Cause if your customs are attaching leeches to your veins to cure yourself, you're not exactly in a good place to begin with.
Everything in moderation. It's no use polarizing the polemic.
It should be clear though, that what Verisign is doing is wrong, not because it wasn't done before or some very esotheric reason that only a slashdotter could come up with, it's because DNS is not only used by HTTP (as the ICANN very aptly explained). The very bottom line is that DNS is used by more than just humans. That being said, yet another point against them: DNS over HTTP is used by more than just english speaking people.
Well well, mister smarty pants. I should have known that I couldn't win either way.
You see, before, it *was* <voice timbre="Samuel L. Jackson">SUCK MY SIG!</voice>
But people (cough cough) kept on making (cough-stupid) witty remarks about it, so I tried to add in the "Issues with my sig..." part, but that just wouldn't all fit in the 120 character space.
Yeah, they even put the crap codes on all the bad films...
Are they aware that I would never consider spending a dime on Freddy Vs. Jason and that the only way I would watch that movie is if I download it?
I mean, a good movie comes out, I go see it in the theatre just for the experience. A shit movie comes out, I don't go see it. It's not called piracy, it's called shit.
That's just not true. In java, I can take an piece of code and in a few lines of code Lock it down and prevent it from accessing the file system, with per-file granularity. I can prevent it from accessing the network, the GUI system or the printer, or anything else I might want to protect (all I have to do is add more permission types). There is absolutely no way to do this in C++. Once code is loaded into your memory space, it can do whatever it wants.
I don't see how this is a benefit for Java at all. Why would sandbox behaviour make me prefer the language? If I want to implement security, I'll use a modern OS with proper a security configuration. Having a need to control access of a program from within source code is kind of admitting that you're not on top of what your code does, and you want to make sure you don't accidentally delete your system files...
How is my point (C++ should be allowed to smash through every pointer) any different from the UNIX/linux philosophy of "if a user wants to, they should be able to unlink their kernel"?
You have a point that had Outlook been written in Java, a sandbox could have been implemented, but that is essentially "Security as an after-thought" kind of programming. After all, the Microsoft bugs were inherent in design (in outlook at least). Once we admit to this, blaming the language is quite futile.
That being said, STL has nothing like this is also true. But that's because STL wasn't meant to do that. STL was meant to be the most flexible templated library out there. I recommend you buy a book on STL and advanced templates, and you will maybe come to appreciate the enormity of STL. In any case, enough of my eulogising STL, the bottom line is that STL does its task perfectly well, and that is to abstract complexe AI structures such as lists, trees, maps, strings etc. etc. And if used properly, STL will ensure that a program has virtually no memory related bugs in it. STL combined with ATL is even more rock solid.
And so we come to square one, why is Java better again?
<quote>I don't think you are fully aware of what you are talking about yourself, my friend.
C++ is merely an extension to C, and a fairly messy one at that.</quote>
The situation is that I've come to realize one thing in life in general: being complacenct to ignorance and fud is just as bad as spreading the same fud. What Joy said in that article is, IMO, more or less FUD. It's plain and simple "push yourself up by pulling others down" tactics. It's quite sad really that he gets to broadcast such a shitty message from so high too.
That being said, here we are on slashdot, and people are talking. I generally tend to avoid posting in inflamed Linux/Windows wars, even though to me it seems quite glaring that it's not about microsoft being wrong or right in general, it's about "the underdog will overcome" mentality. The sad thing is that that same mentality is quite simply being exploited.
Anyways, I won't go into a whole polemic about that one either, but the few times I post and am faced with what sounds like fud, I react to it. I don't dissimulate it behind a veil of wisdom and calmness that many 'gurus' out there profess to have, when even Linus writes open letters saying "you're on crack", and Verisign responds by figuratively saying "fuck you all to hell".
The bottom line is that I *do* get irritated, maybe more than I should, but only when I think I'm dealing with someone who is spreading fud. And you for a while sounded like it (posting as anymous doesn't help either).
