Yes, but how much was the hardware, etc? This is a 1u server, good cases for these alone are in the $200 range. I figure there is probably $800 worth of hardware in it total(this is the 400 model), plus they saved me the install/configure time and the ongoing maintenance time with the nice gui, plus it includes a year warranty with overnight replacement. Software updates are either scheduled automatically or a 1-click affair (this includes the virus signatures, spam signatures and fingerprints, and all other system software) . I'll bet it works out about the same. Besides, I'm pretty sure the thing is based on mostly FOSS stuff anyway. (the ncurses console text config looks so much like a redhat 6.2 install it's scary)
Yeah, I run a Barracuda too, and that thing will reject the connection on most of the spam (ie, it firewalls). Best $1800 I ever spent. It blocks about 87% of our incoming mail.
I don't remember all the specifics, but I'm pretty sure Apple sued MS a long time ago over Windows, saying that it copied the "look and feel" of the Mac. Obviously, they lost. I would consider this no different, especially since it's a software copy of a hardware interface.
The site www.neowin.net is running Apache/1.3.29 (Unix) mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.3.3 FrontPage/5.0.2.2634 mod_ssl/2.8.16 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux
Yeah, that NASCAR thing is pretty neat. I always assumed it was like a roll of cellophane stretched across the lens, with the supply reel on one side and the take up reel on the other side. Then, when you need a clean view, just run the take up reel for a second or two and voila! instant clean job. And you're right, how hard would it be to implement something like a windshield wiper? It doesn't have to be perfect, just get most of it off and you'll increase the life tremendously.
You know, that's exactly what I thought. We can successfully, (but violently) launch these rovers from Earth, send them on a seven-month space journey, harden them against cosmic radiation, drop them screaming into another planet, have them drive all over the surface, and GRIND and BRUSH rocks, but they can't BRUSH OFF THEIR OWN SOLAR PANELS? WTF?
I guess it's kinda of like that old Disney movie with Dean Jones where they were trying to figure out how to get a huge tow-rope winch up a ski-slope and the kid says something like "if it can pull 100 people up the mountain at the same time, why can't it pull itself up the hill?"
Actually, it does not have be liquid for any time at all. Through a process called sublimation, water can pass directly from solid to gaseous form. So, on a technicality, you could be right.
Damn, I hit submit before I finished...I meant to say or is there actually a movie named Help! 'cause that's what it looks like after rereading your sig...oh dumb ass me!
Regarding your sig...are you looking for the movie that quote came from? I think it was Real Genius and it may have been Val Kilmer, but I could be wrong. Hell, I'm not even sure that's what your sig means!
Wouldn't this law also ban the laptops mounted in the front seat of every police cruiser I've seen in the last couple of years? But oh yeah, they're the cops, they can get away with it;)
Not only is it hard to define defect (and it is very obvious that some defects are worse than others), but this code review sounds like it only spots "grammatical" or style errors in the code. It doesn't sound like it could find a defect in an algorithm implementation or logic. To me, these are where the true defects are, in the logic/reasoning breakdowns.
Actually, I don't work for MS, but I have many friends who do, most of which started out in QA (they are jokingly known as cyberentomologists, but perhaps that is a standard industry term for bug finder). So yes, I have some pretty intimate knowledge of what goes on there. Though I shouldn't expect the typical/. crowd to believe that some huge corporation might actually TEST their software because it is in their own best interest.
Yes, unfortunately I have done much code patching. And I agree with you fully, that the original code should be as untouched as possible and that software should be designed very modularly so that you CAN fix one piece without busting up the whole system. But we all know that they ARE patching IE, arguably the software that the majority of windows software depends on (for good or bad). You know they must sweat bullets every time they release a patch for that reason alone, and I know they test the hell out of it, even if they do miss a few problems here and there.
I never said they didn't. I just said MS does extensive in house testing, and I'm sure it's more than most out there. And the next time you call someone fucking stupid, try not to do it as an AC. It only makes you look fucking scared.
I posted the same thing above, but MS does try to test common 3rd party apps as it is in their own best interest. They don't need everyone blaming them if someone else's shitty code breaks because of their patch.
If Microsoft employed better software design, IE wouldn't be entangled with the whole OS, and their testing workload wouldn't need to be so extensive
Even if IE wasn't entangled in the OS, there's still a shitload of testing to do. Also, MS TRIES to make sure that their patches don't break 3rd party apps. How many other companies do you know that do that? I'm not saying they always succeed at that, but they try, since it is in their own best interest.
They don't need the whole world thinking their patch sucks because it broke some spyware/hotbar/whatever else IE add-in.
Several times, 3rd party volunteers have demonstrated the ability to test Microsoft's software more thoroughly than the publisher ever did. (Server software though, which can be easily tested by software, not the browser)
Yes, any one with an axe to grind with MS can spend the majority of their adult life testing MS software in order to break it and find flaws. In fact, many security companies make their living doing this. However, MS is a business. A business that likes money. As everyone knows, time is money, and if MS thinks it has put enough time into testing, it will release the patch, perhaps a bit prematurely. It happens. Hell, for all we know, MS may wait for someone else to find the bugs so that they don't waste time and money on it! It's unlikely, but it would be smart business. Also, if you are suggesting that software testing would catch all the problems, you'd be mistaken. Who is to say the software checking the software doesn't have a few bits loose? Adding to that, it is impossible (in hardware, software, or otherwise) to predict every interaction code will have due to all of the 3rd party apps out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but how much was the hardware, etc? This is a 1u server, good cases for these alone are in the $200 range. I figure there is probably $800 worth of hardware in it total(this is the 400 model), plus they saved me the install/configure time and the ongoing maintenance time with the nice gui, plus it includes a year warranty with overnight replacement. Software updates are either scheduled automatically or a 1-click affair (this includes the virus signatures, spam signatures and fingerprints, and all other system software) . I'll bet it works out about the same. Besides, I'm pretty sure the thing is based on mostly FOSS stuff anyway. (the ncurses console text config looks so much like a redhat 6.2 install it's scary)
Yeah, I run a Barracuda too, and that thing will reject the connection on most of the spam (ie, it firewalls). Best $1800 I ever spent. It blocks about 87% of our incoming mail.
