I doubt that, as there was a warning that this would happen, right around this day. And you don't need clear skys to steer a plane at 400m above ground. There's also way too many other 09/11 references to make it just a coincidence.
"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb" , "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"
- Nostradamus 1654
City of God = NYC
Two Brothers = WTC
Fortress = Pentagon
Great Leader = G.Bush
Big City = NYC
I know that we had to make the decision to redesign our flagship product, and it was a tough one (since this product was the core of about 5 other products in house as well). The problem was:
Code was ugly and hideous
Someone forked the tree a while back, and now we had to support 2 seperate source trees (this one was really annoying, because if fix a bug and change some behaviour in one side, since both sides had to be able to talk to each other, you'd have to introduce a corrosponding "fix" in the other side.
The core architecture was woefully outdated and ineficient
Speed was an issue, and the current architecture was limiting, and the code was optimized about as well as it could be (this was also part of the uglyness problem)
we were spending about 70% of our time fixing bugs in the old code, it took this much time because they were little and stupid and with the code in the state that it was in it took forever to trace things down.
Well, we had been wanting (desperately) to redesign from the ground up for a while, but the powers-that-be wouldn't give us the time, until one customer asked for a feature, marketing promised that they'd get it, and we said "Know what? We can't do that. Not with the current infrastructure." So the powers-that-be said "do what needs to be done!" and we said "yipee!".
Moral?
How much extra time is spent during debugging code that is due to the current state of the code?
How does the core architecture compare to what you will need in the future? Will it support everything?
How efficient is the old codebase, and how efficient does it need to be?
Can you get the time required to do so? This is a one-step-backwards before two-steps-ahead thing.
Do you trust the people that you are working with enough to be able to competantly and efficiently create the new architecture? This is a serious question, because I have worked with some people that are good if you tell them exactly what to do, but I wouldn't trust them to recreate everything.
Will you be required to keep the old codebase going while you are in the process of converting? If old customers need bug fixes, you might be forced to keep the old sourcebase around for a while.
Can you make the new design backwards compatible? If not, can you provide a wrapper of sorts, or some easy way to convert your customers from your old version to the new one?
If you are going to be redesigning the user interface or the API at all, then you must also think about the impact on your customers.
As far as Intel vs. AMD. I don't agree that we wouldn't have been past 1Ghz by now, I think we would have.
Ok, maybe I was exaggerating a little bit, but remember the 1GHz race? I think we'd be a few months behind at the very least if it wasn't for AMD. Intel always kept their processor upgrades behind until they finished "milking" the current release, and AMD forced them to release their newest processors in order to keep up.
In your last point you indicate that Microsoft already clearly has competition in the OS marketplace. Linux is out there,
In order to qualify as "competition" it has to be threatening. Currently linux is not a very large threat to Microsoft. MS's core has always been in the home desktop, a place that linux isn't anywhere near ready for. Give it about 18 months I'd suspect and then Linux might be ready to give MS a challenge. But right now unfortunately not.
I also suspect that if the upgrade market doesn't yield numbers, prices on XP will come down as well
Didn't I hear somewhere that MS is planning an advertising campaign 2x the price of the Win95 launch? I remember seeing their banner hanging on the side of the CN Tower in Toronto. Man was THAT a sad sad day. I don't think that their upgrade market is going to be very small. Prices will come down eventually, of course, after the initial lot upgrades.
I purchased Office XP at home, but only because I received a $100 rebate and $300 worth of Iomega hardware
Really?!?! Where?? =) I'd love to get my hands on that =)
... just remember that SVG is not compiled as Flash is. There's a lot of discussion regarding the scalability of SVG. SVG may be cool for some simple graphics, but the most annoying banner ad pop-ups may need flash to run smoothly.
Jeesus... Just after having a friend finally convince me that breaking them up would be a good idea, they come around and reverse their stance and pull this crap? On what grounds does the Bush administration have to unilaterally push a decision down like this, other than possibly a bucketload of cash?
As much as a MS user I am, I even like Win2K and XP, and their office suite is good, but look at how much consumer benefit came out of having competition with the Intel vs AMD... I doubt we'd be past 1GHz by now if AMD didn't step in.