On a side note, if vtables get corrupt in libc, then there is a bug in libc and you should notify whoever is in charge of it.
I'm going to venture a bit out of my comfort zone saying this on/. but to me a language, be it computer or natural is a means of expression. The reason why I like C++ so much is because of its dexterity, of the fact that it's actually legal to turn off compiler checks. Although I wouldn't recommend it in a business object, you can come up with some extremely elegant 'hacks'.
Now that being said, I don't think C++ is the only language capable of doing this (notice, I didn't say C). Lisp and its derivatives have this extremely maleable and expressive syntax to them as well.
Perl too, to a certain extent (although Perl scares me for any project larger than 200 lines).
Java on the other hand, to me feels like a microwave instruction booklet. No flexibility whatsoever.
These are all my opinions of course. But all in all, I will always defend C++ from people that say it's just an extension to C which is itself an extention to assembly.
Ok, I will keep it short because I hate fucking engaging in napalming games on anonymous discussion threads where there are absolutely no scrupules.
First of all, C++ isn't just an extention of C as you might seem to think. You are probably thinking "C++ is just a set of runtime routines defined to support class construction and destruction".
The fact of the matter is that C++ has much more rigourous type checking, which is a big problem as a lot of people know. That's the first difference.
The second difference is that unlike C, where you could actually map any statement, operator or construct to a single piece of ASM code (writing a compiler for C isn't that hard), C++ does some actual work which distinguishes it from a 'low-level' language. This isn't to say C++ is a 4th generation language, it's not. But it *is* a third generation language.
The issue really, is not about the language semantics, but about the model of the underlying machine you're controling. Java basically is modeled on a system where 'memory doesn't really exist' - ie, you are not allowed to do pointer arithmetic. That's fine if you're writing your little web application, but I'm not convinced it'll perform well when the day comes to render 3D in real-time, or implement a codec. And don't friggin say "we have libraries to do that" you don't... those libraries are in C.
Now, for my piece de resistence. C++ has templates. You probably think templates are a puny little device implemented at the last minute to save C++'s ass... you can go ahead and think that way, it'll only make me happier one more idiot doesn't know about templates. The even more joyfull part is that Java DOES NOT have templates. And templates my friend, can do things class inheritence CAN NOT.
By now, you're zit festering little face is probably red with anger... which delights me really... I am NOT going to explain what templates do because a) I don't care if you understand them or not, b) you should get off your lazy ass and read the couple of books I read to understand them.
My last statement is this: C++ can be *as* safe as Java if say a programmer consistently uses STL. AS SAFE. The moment the language stops being safe is the moment a programmer actually uses a buffer and typecasts away the safety parameters. basic_string<T>::c_str() returns a const T*. You cannot touch consts unless you *explicitly* disable the compilers internal checking by typecasting the const away. In any case, doing such a thing is GLARING in code (if you are a good programmer), and a compiler with a proper setting will complain about it anyways.
Before I thought you were on crack. I'm sorry, now I know you're just an ignorant ass.
Don't you understand that C++ is nothing more than a cute object shim on top of C
No I don't. In fact, I can safely say that you probably haven't understood what C++ is at all. **At all**.
Also, dude, C++ is not Bill's creation. And so, as stupid as ad-hominem attacks are, misplaced ad-hominem attacks are even more stupid. I'm not going to defend bill to defend C++.
if you're running a monoculture of software--duh, this is not good. People have studied how to make software systems more reliable by running three distinctly diverse implementations at the same time and then comparing the results. That's what they used to do in the space program, when not only were redundant systems built for, say, guidance, but each of them also ran on different computers with different software.
Who here runs their hosted sites on two round-robined boxes with distinct kernels and Apache versions?
Nature deals with breakdowns in a complex system with evolution, and a very important part of evolution is the extinction of particular species. It's a sort of backtracking mechanism that corrects an evolutionary mistake. The Internet is an ecology, so if you build a species on it that is vulnerable to a certain pathogen, it can very well undergo extinction. By the way, the species that go extinct tend to have limited genetic diversity.
