I feel almost exactly the way you do regarding my personal use of source control. That is, I've seen the dramatic difference it can make in stress-free exploration of alternative approaches. If something doesn't work out, abandon it and roll back. Where I (slightly) disagree is the effort necessary to use it vs the benefit it gives.
I admin the CVS repository for the projects my team supports - mainly because nobody else would take the time to learn about it. It was not that hard to learn although I did spend a while playing around with the branching and merging, setting up automatic emails upon commits, pserver vs ssh access, module aliases, etc. But you don't need to learn much to make your life easiers - basically init, import, co, ci, edit/unedit. Importing a new pile of code is extremely simple once you have the respository already established. The benefit of the change logs and ease of rollback (e.g. by date or tag) is much better than untarring yesterday's snapshot.
The problem with your analysis is that point-to-point flying doesn't work when you start talking about international travel. It's just not possible to fly passengers to, say, Germany or Japan from every domestic airport. The way you do it is to accumulate passengers at a major hub on the coast and then fly from there.
Funny... when I do such a comparison, I find there are plenty of accessible bloggers AND mainstream media attacking on the war in Iraq as a bad idea. If I want to read opposing sides on this issue I certainly have no problem finding an abundance of information on it. Do you? Really?
Perhaps I'm not understanding you properly but I don't think you're addressing the right point regarding features.
The idea is that you can control different aspects of the project, resources, time and features as key variables assuming that the quality of the resultant product is sufficient to release.
The idea of controlling the feature set is that each feature planned for the next milestone must consume some amount of time and resources to develop it. If you're creeping up on a hard deadline and you can't add resources, you might very well be able to drop some of the non-critical features that were planned for the next release. Happens all the time and it works.
Of course you have to have sufficient quality no matter what is released or it's a failure.
Sharing information is not the same as allowing arbitrary execution.
Nor is arbitrary execution the same thing as a malicious script. If any application allows for scripting and furthermore, there is a lot of resource/information sharing among programs, it opens the door for application scripts to obtain information which they should not have. Lots of sharing means lots of security needed to make sure the access should be allowed, and lots of opportunity for mistakes.
I think both you and the parent overlook the value of having a standard notation in which to capture the design. Granted, I'm not into the more esoteric stuff like trying to come up with executable UML but I really do like the idea of picking up someone's document and knowing what they are trying to communicate - even after they're long departed from the company.
Nothing beats face-to-face discussion with the original designer but that's very often not possible.
Ok, first let me say that this issue appears to have struck quite a nerve with you, in spite of you taking great pains to appear otherwise. I have to admit I don't quite get it. What's wrong with just saying your point plainly, which is "it doesn't matter whether you use technical jargon correctly in a technical context - so long as the recipient of your message can make the corrections and decode it in his head". Or something.
To be honest, the amount of effort you are putting into being abusive is more interesting than whatever real point you may be trying to make. To each his own, I suppose. I might suggest you never take it upon yourself to write a legal document, or even write a "hello world" program, given your viewpoint.
It's not an ego thing, as you keep claiming as if repetition will make it true. Maybe the original author didn't really know the right term. Someone helpfully suggested to him what it really is. Then along came you and the others trying to make some sort of half-assed, incoherent statement about the terms being basically the same and therefore, the same. Whatever, dude. Can we just agree to disagree?
My intention was not to insult when I mentioned the stupid translator program but rather to point out the obvious, he was making a straightforward substitution of definition without any regard to context, like what you might find on babelfish - in other words, a stupid translator AI program.
Perhaps you feel better now after your tirade but I suggest you go back and read the parent that spawned this thread. The author was specifically talking about Sun deprecating features of the Java language, albeit using the wrong word. You're not really helping this guy's cause by your humorous(?) rant since we're not talking about "in common usage" but rather the context of Sun deprecating features in the Java language. Tell a programmer that he's really just "gathering together in a single book" when he's compiling a program and see if he doesn't look at you funny. Using technical jargon in a technical context but insisting that the "common usage" applies is just being silly, not insightful.
Definition 2 of Deprecate is: To belittle; depreciate. They're synonymous.
They are only synonymous if you think like a rather stupid translator AI program and don't comprehend the meaning of the word in ordinary technical usage. In the context of a computer language, the meaning of "deprecate" is closer to one of the definitions quoted a bit further down the page "to desire the removal of".
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely hope you're joking with that "y2m" domain analysis.
If you're using Firefox, get the "Nuke Anything Enhanced" extension. I saw a float ad too but made it disappear with a couple of mouse clicks :) good stuff
Ok, look... I'm sorry but there is no delicate way to put this. You are talking complete batshit nonsense. The working directory (or dataset) cannot be randomly varied by the server maintaining state in the FTP protocol or the protocol would be utterly broken. Just take 5 seconds and read what RMD does. One could argue, as you are apparently doing, that this command can remove a random directory if the argument is a relative path. You could argue that; everyone else, of course, would just ignore you from that point on as you have stopped making sense. How about that network experience again?
And this business about the FTP server's state being tied to the connection should be stated as: the FTP protocol is a connection-oriented protocol. It requires the connection, of course, but the state maintained by the protocol is above that layer. The specifically FTP state consists of things like the arguments to the USER and CWD commands, or the response to the PASV command, etc.
If FTP were stateless, it would not matter at all that the connection is maintained. The commands to the Protocol Interpreter would have no relation to prior commands received. Period. (just like HTTP).
It seems to me that you are still confusing application behavior and protocol.