There is no details as to why this happened, and after finding out about some of their more sleazy business practices, I think it would be a good idea for them to get a good smack upside the head.
Oh well, there goes the market. Lets hope that linux keeps gaining ground like it has, maybe at least that'll force MS to get a bit more competitive. (Hmm, $0 for Linux, or $200 for XP... hmmmmmm)
Re:nice, but welcome back to the real world
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 2
char * strdup ( char * s )
{
if ( !s )
return null;
return strcpy(malloc(strlen(s) + 1), s);
}
not much more difficult. if s is not null, then strlen(s) will always work. If it returns 0, then you want to return a zero length string anyways. I guess you could check for the malloc error, but I generally tend never to (unless it's in an environment where the malloc could reasonably fail). If the malloc fails, then the system is probably so f**ked up that nobody'll notice that your program GP'd =)
But I honestly don't consider the possibility of NOT writing the code properly in the case. I wasn't even thinking about that. I was more refering to the sloppy / bad looking / no documentation, i.e. stuff that will work, but doesn't scale or look well.
I guess the gripe I have with this statement is your definition of efficiency
Fair enough. I meant fast. And Javascript is even worse.
Java outshines C++ in its ability to clearly express your ideas in a way a machine can understand
How so, more than C++ OOP? Java is so very close to C++ OOP that I'm not sure what you mean.
I will agree that Java has a lot of ADD IN LIBRARIES that come standard, however this is part of the packaging, not the language.
I want to make a linked list in Java. Ooops, no pointers, sorry. I want to pass a variable to a function and have it modify it, oops, no pointers. I want to write a program that takes as little memory as possible, or reuse memory, or optimize it to use common options of the processor, oops, no memory management, no assembler. I would really like to see a pseudo assembler in Java, I think that'd be kickass. You can write a platform independant assembler (I did for my last job, well, it translated into a few different assembly languages).
Java gets ease where it says "uhh, no, shut up, sit down, I'll do that for you (and BTW, you can't do that".
allocation and freeing of memory isn't a constant requirement
I never did understand this gripe. Whenever I put a malloc, I immediately put a free. Whenever I do a new, I immediately put the destroy somewhere. And there are umpteen packages that do both source-code level and runtime level checking for memory problems.
I won't even mention buffer overflow problems
In light of the recent IIS problems, I don't blame you. However there are packages that can scan for and test these things. And those problems are generally the result of sloppy programming in the first place, but I guess that's what the whole article is about. Yes, however, it is nice to know that you can't have that happen in a Java program.
there are always places for each language
Absolutely. Java is easy, quick and dirty. You can RAD things with great ease. If development time is an issue, and you don't have the needed libraries in C, then Java is a great language. Just as long as you don't need speed or to get to the nuts-and-bolts of things.
But a JVM based kernel? Well, a JVM couldn't be written in Java, could it? (think about that)
Technically you could, of course. But you'd have your JVM running on a JVM... =P
And I wouldn't worry about Java being a proprietry language
Never said that it was, nor is C.
Damnit, I want a programming language that gives me access to the freeking carry flag! =). I've done math routines a lot, and the code is literally 10x faster when you can optimize it by hand in assembly. I love assembly for small things that you want speed for. Itanium assembly is amazing for that task too (but much much more complicated).
I guess that my gripe is because I'm coming mainly from a C background where you can do things like memory management, pointer management, and inline assembly. I am a big one for code efficiency and speed. When you're writing something that needs to run fast (i.e. a server), it pains me great to hear the execs go "well, we are going to have to buy some more servers so other expenditures are going to have to be curtailed a bit", knowing full well that if they weren't running on Java, or if they gave us the time to optimize the code base, you could run everything we have on half the amount of hardware that we have currently.
Woah tiger... It's very possible to have both, and it's not very difficult to have both either. The best code is the code that you can read and maintain, and is functional. In my experience it's better to write clean code from the beginning, as you'll suffer from fewer bugs and easier maintenance in the future.