Are you implying that Microsoft Windows is vulnerable to extinction precisely because it is so dominant?
He, and the article writer, are playing the circle-j*rk game by feeding each other soft-balls...
But the analogy is poorly 'implemented' at best. If anything, Microsoft's culture could be compared to a termite infestation (revel you little zealots - I've just insulted microsoft), but in no case is it actually on the road to extinction. Extinction right now is a bad looming shadow for *BSD and BeOS and OS/2 etc...
Why is the analogy broken? Because the oxygen and glucose of software is money. Not electricity and bandwidth as some might believe. These aren't real life forms, as such your model isn't bound by the same rules. Microsoft is actually from a market perspective WAAAAY more genetically diverse (it's spreading its market investment at an incredible rate) than any other software company out there. If anything, the slashdot people have figured it out: they are like the borg right now, assimilating any genetic makeup they can.
His analogy is fucking broken.
Fuck this shit, I've flipped the bozo bit on this guy...
because stuff written in antique programming languages like C [a widely used language created by Bell Labs in the early 1970s] is full of holes. Those languages weren't designed for writing distributed programs to be used over a network. Yet that's what Microsoft still uses.
The fundamentalism never ends man. I'm almost positive when I assert these three facts:
NT Kernel is in C but so is SunOS
SQL Server 2000 is *entirely* C++
I'm almost positive IE is largely, if not entirely written or at least compiled in C++
The answer is quite simple. It's the same reason why Bush is on his crusade, it's the same reason why Quebec wants to seperate from Canada, it's the same reason why Sweden rejected the Euro, it's the same reason why a million things... including why the Nazis ever existed.
We are in a time of recession, and as such, everyone is slowly turning into famished rats trying to gnaw at anything they can get their hands on.
Call me an idealist, or old school (even though I'm in my early twenties), but this just exposes how sad the human race in general is...
Thank god it was spotted after the fact, or else we would have had another stupid media frenzy that would draw attention away from more important matters, like friggin this, this, or this. Media man, it's like a toy for an ADD child.
Think about it this way: a multiplayer game is an excellent place to do clustered computing. The server doesn't need to do all the computations, some of it could be farmed out to the clients. In such a system, there needs to be a trust base established. Cheats aren't about exploiting buffer overruns, they are about abusing that trust. Just like in P2P clients.
Now, it might be that valve chose the gestapo method of having the server be authoritative in every way. In that case, even if the source code out now has problems, they can be fixed with an update to the server only.
This is the crux of trusted computing, and things like the evil palladium everyone fears...
I think google has become the library keeper of humanity's digital library. I also see a descendant of google being the keeper of humanity's entire library.
In fact, he was exactly what you say it to be: a career counselor. I actually bumped into him by chance in a bus. Or rather, he started talking to me. Old dude, with white hair etc. Very cool guy.
At the end of our conversation in which I mentionned I was a programmer and was looking for work, he said, well consider this your interview: you passed.
After that he got me a really cush job, but not after allowing me to turn down 3-4 crummy ones.
He even coached me on interview presentation, something which as a young person and a developer combined, I lacked even though my skills were good.
It's been roughly 4 years since, and I still talk with the guy, we go out for coffee sometimes etc. He's helped me out during times of depression/annoyement with the job market... overall career-saver for sure.
So it does exist, you just have to be lucky I guess.
On a side note, the company that ended up hiring me had and continues to have very close ties with the hiring firm. It's basically an extention of their PR department for hiring. No hiring done from outside that loop.
Use the manual form system where you fill out forms, mail back receipts, and wait for up to 6 months or more to receive your settlement.
Or...use MSfreePC.com to get your Instant Settlement* TODAY!
[...]
*If you qualify, your "Instant Settlement" is the credit that Lindows.com will give to you to immediately
purchase products using the MSfreePC program in exchange for the right to process your settlement
claim on your behalf as described in more detail in Step 7 and Step 8 of the Instant Settlement Wizard.