So I take it you're the agnostic and dyslexic insomniac I've been hearing about lately....
I don't remember all the specifics, but I'm pretty sure Apple sued MS a long time ago over Windows, saying that it copied the "look and feel" of the Mac. Obviously, they lost. I would consider this no different, especially since it's a software copy of a hardware interface.
Not to mention all those Palm Pilots that run code when you insert an SD card.
Yeah, that NASCAR thing is pretty neat. I always assumed it was like a roll of cellophane stretched across the lens, with the supply reel on one side and the take up reel on the other side. Then, when you need a clean view, just run the take up reel for a second or two and voila! instant clean job. And you're right, how hard would it be to implement something like a windshield wiper? It doesn't have to be perfect, just get most of it off and you'll increase the life tremendously.
You know, that's exactly what I thought. We can successfully, (but violently) launch these rovers from Earth, send them on a seven-month space journey, harden them against cosmic radiation, drop them screaming into another planet, have them drive all over the surface, and GRIND and BRUSH rocks, but they can't BRUSH OFF THEIR OWN SOLAR PANELS? WTF?
I guess it's kinda of like that old Disney movie with Dean Jones where they were trying to figure out how to get a huge tow-rope winch up a ski-slope and the kid says something like "if it can pull 100 people up the mountain at the same time, why can't it pull itself up the hill?"
Just my rant.
You know, the scary part is that yeah, I would say "IT'S ROTFL DAMN IT!", but I'm just anal. ;)
Nitpick, but I think the generally accepted acronym for shut the fuck up is STFU, as evidenced here.
Wrong. Like I said, sublimation. Look it up. No liquid involved at all period end of sentence.
Actually, it does not have be liquid for any time at all. Through a process called sublimation, water can pass directly from solid to gaseous form. So, on a technicality, you could be right.
Damn, I hit submit before I finished...I meant to say or is there actually a movie named Help! 'cause that's what it looks like after rereading your sig...oh dumb ass me!
Regarding your sig...are you looking for the movie that quote came from? I think it was Real Genius and it may have been Val Kilmer, but I could be wrong. Hell, I'm not even sure that's what your sig means!
Duh shit...I guess I should have RTFA. It makes a specific exemption for cops!
Wouldn't this law also ban the laptops mounted in the front seat of every police cruiser I've seen in the last couple of years? But oh yeah, they're the cops, they can get away with it ;)
Not only is it hard to define defect (and it is very obvious that some defects are worse than others), but this code review sounds like it only spots "grammatical" or style errors in the code. It doesn't sound like it could find a defect in an algorithm implementation or logic. To me, these are where the true defects are, in the logic/reasoning breakdowns.
Damn! Leave it to me to screw up the joke. Par for the course I suppose.
I can't believe I'm the first to say that correctly: it's fucking close to water.
Actually, I don't work for MS, but I have many friends who do, most of which started out in QA (they are jokingly known as cyberentomologists, but perhaps that is a standard industry term for bug finder). So yes, I have some pretty intimate knowledge of what goes on there. Though I shouldn't expect the typical /. crowd to believe that some huge corporation might actually TEST their software because it is in their own best interest.
Not bullshit. Ask any MS QA tech. Also apps that have parent companies they get along with are still 3rd party apps.
Yes, unfortunately I have done much code patching. And I agree with you fully, that the original code should be as untouched as possible and that software should be designed very modularly so that you CAN fix one piece without busting up the whole system. But we all know that they ARE patching IE, arguably the software that the majority of windows software depends on (for good or bad). You know they must sweat bullets every time they release a patch for that reason alone, and I know they test the hell out of it, even if they do miss a few problems here and there.
I never said they didn't. I just said MS does extensive in house testing, and I'm sure it's more than most out there. And the next time you call someone fucking stupid, try not to do it as an AC. It only makes you look fucking scared.
I posted the same thing above, but MS does try to test common 3rd party apps as it is in their own best interest. They don't need everyone blaming them if someone else's shitty code breaks because of their patch.
If Microsoft employed better software design, IE wouldn't be entangled with the whole OS, and their testing workload wouldn't need to be so extensive
Even if IE wasn't entangled in the OS, there's still a shitload of testing to do. Also, MS TRIES to make sure that their patches don't break 3rd party apps. How many other companies do you know that do that? I'm not saying they always succeed at that, but they try, since it is in their own best interest. They don't need the whole world thinking their patch sucks because it broke some spyware/hotbar/whatever else IE add-in.
Several times, 3rd party volunteers have demonstrated the ability to test Microsoft's software more thoroughly than the publisher ever did. (Server software though, which can be easily tested by software, not the browser)
Yes, any one with an axe to grind with MS can spend the majority of their adult life testing MS software in order to break it and find flaws. In fact, many security companies make their living doing this. However, MS is a business. A business that likes money. As everyone knows, time is money, and if MS thinks it has put enough time into testing, it will release the patch, perhaps a bit prematurely. It happens. Hell, for all we know, MS may wait for someone else to find the bugs so that they don't waste time and money on it! It's unlikely, but it would be smart business. Also, if you are suggesting that software testing would catch all the problems, you'd be mistaken. Who is to say the software checking the software doesn't have a few bits loose? Adding to that, it is impossible (in hardware, software, or otherwise) to predict every interaction code will have due to all of the 3rd party apps out there.