The concept of a working directory, and the maintenance of that state by the Protocol Interpreter is absolutely part of the protocol. Otherwise commands like CWD and PWD have no usable semantics. And yes, it requires you to stay connected, of course. Surely you are not suggesting, by your example of the server bouncing around, that the concept of a working directory has no meaning in FTP and the server can just return random results -- are you?
This is utterly unlike HTTP. You say "The only difference is, with FTP, it knows who 'you' are based on your TCP/IP socket, whereas in HTTP it uses cookies." But you can only get away with this because of your ambiguity in the use of "it". When you say in FTP, "it" knows who you are, it is the Protocol Interpreter that has been informed of such by virtue of the USER command, a defined part of the protocol. In HTTP, the "it" is an application for which the cookie data has semantics. It means nothing at the protocol level.
Who the heck is a user for a device driver, for example, or a boot monitor?
The operating system or other user programs talking to the device drivers. That is the consumer of the services provided by your software.
I hate those mechanical transistors!
No, he WAS a developer. Now he's a nightclub owner.
it's osdir.com
sorry
[...] and in compliance with Licensor's current privacy policy as shown on [...]
I admin the CVS repository for the projects my team supports - mainly because nobody else would take the time to learn about it. It was not that hard to learn although I did spend a while playing around with the branching and merging, setting up automatic emails upon commits, pserver vs ssh access, module aliases, etc. But you don't need to learn much to make your life easiers - basically init, import, co, ci, edit/unedit. Importing a new pile of code is extremely simple once you have the respository already established. The benefit of the change logs and ease of rollback (e.g. by date or tag) is much better than untarring yesterday's snapshot.
AOL's application, which is based on software from a company called Copernic, is now in customer trials, and Yahoo will join the fray early in 2005.
http://open.neurosaudio.com/extra/firmware.zip
The problem with your analysis is that point-to-point flying doesn't work when you start talking about international travel. It's just not possible to fly passengers to, say, Germany or Japan from every domestic airport. The way you do it is to accumulate passengers at a major hub on the coast and then fly from there.
Errr... I think he does know why. Exactly.
Funny... when I do such a comparison, I find there are plenty of accessible bloggers AND mainstream media attacking on the war in Iraq as a bad idea. If I want to read opposing sides on this issue I certainly have no problem finding an abundance of information on it. Do you? Really?
Mission critical just means that in order for the business to operate, the system must be functional.
The idea is that you can control different aspects of the project, resources, time and features as key variables assuming that the quality of the resultant product is sufficient to release.
The idea of controlling the feature set is that each feature planned for the next milestone must consume some amount of time and resources to develop it. If you're creeping up on a hard deadline and you can't add resources, you might very well be able to drop some of the non-critical features that were planned for the next release. Happens all the time and it works. Of course you have to have sufficient quality no matter what is released or it's a failure.
Nor is arbitrary execution the same thing as a malicious script. If any application allows for scripting and furthermore, there is a lot of resource/information sharing among programs, it opens the door for application scripts to obtain information which they should not have. Lots of sharing means lots of security needed to make sure the access should be allowed, and lots of opportunity for mistakes.
I think both you and the parent overlook the value of having a standard notation in which to capture the design. Granted, I'm not into the more esoteric stuff like trying to come up with executable UML but I really do like the idea of picking up someone's document and knowing what they are trying to communicate - even after they're long departed from the company.
Nothing beats face-to-face discussion with the original designer but that's very often not possible.
Ok, first let me say that this issue appears to have struck quite a nerve with you, in spite of you taking great pains to appear otherwise. I have to admit I don't quite get it. What's wrong with just saying your point plainly, which is "it doesn't matter whether you use technical jargon correctly in a technical context - so long as the recipient of your message can make the corrections and decode it in his head". Or something.
To be honest, the amount of effort you are putting into being abusive is more interesting than whatever real point you may be trying to make. To each his own, I suppose. I might suggest you never take it upon yourself to write a legal document, or even write a "hello world" program, given your viewpoint.
It's not an ego thing, as you keep claiming as if repetition will make it true. Maybe the original author didn't really know the right term. Someone helpfully suggested to him what it really is. Then along came you and the others trying to make some sort of half-assed, incoherent statement about the terms being basically the same and therefore, the same. Whatever, dude. Can we just agree to disagree?
Perhaps you feel better now after your tirade but I suggest you go back and read the parent that spawned this thread. The author was specifically talking about Sun deprecating features of the Java language, albeit using the wrong word. You're not really helping this guy's cause by your humorous(?) rant since we're not talking about "in common usage" but rather the context of Sun deprecating features in the Java language. Tell a programmer that he's really just "gathering together in a single book" when he's compiling a program and see if he doesn't look at you funny. Using technical jargon in a technical context but insisting that the "common usage" applies is just being silly, not insightful.
They are only synonymous if you think like a rather stupid translator AI program and don't comprehend the meaning of the word in ordinary technical usage. In the context of a computer language, the meaning of "deprecate" is closer to one of the definitions quoted a bit further down the page "to desire the removal of".
Girlfriends come and girlfriends go but a good computer game is always there for you.
here is the quote:
we do believe that making files readable and writable by everyone leads to many evil deeds." - talking about the octal mode 666
that IS 666, NOT 777. a lot of damage can be done merely by writing to config files.
>>>Personally I prefer to shop at Target because it's not quite so "White Trash", <<<
Ummm so you consider yourself a slightly better species of "White Trash"?