Bash microsoft all you will, I find that very shrewd of Lindows. It's basically piggy backing on the settlement. Not cool.
CmdTaco, the master troller. Jumping ship? Don't you realize he said that just so people like you could have a seizure and start cursing at microsoft? And then he gets to watch with delight.
I must admit, maybe you are just as well aware of the situation and are, quite ironicaly, jumping ship and enjoying his creation.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything in moderation. It's no use polarizing the polemic.
It should be clear though, that what Verisign is doing is wrong, not because it wasn't done before or some very esotheric reason that only a slashdotter could come up with, it's because DNS is not only used by HTTP (as the ICANN very aptly explained). The very bottom line is that DNS is used by more than just humans. That being said, yet another point against them: DNS over HTTP is used by more than just english speaking people.
You see, before, it *was* <voice timbre="Samuel L. Jackson">SUCK MY SIG!</voice>
But people (cough cough) kept on making (cough-stupid) witty remarks about it, so I tried to add in the "Issues with my sig..." part, but that just wouldn't all fit in the 120 character space.
I'm just going to savour this moment... <grin>
Get over yourself.
Are they aware that I would never consider spending a dime on Freddy Vs. Jason and that the only way I would watch that movie is if I download it?
I mean, a good movie comes out, I go see it in the theatre just for the experience. A shit movie comes out, I don't go see it. It's not called piracy, it's called shit.
I don't see how this is a benefit for Java at all. Why would sandbox behaviour make me prefer the language? If I want to implement security, I'll use a modern OS with proper a security configuration. Having a need to control access of a program from within source code is kind of admitting that you're not on top of what your code does, and you want to make sure you don't accidentally delete your system files...
How is my point (C++ should be allowed to smash through every pointer) any different from the UNIX/linux philosophy of "if a user wants to, they should be able to unlink their kernel"?
You have a point that had Outlook been written in Java, a sandbox could have been implemented, but that is essentially "Security as an after-thought" kind of programming. After all, the Microsoft bugs were inherent in design (in outlook at least). Once we admit to this, blaming the language is quite futile.
That being said, STL has nothing like this is also true. But that's because STL wasn't meant to do that. STL was meant to be the most flexible templated library out there. I recommend you buy a book on STL and advanced templates, and you will maybe come to appreciate the enormity of STL. In any case, enough of my eulogising STL, the bottom line is that STL does its task perfectly well, and that is to abstract complexe AI structures such as lists, trees, maps, strings etc. etc. And if used properly, STL will ensure that a program has virtually no memory related bugs in it. STL combined with ATL is even more rock solid.
And so we come to square one, why is Java better again?
It's no use arguing man. I'm now going to move on... have a nice life.
I won't let you go uncriticized though, you said:
<quote>I don't think you are fully aware of what you are talking about yourself, my friend.
C++ is merely an extension to C, and a fairly messy one at that.</quote>
The situation is that I've come to realize one thing in life in general: being complacenct to ignorance and fud is just as bad as spreading the same fud. What Joy said in that article is, IMO, more or less FUD. It's plain and simple "push yourself up by pulling others down" tactics. It's quite sad really that he gets to broadcast such a shitty message from so high too.
That being said, here we are on slashdot, and people are talking. I generally tend to avoid posting in inflamed Linux/Windows wars, even though to me it seems quite glaring that it's not about microsoft being wrong or right in general, it's about "the underdog will overcome" mentality. The sad thing is that that same mentality is quite simply being exploited.
Anyways, I won't go into a whole polemic about that one either, but the few times I post and am faced with what sounds like fud, I react to it. I don't dissimulate it behind a veil of wisdom and calmness that many 'gurus' out there profess to have, when even Linus writes open letters saying "you're on crack", and Verisign responds by figuratively saying "fuck you all to hell".
The bottom line is that I *do* get irritated, maybe more than I should, but only when I think I'm dealing with someone who is spreading fud. And you for a while sounded like it (posting as anymous doesn't help either).
