How are the ghosts gonna eat the pacman? Cannibals
Obviously they had to change the rules with people, so they can't be eaten. When the guy playing Pacman gets caught he gets fucked in the ass and he loses a life.
You're a criminal mastermind! At least, if they were being trained face to face (since they may be a foreign worker) it would be really awkward just being around them. But you could still piss in their coffee and flick you boogers at their desk when they leave for lunch break.
Just train them in a nice cordial manner but instead of calling them by their name casually address them as "Scab". Also, delete everything in their source directory on your last day.
Well that's the point, maybe they'll do it more often. Would there have been anything that wouldn't make you question their motives? Judge the project, not the company. Or else we shut up and don't use it. See? Democracy in action.
It seems to be a perfect solution: Qt so you can learn how to use it for yourself and personal or free projects w/o paying license fees and when you bring your experience to the commercial area, either through your own commercial project or a job, you can keep your code open and pay nothing or keep your code close to protect yourself but pay a license fee.
And now Trolltech has another developer who knows how to use it's APIs and even contribute bugs back since their code's always open.
Yet Another QT Hacker will soon write a similar style for QT to use GTK to draw widgets, the result will be:
GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
GTK: Please QT, draws me a button...
I've read this a couple of times and it still isn't funny.
If you look at the link I posted (on the first line, no less) you'd have seen:
Welcome to JavaDesktop, a new gathering place for members of the Java graphical user interface (GUI) community.
So it obviously has nothing to do with the "JavaDesktop" of which you only know of through whatever is in the summaries on Slashdot. I know you were anxious to post something, but you've made yourself look like a jackass.
Real competition drives innovation and makes good for customers.
True. What's that got to do with whether software is commercial or not?
Well, it doesn't; software is both. What I _did_ say was that there's a need for commercial software because for the reasons stated. Of course, you could say that free (as in beer) software drives innovation as well when people are doing so for pride in their code. Of course there's no reason you can't have that with commercial software.
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but.Net will not eliminate vulnerabilities; the result will only be that all your applications and services will share the same vulnerabilities.
The same could be said about any platform or set of libraries, whether it's Java,.NET, PERL, etc.
They see what it successful in the real world, implement it in their own incompatible way, and then use their brute force to make their (wrong) way the only way. Just one example: It starts with a slight non-standard extension to HTML, and (for now) it ends with servers tailoring their output to the browser's user agent setting.
That's intereseting because I use ASP.NET to generate content to target Mozilla/IE and web controls (and all else associated with ASP.NET) all works without any fuss on all the browsers I've used.
they must have something to replace JAVA..NET hardly replaces Java on ther server-side, though. Nothing scales (and has made my life easier programming RDBMS logic) than EJBs. Love that Java too.
Of course this would be a better world if they had made the leap to re-implement all of their products in JAVA, and worked with the other players in the real world to achieve the improvements in JAVA that are needed for that re-implementation.
Well, regarding the first part of that sentence. I would not disagree, but I have reservations about agreeing for the same reason that you started your reply with: If a platform has a vulnerability, the all apps based on that platform has the same vulnerabilities. A heterogenous mix of technology is a good thing, IMHO, to not only encourage competition (which in turn drives innovation), but to insure that we don't all rely on some defacto standard VM, platform, framework, API or whatever..NET is a nice platform, and the people at mono realize that the same way that the BSD people realized that UNIX was a good platform ten years ago and have their own implementation of that platform.
Right, but not checking array bounds (and getting a nice unhandled ArrayIndexOutOfBoundException or whatever in.NET) will crash your program. You won't get rooted but at least, but you still are suseptible to DoS attacks and the like. SQL injection attacks are another excellent example as is cross-site scripting in web pages.
Thanks for the link it was interesting. I believe Java also had some issues, but I'm going on the notion that the runtime does what it's supposed to do, which is not unreasonable to obtain, even after some unavoidable mistake are found. Of course there is no silver bullet to make your code secure and robust. Just because a buffer overflow is impossible or remote code execution/system privilege or root is unattainable, it doesn't mean someone can take advantage of a badly written service that doesn't check array bound or something and crashed on some naughty input. Even thoughtfully written code will have these flaws (where MS seems to have never had much luck).
Slashdot Mirror
something like:
Blond-haired officer Lt. Susie Cox asks for your DNA you say "You'll have to take it?"
She says "Maybe I will, I haven't had anything to eat today and I'm just starving."
And you say "Well feast on this..." [flop]
[cue some Al Green]
Yikes, I've even disturbed myself.
How are the ghosts gonna eat the pacman? Cannibals
Obviously they had to change the rules with people, so they can't be eaten. When the guy playing Pacman gets caught he gets fucked in the ass and he loses a life.
Clearly Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde must be pimps and Pacman is a bitch who outta pocket.
Gosh, you must be a hit at get-togethers....
"Well actually Susie, blah blah blah-de-fucking-blah blah."
God I heard about not reading the article but you didn't even read the entire blurb. My hat's off to you my friend!
You're a criminal mastermind! At least, if they were being trained face to face (since they may be a foreign worker) it would be really awkward just being around them. But you could still piss in their coffee and flick you boogers at their desk when they leave for lunch break.