Re:nice, but welcome back to the real world
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 2
but how much extra effort or time does it take to make code that both functions correctly and looks good and isn't messy? I know that every time that I take the time to make it clean I benefit from it, and every time I do things sloppy I curse it later on. Plus a properly designed (hmm, that's a whole other topic actually. Software DESIGN vs Software PROGRAMMING)... A properly designed and programmed piece of code will have FAR LESS bugs than a sloppily designed/coded one.
have you ever taken a look at the source code for SSLeay? The last time I looked at it, it wasn't pretty. Lots of 1 letter variable names and not very many comments.
Open source isn't immune to this, but it's a lot lot lot better in that case.
Mind you, at one place that I worked where our jobs weren't very secure I used obscurity of code to secure my job. Noone else in their right mind could understand what I wrote (not necessarily due to messyness, but no comments, and not meaningful variable names, no documentation, etc). I had written the entire application, and before I left I commented it, but it was fun at the time.
Re:Beauty for beauty's sake makes crappy software
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I totally disagree. Well, maybe not totally. "Beauty for efficiency's and future usage and many many other reason's sake" is always a good idea, however not usually practical.
In how many cases do you end up spending more time and effort in the long run debugging shitty code because it wasn't written properly in the first place.
For those who know how to write good clean code it's not that big an issue. Writing clean code takes the same amount of time as writing sloppy code, and in most cases it actually takes less. The only difference is that you need to know what you're doing and have enough experience to know how to code properly.
Also notice that you take away accountibility and responsibility because not everyone can see your code. It's like walking around inside your house in your boxers when noone's at home. And this problem isn't limited to software. Anything that people can't see inside isn't usually pretty.
Bah, bring me back to the 8086 days where you HAD to code efficiently because you had no choice. Man, anyone remember Wordstar? Everything you needed in a word processor (ok, maybe not everything) in 80kb. DAMN!
I can't tell you how many software packages I've looked at that are ABSOLUTELY HIDEOUS on the inside (and open source isn't exactly immune to that either. Anyone taken a look at the code of SSLeay? Good package thou).
The problem being, however, that once you have money entering the picture, and/or time, then the first thing to go is code quality. Mind you, combine that with the fact that a few years ago anyone who had the patience to sit down and read "How to program in java in 21 days" suddenly became a programmer. Here at work we have a very large codebase that we originally contracted out someone else to do, then took over once we got more funding. They preferred the "copy/paste" approach to doing loops, and tonnes of other hideous hideous things. I've done things like cut down 2500 lines of code to 1100. In fact, the company here could save money in the long run by hiring me to do nothing but optimize, by the cost of additional hardware that they would have had to buy to support this. ugh.
Unfortunately, in the land of "80% complete is good enough" and where "as long as it works" is a good philosophy, and in a land where "visual basic" is a professional programming language, we're not going to see this improve any time soon. Even Java works squarely against the goal of "efficient". Give me C++ any day.
I think that another part of the problem is people just not caring about their code, not having pride in what they accomplish. That and people simply not knowing what the hell they're doing. (Not that I know ANYONE like that around here... nope nobody...)
Here's another example of how NASA tech coming "down to earth", as well as an earlier article about how NASA was helping fight fires (using satellites)
Just because you like getting your ass fucked by goats doesn't mean we want to see it.
And besides, asswipe, those old stories were painfully put back into the database so that people could still use their viewing preferences instead of looking at a static page. It's no wonder why they removed it.
And besides, what the fuck do we care if the editors remove stupid dumbass comments like that one anyways? I, for one, am not offended that they removed it, as they had good reason. Point me to 1 comment that was removed that wasn't flaimbait and posted by loosers who get their perverse kicks out of firstposts and posting stupid ascii art, then I'll listen to what you have to say.
Sorry, before someone flames me for not reading the article, I should append the following comment:
Are we supposed to believe that the director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts (umm, what is that exactly?) did something quite illegal (or at the very least was morally reprehensible) and then called together a "compliant Automation Committee" (again, what is that) that decided that this was a good idea and made the proposal?
Am I the only one who thinks that there is something we don't know, some large piece of the puzzle?