On a side note, if vtables get corrupt in libc, then there is a bug in libc and you should notify whoever is in charge of it.
I'm going to venture a bit out of my comfort zone saying this on /. but to me a language, be it computer or natural is a means of expression. The reason why I like C++ so much is because of its dexterity, of the fact that it's actually legal to turn off compiler checks. Although I wouldn't recommend it in a business object, you can come up with some extremely elegant 'hacks'.
Now that being said, I don't think C++ is the only language capable of doing this (notice, I didn't say C). Lisp and its derivatives have this extremely maleable and expressive syntax to them as well.
Perl too, to a certain extent (although Perl scares me for any project larger than 200 lines).
Java on the other hand, to me feels like a microwave instruction booklet. No flexibility whatsoever.
These are all my opinions of course. But all in all, I will always defend C++ from people that say it's just an extension to C which is itself an extention to assembly.
First of all, C++ isn't just an extention of C as you might seem to think. You are probably thinking "C++ is just a set of runtime routines defined to support class construction and destruction".
The fact of the matter is that C++ has much more rigourous type checking, which is a big problem as a lot of people know. That's the first difference.
The second difference is that unlike C, where you could actually map any statement, operator or construct to a single piece of ASM code (writing a compiler for C isn't that hard), C++ does some actual work which distinguishes it from a 'low-level' language. This isn't to say C++ is a 4th generation language, it's not. But it *is* a third generation language.
The issue really, is not about the language semantics, but about the model of the underlying machine you're controling. Java basically is modeled on a system where 'memory doesn't really exist' - ie, you are not allowed to do pointer arithmetic. That's fine if you're writing your little web application, but I'm not convinced it'll perform well when the day comes to render 3D in real-time, or implement a codec. And don't friggin say "we have libraries to do that" you don't... those libraries are in C.
Now, for my piece de resistence. C++ has templates. You probably think templates are a puny little device implemented at the last minute to save C++'s ass... you can go ahead and think that way, it'll only make me happier one more idiot doesn't know about templates. The even more joyfull part is that Java DOES NOT have templates. And templates my friend, can do things class inheritence CAN NOT.
By now, you're zit festering little face is probably red with anger... which delights me really... I am NOT going to explain what templates do because a) I don't care if you understand them or not, b) you should get off your lazy ass and read the couple of books I read to understand them.
My last statement is this: C++ can be *as* safe as Java if say a programmer consistently uses STL. AS SAFE. The moment the language stops being safe is the moment a programmer actually uses a buffer and typecasts away the safety parameters. basic_string<T>::c_str() returns a const T*. You cannot touch consts unless you *explicitly* disable the compilers internal checking by typecasting the const away. In any case, doing such a thing is GLARING in code (if you are a good programmer), and a compiler with a proper setting will complain about it anyways.
Before I thought you were on crack. I'm sorry, now I know you're just an ignorant ass.
No I don't. In fact, I can safely say that you probably haven't understood what C++ is at all. **At all**.
Also, dude, C++ is not Bill's creation. And so, as stupid as ad-hominem attacks are, misplaced ad-hominem attacks are even more stupid. I'm not going to defend bill to defend C++.
Are you fucking smoking Crack?
Who here runs their hosted sites on two round-robined boxes with distinct kernels and Apache versions?
Nature deals with breakdowns in a complex system with evolution, and a very important part of evolution is the extinction of particular species. It's a sort of backtracking mechanism that corrects an evolutionary mistake. The Internet is an ecology, so if you build a species on it that is vulnerable to a certain pathogen, it can very well undergo extinction. By the way, the species that go extinct tend to have limited genetic diversity.
Are you implying that Microsoft Windows is vulnerable to extinction precisely because it is so dominant?
He, and the article writer, are playing the circle-j*rk game by feeding each other soft-balls...
But the analogy is poorly 'implemented' at best. If anything, Microsoft's culture could be compared to a termite infestation (revel you little zealots - I've just insulted microsoft), but in no case is it actually on the road to extinction. Extinction right now is a bad looming shadow for *BSD and BeOS and OS/2 etc...