Just train them in a nice cordial manner but instead of calling them by their name casually address them as "Scab". Also, delete everything in their source directory on your last day.
Well that's the point, maybe they'll do it more often. Would there have been anything that wouldn't make you question their motives? Judge the project, not the company. Or else we shut up and don't use it. See? Democracy in action.
Pilot? I doubt you could even back your car out of your driveway without hitting the garbage cans.
I suspect you are a bitter, meglomaniacal dumbass
You will find the ... American who knows world geography
Maybe I'm just a dumb American but even I know where your head is.
blue screen
As opposed to a kernel panic? Hint: blue screen is usually due to a shitty driver 95% of the time.
DLL Hell
As opposed to RPM Hell. (Your line is: "Everyone should compile from source")
guess I have to reinstall the system
You've got a point here.
I only use Windows at work
Also, for most games...
That was well put.
It seems to be a perfect solution: Qt so you can learn how to use it for yourself and personal or free projects w/o paying license fees and when you bring your experience to the commercial area, either through your own commercial project or a job, you can keep your code open and pay nothing or keep your code close to protect yourself but pay a license fee.
And now Trolltech has another developer who knows how to use it's APIs and even contribute bugs back since their code's always open.
What services in XP that have been exploited also by default on in embedded XP? Or was that involuntary?
Yet Another QT Hacker will soon write a similar style for QT to use GTK to draw widgets, the result will be:
GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
GTK: Please QT, draws me a button...
I've read this a couple of times and it still isn't funny.
If you look at the link I posted (on the first line, no less) you'd have seen:
Welcome to JavaDesktop, a new gathering place for members of the Java graphical user interface (GUI) community.
So it obviously has nothing to do with the "JavaDesktop" of which you only know of through whatever is in the summaries on Slashdot. I know you were anxious to post something, but you've made yourself look like a jackass.
Ok, so now that Java is on the retreat they try to enter a new area?
It's probably because there's no Java user community or usefull implementations out there. And it has virtually no practical application on the desktop for that matter. Maybe because it doesn't do 3D or sound. Or is not so usefull as far as scalable RDBMS abstraction or a real application server for the enterprise. Maybe they need to move into the mobile market. What's really needed is a good Java IDE to get developers on board. Changes should be driven by the software community and making the source open would help as well. Sun should also be making improvments in Java's next(?) version.
You're right, I guess "we" should just cut our losses.
Smashing riposte, you've convinced us all.
Real competition drives innovation and makes good for customers.
True. What's that got to do with whether software is commercial or not?
Well, it doesn't; software is both. What I _did_ say was that there's a need for commercial software because for the reasons stated. Of course, you could say that free (as in beer) software drives innovation as well when people are doing so for pride in their code. Of course there's no reason you can't have that with commercial software.
The question was posed as "What's wrong with commercial software?", not "What's wrong with MS?". Try to keep the non-sequiturs out of the discussion.
Real competition drives innovation and makes good for customers.
You may just need a hug/are a homosexual.
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but .Net will not eliminate vulnerabilities; the result will only be that all your applications and services will share the same vulnerabilities.
.NET, PERL, etc.
.NET is a nice platform, and the people at mono realize that the same way that the BSD people realized that UNIX was a good platform ten years ago and have their own implementation of that platform.
The same could be said about any platform or set of libraries, whether it's Java,
They see what it successful in the real world, implement it in their own incompatible way, and then use their brute force to make their (wrong) way the only way. Just one example: It starts with a slight non-standard extension to HTML, and (for now) it ends with servers tailoring their output to the browser's user agent setting.
That's intereseting because I use ASP.NET to generate content to target Mozilla/IE and web controls (and all else associated with ASP.NET) all works without any fuss on all the browsers I've used.
they must have something to replace JAVA..NET hardly replaces Java on ther server-side, though. Nothing scales (and has made my life easier programming RDBMS logic) than EJBs. Love that Java too.
Of course this would be a better world if they had made the leap to re-implement all of their products in JAVA, and worked with the other players in the real world to achieve the improvements in JAVA that are needed for that re-implementation.
Well, regarding the first part of that sentence. I would not disagree, but I have reservations about agreeing for the same reason that you started your reply with: If a platform has a vulnerability, the all apps based on that platform has the same vulnerabilities. A heterogenous mix of technology is a good thing, IMHO, to not only encourage competition (which in turn drives innovation), but to insure that we don't all rely on some defacto standard VM, platform, framework, API or whatever.
Anyway, only time will tell.
Right, but not checking array bounds (and getting a nice unhandled ArrayIndexOutOfBoundException or whatever in .NET) will crash your program. You won't get rooted but at least, but you still are suseptible to DoS attacks and the like. SQL injection attacks are another excellent example as is cross-site scripting in web pages.
Thanks for the link it was interesting. I believe Java also had some issues, but I'm going on the notion that the runtime does what it's supposed to do, which is not unreasonable to obtain, even after some unavoidable mistake are found.
Of course there is no silver bullet to make your code secure and robust. Just because a buffer overflow is impossible or remote code execution/system privilege or root is unattainable, it doesn't mean someone can take advantage of a badly written service that doesn't check array bound or something and crashed on some naughty input.
Even thoughtfully written code will have these flaws (where MS seems to have never had much luck).