Does anyone know exactly what made this happen? Did someone just wake up one day and say "I don't trust all the judges"? Why do they think that judges need to be monitored (ok, the last question may be obvious, but what evidence do they have as to any wrongdoings that would constitute implementing such draconian restrictions?)
And besides, sure, if you take all NT machines in existence, the average uptime is probably 4 days, but that's because many people shut their machines off at the end of the day...
Patches are unneeded if you secure the system properly upon installation. You are correct, the CodeRed patch was not applied, however it was not needed to be because the.ida mappings were removed and the system locked down when we installed it.
Yes, but there is a large difference between rebooting and crashing. Which one happened? The article implied that there was a crash or some malfunction that required a reboot at least once every 10 days.
the.ida file mappings were removed upon installation and the security settings locked down. The have been no successful intrusions, however more than 15,000 attempts have been made.
a) that is far from a comprehensive reliability test
b) that is NOT a reliability test. That is a "hey, we scan machines and these are the ones with the longest uptimes. Uptimes is totally different than reliability.
We reboot many of our servers occasionally, be it to change hardware, patch, physically move equiptment, etc. So LOW uptime does not mean LOW reliability.
And why do I defend MS? Because most people bash it without having good reasons. If you have personal experience, then by all means, share it and that's great. But don't bash it just because of what you THINK.
And no, Windows 2K/Xp is *NOT* unreliable. If you are so keen on wanting me to face the facts, please provide some so that I can do so.
Well, that's another damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing then. If they don't move the video drivers into system space, they get yelled at because the performance sucks. If they do, then video driver crashes are OBVIOUSLY MS's fault...
And also, you can't compare linux NOW to NT4... Back when Linux was compared to NT4 in '99, NT4 creamed linux. However now linux is MUCH better, and I haven't been able to find any conclusive comparisons between linux vs 2k at all, so I really can't say.
And because I set it up properly from the beginning, not only did the bugs not affect me (because I removed all non-used mappings, which is also what the high-security checklist says), but I also severely limited what the IIS system could do through access controls, so even if something did manage to get it, the most that it could do would be to shit over logs.
Slashdot Mirror
the "quad layer" was really a double sided dual layer disk for 17.1GB if I remember correctly.
I doubt that, as there was a warning that this would happen, right around this day. And you don't need clear skys to steer a plane at 400m above ground. There's also way too many other 09/11 references to make it just a coincidence.
"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb" , "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"
- Nostradamus 1654
City of God = NYC
Two Brothers = WTC
Fortress = Pentagon
Great Leader = G.Bush
Big City = NYC
(thanks to Reality to point this out to me)
Code was ugly and hideous
Someone forked the tree a while back, and now we had to support 2 seperate source trees (this one was really annoying, because if fix a bug and change some behaviour in one side, since both sides had to be able to talk to each other, you'd have to introduce a corrosponding "fix" in the other side.
The core architecture was woefully outdated and ineficient
Speed was an issue, and the current architecture was limiting, and the code was optimized about as well as it could be (this was also part of the uglyness problem)
we were spending about 70% of our time fixing bugs in the old code, it took this much time because they were little and stupid and with the code in the state that it was in it took forever to trace things down.
Well, we had been wanting (desperately) to redesign from the ground up for a while, but the powers-that-be wouldn't give us the time, until one customer asked for a feature, marketing promised that they'd get it, and we said "Know what? We can't do that. Not with the current infrastructure." So the powers-that-be said "do what needs to be done!" and we said "yipee!".
Moral?
How much extra time is spent during debugging code that is due to the current state of the code?
How does the core architecture compare to what you will need in the future? Will it support everything?
How efficient is the old codebase, and how efficient does it need to be?
Can you get the time required to do so? This is a one-step-backwards before two-steps-ahead thing.
Do you trust the people that you are working with enough to be able to competantly and efficiently create the new architecture? This is a serious question, because I have worked with some people that are good if you tell them exactly what to do, but I wouldn't trust them to recreate everything.
Will you be required to keep the old codebase going while you are in the process of converting? If old customers need bug fixes, you might be forced to keep the old sourcebase around for a while.