Why is the analogy broken? Because the oxygen and glucose of software is money. Not electricity and bandwidth as some might believe. These aren't real life forms, as such your model isn't bound by the same rules. Microsoft is actually from a market perspective WAAAAY more genetically diverse (it's spreading its market investment at an incredible rate) than any other software company out there. If anything, the slashdot people have figured it out: they are like the borg right now, assimilating any genetic makeup they can.
His analogy is fucking broken.
Fuck this shit, I've flipped the bozo bit on this guy...
The fundamentalism never ends man. I'm almost positive when I assert these three facts:
NT Kernel is in C but so is SunOS
SQL Server 2000 is *entirely* C++
I'm almost positive IE is largely, if not entirely written or at least compiled in C++
Are you saying people use macs for free because they see Aqua?
And are you saying with all the form factor mini ITXs out there, you're not going to find computers as cool as Macs?
The answer is quite simple. It's the same reason why Bush is on his crusade, it's the same reason why Quebec wants to seperate from Canada, it's the same reason why Sweden rejected the Euro, it's the same reason why a million things... including why the Nazis ever existed.
We are in a time of recession, and as such, everyone is slowly turning into famished rats trying to gnaw at anything they can get their hands on.
Call me an idealist, or old school (even though I'm in my early twenties), but this just exposes how sad the human race in general is...
Thank god it was spotted after the fact, or else we would have had another stupid media frenzy that would draw attention away from more important matters, like friggin this, this, or this. Media man, it's like a toy for an ADD child.
Think about it this way: a multiplayer game is an excellent place to do clustered computing. The server doesn't need to do all the computations, some of it could be farmed out to the clients. In such a system, there needs to be a trust base established. Cheats aren't about exploiting buffer overruns, they are about abusing that trust. Just like in P2P clients.
Now, it might be that valve chose the gestapo method of having the server be authoritative in every way. In that case, even if the source code out now has problems, they can be fixed with an update to the server only.
This is the crux of trusted computing, and things like the evil palladium everyone fears...
BURN RIAA... BUUuuuurn.
"Are they saying Boo Smithers? -Err, no, they're saying BOOurns..."
this unfunny stupid post brought to you by late night brain damage via sleep depravation. Good night.
It should have been:
Lisa, good head hunters are make belief, just like elves and gremlins and eskimos.
Shame on you. It's like saying "To exist or not to exist."
Basically, it is quintessential.
At the end of our conversation in which I mentionned I was a programmer and was looking for work, he said, well consider this your interview: you passed.
After that he got me a really cush job, but not after allowing me to turn down 3-4 crummy ones.
He even coached me on interview presentation, something which as a young person and a developer combined, I lacked even though my skills were good.
It's been roughly 4 years since, and I still talk with the guy, we go out for coffee sometimes etc. He's helped me out during times of depression/annoyement with the job market... overall career-saver for sure.
So it does exist, you just have to be lucky I guess.
On a side note, the company that ended up hiring me had and continues to have very close ties with the hiring firm. It's basically an extention of their PR department for hiring. No hiring done from outside that loop.
Does it make it any more kosher to you? evidently not. So I hold my opinion, just like you hold yours. It's not cool.
It may be legal, in my books its definitely not kosher.
Use the manual form system where you fill out forms, mail back receipts, and wait for up to 6 months or more to receive your settlement.
Or...use MSfreePC.com to get your Instant Settlement* TODAY! [...]
*If you qualify, your "Instant Settlement" is the credit that Lindows.com will give to you to immediately purchase products using the MSfreePC program in exchange for the right to process your settlement claim on your behalf as described in more detail in Step 7 and Step 8 of the Instant Settlement Wizard.
Bash microsoft all you will, I find that very shrewd of Lindows. It's basically piggy backing on the settlement. Not cool.
I must admit, maybe you are just as well aware of the situation and are, quite ironicaly, jumping ship and enjoying his creation.