Can you make the new design backwards compatible? If not, can you provide a wrapper of sorts, or some easy way to convert your customers from your old version to the new one?
If you are going to be redesigning the user interface or the API at all, then you must also think about the impact on your customers.
Just some food for thought.
As far as Intel vs. AMD. I don't agree that we wouldn't have been past 1Ghz by now, I think we would have.
Ok, maybe I was exaggerating a little bit, but remember the 1GHz race? I think we'd be a few months behind at the very least if it wasn't for AMD. Intel always kept their processor upgrades behind until they finished "milking" the current release, and AMD forced them to release their newest processors in order to keep up.
In your last point you indicate that Microsoft already clearly has competition in the OS marketplace. Linux is out there,
In order to qualify as "competition" it has to be threatening. Currently linux is not a very large threat to Microsoft. MS's core has always been in the home desktop, a place that linux isn't anywhere near ready for. Give it about 18 months I'd suspect and then Linux might be ready to give MS a challenge. But right now unfortunately not.
I also suspect that if the upgrade market doesn't yield numbers, prices on XP will come down as well
Didn't I hear somewhere that MS is planning an advertising campaign 2x the price of the Win95 launch? I remember seeing their banner hanging on the side of the CN Tower in Toronto. Man was THAT a sad sad day. I don't think that their upgrade market is going to be very small. Prices will come down eventually, of course, after the initial lot upgrades.
I purchased Office XP at home, but only because I received a $100 rebate and $300 worth of Iomega hardware
Really?!?! Where?? =) I'd love to get my hands on that =)
... just remember that SVG is not compiled as Flash is. There's a lot of discussion regarding the scalability of SVG. SVG may be cool for some simple graphics, but the most annoying banner ad pop-ups may need flash to run smoothly.
Jeesus... Just after having a friend finally convince me that breaking them up would be a good idea, they come around and reverse their stance and pull this crap? On what grounds does the Bush administration have to unilaterally push a decision down like this, other than possibly a bucketload of cash?
As much as a MS user I am, I even like Win2K and XP, and their office suite is good, but look at how much consumer benefit came out of having competition with the Intel vs AMD... I doubt we'd be past 1GHz by now if AMD didn't step in.
There is no details as to why this happened, and after finding out about some of their more sleazy business practices, I think it would be a good idea for them to get a good smack upside the head.
Oh well, there goes the market. Lets hope that linux keeps gaining ground like it has, maybe at least that'll force MS to get a bit more competitive. (Hmm, $0 for Linux, or $200 for XP... hmmmmmm)
char * strdup ( char * s )
{
if ( !s )
return null;
return strcpy(malloc(strlen(s) + 1), s);
}
not much more difficult. if s is not null, then strlen(s) will always work. If it returns 0, then you want to return a zero length string anyways. I guess you could check for the malloc error, but I generally tend never to (unless it's in an environment where the malloc could reasonably fail). If the malloc fails, then the system is probably so f**ked up that nobody'll notice that your program GP'd =)
But I honestly don't consider the possibility of NOT writing the code properly in the case. I wasn't even thinking about that. I was more refering to the sloppy / bad looking / no documentation, i.e. stuff that will work, but doesn't scale or look well.
I guess the gripe I have with this statement is your definition of efficiency
Fair enough. I meant fast. And Javascript is even worse.
Java outshines C++ in its ability to clearly express your ideas in a way a machine can understand
How so, more than C++ OOP? Java is so very close to C++ OOP that I'm not sure what you mean.
I will agree that Java has a lot of ADD IN LIBRARIES that come standard, however this is part of the packaging, not the language.
I want to make a linked list in Java. Ooops, no pointers, sorry. I want to pass a variable to a function and have it modify it, oops, no pointers. I want to write a program that takes as little memory as possible, or reuse memory, or optimize it to use common options of the processor, oops, no memory management, no assembler. I would really like to see a pseudo assembler in Java, I think that'd be kickass. You can write a platform independant assembler (I did for my last job, well, it translated into a few different assembly languages).
Java gets ease where it says "uhh, no, shut up, sit down, I'll do that for you (and BTW, you can't do that".
allocation and freeing of memory isn't a constant requirement
I never did understand this gripe. Whenever I put a malloc, I immediately put a free. Whenever I do a new, I immediately put the destroy somewhere. And there are umpteen packages that do both source-code level and runtime level checking for memory problems.
I won't even mention buffer overflow problems
In light of the recent IIS problems, I don't blame you. However there are packages that can scan for and test these things. And those problems are generally the result of sloppy programming in the first place, but I guess that's what the whole article is about. Yes, however, it is nice to know that you can't have that happen in a Java program.
there are always places for each language
Absolutely. Java is easy, quick and dirty. You can RAD things with great ease. If development time is an issue, and you don't have the needed libraries in C, then Java is a great language. Just as long as you don't need speed or to get to the nuts-and-bolts of things.
But a JVM based kernel? Well, a JVM couldn't be written in Java, could it? (think about that)
Technically you could, of course. But you'd have your JVM running on a JVM... =P
And I wouldn't worry about Java being a proprietry language
Never said that it was, nor is C.
Damnit, I want a programming language that gives me access to the freeking carry flag! =). I've done math routines a lot, and the code is literally 10x faster when you can optimize it by hand in assembly. I love assembly for small things that you want speed for. Itanium assembly is amazing for that task too (but much much more complicated).
I guess that my gripe is because I'm coming mainly from a C background where you can do things like memory management, pointer management, and inline assembly. I am a big one for code efficiency and speed. When you're writing something that needs to run fast (i.e. a server), it pains me great to hear the execs go "well, we are going to have to buy some more servers so other expenditures are going to have to be curtailed a bit", knowing full well that if they weren't running on Java, or if they gave us the time to optimize the code base, you could run everything we have on half the amount of hardware that we have currently.
Woah tiger... It's very possible to have both, and it's not very difficult to have both either. The best code is the code that you can read and maintain, and is functional. In my experience it's better to write clean code from the beginning, as you'll suffer from fewer bugs and easier maintenance in the future.
but how much extra effort or time does it take to make code that both functions correctly and looks good and isn't messy? I know that every time that I take the time to make it clean I benefit from it, and every time I do things sloppy I curse it later on. Plus a properly designed (hmm, that's a whole other topic actually. Software DESIGN vs Software PROGRAMMING)... A properly designed and programmed piece of code will have FAR LESS bugs than a sloppily designed/coded one.
have you ever taken a look at the source code for SSLeay? The last time I looked at it, it wasn't pretty. Lots of 1 letter variable names and not very many comments.
Open source isn't immune to this, but it's a lot lot lot better in that case.
Mind you, at one place that I worked where our jobs weren't very secure I used obscurity of code to secure my job. Noone else in their right mind could understand what I wrote (not necessarily due to messyness, but no comments, and not meaningful variable names, no documentation, etc). I had written the entire application, and before I left I commented it, but it was fun at the time.
I totally disagree. Well, maybe not totally. "Beauty for efficiency's and future usage and many many other reason's sake" is always a good idea, however not usually practical.
In how many cases do you end up spending more time and effort in the long run debugging shitty code because it wasn't written properly in the first place.
For those who know how to write good clean code it's not that big an issue. Writing clean code takes the same amount of time as writing sloppy code, and in most cases it actually takes less. The only difference is that you need to know what you're doing and have enough experience to know how to code properly.
Also notice that you take away accountibility and responsibility because not everyone can see your code. It's like walking around inside your house in your boxers when noone's at home. And this problem isn't limited to software. Anything that people can't see inside isn't usually pretty.
Bah, bring me back to the 8086 days where you HAD to code efficiently because you had no choice. Man, anyone remember Wordstar? Everything you needed in a word processor (ok, maybe not everything) in 80kb. DAMN!
I can't tell you how many software packages I've looked at that are ABSOLUTELY HIDEOUS on the inside (and open source isn't exactly immune to that either. Anyone taken a look at the code of SSLeay? Good package thou).
The problem being, however, that once you have money entering the picture, and/or time, then the first thing to go is code quality. Mind you, combine that with the fact that a few years ago anyone who had the patience to sit down and read "How to program in java in 21 days" suddenly became a programmer. Here at work we have a very large codebase that we originally contracted out someone else to do, then took over once we got more funding. They preferred the "copy/paste" approach to doing loops, and tonnes of other hideous hideous things. I've done things like cut down 2500 lines of code to 1100. In fact, the company here could save money in the long run by hiring me to do nothing but optimize, by the cost of additional hardware that they would have had to buy to support this. ugh.
Unfortunately, in the land of "80% complete is good enough" and where "as long as it works" is a good philosophy, and in a land where "visual basic" is a professional programming language, we're not going to see this improve any time soon. Even Java works squarely against the goal of "efficient". Give me C++ any day.
I think that another part of the problem is people just not caring about their code, not having pride in what they accomplish. That and people simply not knowing what the hell they're doing. (Not that I know ANYONE like that around here... nope nobody...)
Argh. Ok sorry, I'll end my rant now.
Here's another example of how NASA tech coming "down to earth", as well as an earlier article about how NASA was helping fight fires (using satellites)
Just because you like getting your ass fucked by goats doesn't mean we want to see it.
And besides, asswipe, those old stories were painfully put back into the database so that people could still use their viewing preferences instead of looking at a static page. It's no wonder why they removed it.
And besides, what the fuck do we care if the editors remove stupid dumbass comments like that one anyways? I, for one, am not offended that they removed it, as they had good reason. Point me to 1 comment that was removed that wasn't flaimbait and posted by loosers who get their perverse kicks out of firstposts and posting stupid ascii art, then I'll listen to what you have to say.
Sorry, before someone flames me for not reading the article, I should append the following comment:
Are we supposed to believe that the director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts (umm, what is that exactly?) did something quite illegal (or at the very least was morally reprehensible) and then called together a "compliant Automation Committee" (again, what is that) that decided that this was a good idea and made the proposal?
Am I the only one who thinks that there is something we don't know, some large piece of the puzzle?
Does anyone know exactly what made this happen? Did someone just wake up one day and say "I don't trust all the judges"? Why do they think that judges need to be monitored (ok, the last question may be obvious, but what evidence do they have as to any wrongdoings that would constitute implementing such draconian restrictions?)
where and when did he say that??
And besides, sure, if you take all NT machines in existence, the average uptime is probably 4 days, but that's because many people shut their machines off at the end of the day...
Patches are unneeded if you secure the system properly upon installation. You are correct, the CodeRed patch was not applied, however it was not needed to be because the .ida mappings were removed and the system locked down when we installed it.
Yes, but there is a large difference between rebooting and crashing. Which one happened? The article implied that there was a crash or some malfunction that required a reboot at least once every 10 days.
true. but not a problem.
.ida file mappings were removed upon installation and the security settings locked down. The have been no successful intrusions, however more than 15,000 attempts have been made.
the
many reasons actually.
a) that is far from a comprehensive reliability test
b) that is NOT a reliability test. That is a "hey, we scan machines and these are the ones with the longest uptimes. Uptimes is totally different than reliability.
We reboot many of our servers occasionally, be it to change hardware, patch, physically move equiptment, etc. So LOW uptime does not mean LOW reliability.
And why do I defend MS? Because most people bash it without having good reasons. If you have personal experience, then by all means, share it and that's great. But don't bash it just because of what you THINK.
And no, Windows 2K/Xp is *NOT* unreliable. If you are so keen on wanting me to face the facts, please provide some so that I can do so.
Well, that's another damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing then. If they don't move the video drivers into system space, they get yelled at because the performance sucks. If they do, then video driver crashes are OBVIOUSLY MS's fault...
And also, you can't compare linux NOW to NT4... Back when Linux was compared to NT4 in '99, NT4 creamed linux. However now linux is MUCH better, and I haven't been able to find any conclusive comparisons between linux vs 2k at all, so I really can't say.
Yes it is.
And because I set it up properly from the beginning, not only did the bugs not affect me (because I removed all non-used mappings, which is also what the high-security checklist says), but I also severely limited what the IIS system could do through access controls, so even if something did manage to get it, the most that it could do would be to shit over logs.