Also, consider that Netscape is a third party in this instance. There's a difference between passive logging by a HTTP server and blatant spying by a third party such as Netscape.
This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate their origin and make the responses available for some period of time. This will likely have a chilling effect on Internet communication (at least in Europe).
Bit strange... any definitions as to how specific you would have to be before this took effect? e.g. if I called 'programmers of operating systems' - now, note how vague the term is - if I called them something mean like 'wankers', am I then expected to post responses from - say - Microsoft, even though I wasn't referring directly to them?
The analogy is shocking, I know, but I hope it conveys my point.
Programming is NOT about knowing as many programming languages as possible.
Programming is NOT about writing as many lines of code as possible in a day.
Nor did I once say that it was.
Programming IS about knowing your own limits, and programming around them, just as you would program around hardware limits. When you have learned not to write "if (a = 1)" in C but "if (1 == a)", you will next learn that you are now capable of much more creative mistakes.
I think I first read about this in McConnell's Code Complete. It's a good idea, as are most bits of advice in that book. Thank you for your little rant on what programming 'IS'. Moving on...
The problem is, management and customers EXPECT software to be shitty. They have grown used to it. And KLOC per day is the only productivity number they are interested in.
Now this I agree with. Metrics, metrics, metrics. This is something I wouldn't know, but how many developers themselves keep a proper track of metrics other than KLOC? The 'bugs per line of code' metric I feel would prove invaluable here -> so if a manager complains about the speed of your work, you can point him/her toward the facts. That said, I'd be willing to bet he/she wouldn't even read it.
What's more, if you think you know many programming languages, you will probably not know them well, and get caught by simple but basic things or small differences between the languages.
Thanks for the little personal attack. Fact: I can confidently say that I have a firm enough grip on three of the languages I know (PHP, Java and C++) to the point where I know I won't get caught up in any 'small differences' between the languages.
As for the rest of your post, for most part I agree. Next time, however, you'd probably best to shove your grazing little remarks up your own ass.
1) Managers suck! They look at their own perspective and think the rest of world must be like that.
2) People like to validate sterotypes. ONLY young people can learn new technologies and are flexible.
3) GenX's are screwed!
I like to think of myself as a pretty fast learner - I'm 19, doing the rounds at uni, and have taught myself a bunch of different programming languages ranging from PHP and Python to C/C++ and Java.
However, I fail to see the logic behind the idea that 'young people learn faster'. A person's ability to learn is not a function of their age.
I know for a fact, through all the personal research I've done into things related to software engineering, that in order to do the job properly a little more care (read: 'time') has to be taken to plan things out in advance. The inexperienced software engineer, otoh, will run into the problem and solve it with little thought - often resulting in a monolithic, incohesive mess that's impossible to extend should the need ever arise.
I know for a fact that most students my age don't give a fuck about good software engineering practices - 'software engineering principles' to them is just another unit to study up to the exam and then forget about. So they'll get out of uni and will no doubt get a job somewhere developing software, and most of them will do a shit job. But they're fast, and if they're fast, they make the managers look good in the short term. If the managers are made to look good, then they're going to keep doing what they're doing.
So I think it's not that managers 'look from their own perspective', but that they seek professional recognition from their bosses. And in order to stay 'competitive', so to speak, with other hirers-and-firers, they work towards what's best for them - not what's best for the company.
And besides, your wife has no argument. What the fuck sort of a reason is 'they can learn quicker'? So what? Seasoned developers have less to learn anyway!
I have problems learning these days in contrast to previous years. And GenX's demand too much.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your wife's a fucking idiot. Last I checked, you get what you pay for - and at the moment I'd bet she's paying for green, poorly trained, ill experienced code monkeys.
Here's hoping somebody comes across the shitty code written by all the people she's hired, and raises the alarm.
Yes, almost all broadband providers have download caps (typically around 1 - 4Gb/month), but that's not a problem for most people, just leeches mostly.
I downloaded RedHat 8 on Telstra cable. Came to about 1.5Gb. I had a 3Gb cap.
Being a bit of a software dev nut, I also downloaded things like J#, updates to the.NET framework, the Java SDK, Apache 2 and related modules (PHP, Perl, Python), security updates for windows and... well you can see where this is going, can't you?
I've spoken of all legit software, but in a week, without trying, I could have pushed my cap - and then paid the 20c per Mb over the limit.
No fuckin' thanks. I'm glad it serves you well, but to me it's barely worth the money. I'm currently on a dial-up with no download cap and unlimited hours (by lack of choice - no ADSL/Cable in a new estate apparrently) - and I'm almost as happy as I would be with cable.
THE ROCKET IS POWERED BY COMBUSTIBLE FUEL! LINUX IS NOT A POWER SOURCE!
Through your usage of capital letters, I have become a wiser man.
Smart ass comments aside, I agree with your point. Obviously, they're using the meat of a penguin who - by the cruelty of his Geek master - was named 'Linux'.
One _conspiracy theory_ I've been harbouring is that the USA's plan is to politically assimilate the rest of the world so that there will not BE another place to go to
While this is no doubt disturbing, there's more to the security world than those 11 companies. Yes, some of the security firms involved are high profile and there's a lot lost in their soul-selling, but there will always be BugTraq - and there will always be other researchers who don't believe in this shit.
Apparently the most telling evidence is that parts of the SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers when they wrote the programs, says DiDio, who compares such notes to the signature or fingerprint of a developer's work. "The fact that these appear to be transposed from Unix System V into Linux I find to be very damaging."
Now, who in the hell at IBM would be stupid enough to include identical source code 'annotations' (which I'm assuming are comments) when stealing code?
Similar annotations, maybe, but come on - even Joe Dumbass wouldn't be so fucking stupid so as to copy-and-paste proprietary source code from one to the other, comments and all.
Further, does SCO have proof that the infringing Linux code is indeed the egg? (i.e. was SCO's code even written first?) Who's to say this case should be about a GPL violation?
To imply that IBM's developers are so stupid as to copy and paste code simply begs the question, from their own logic: Who's to say that SCO's developers who weren't so bright and pulled the copy-paste job from Linux? Who's to say that SCO didn't put the source code in there themselves, intentionally. I mean, that scenario seems more likely to me: Linux source code is freely available. Nobody outside of SCO will have seen SCO source - and if they have, they're tied and raped with NDAs.
Anyway, that's enough. Here's to SCO choking on its own arrogance.
That's fine, but you have to admit: you're not exactly in the majority.
I'm not trying to stereotype - rather, I'm trying to point out that one man's hacksaw is another man's harmonica.
While you're imagining the gruesome mess of a man trying to play "Lady in Blue" on a hacksaw, take a moment to think about what the logic behind AOL's repeated pulling of Nullsoft file sharing projects must be.
My guess would be fear of getting their asses sued, ala Napster. They have a lot of money to spend, which means they have a lot of money to lose.
Still, I look forward to the day when a big company gets behind file sharing. And by 'get behind', I don't mean for them to fuck it up the arse - in both senses of the phrase.
I find it really strange that AOL should pull things like Gnutella and WASTE, considering that Nullsoft's primary product, WinAmp, is perhaps the most frequently used by Joe Internet for playing often illegal MP3s. Admittedly, people can use it for legal music too - but go on, most people don't give a fuck.
Likewise, Gnutella/WASTE could be used for good or evil (in the political sense). What makes them so different from WinAmp? Why is file sharing worse than playing music? Given that they already provide the criminal community (so to speak, I mean - call me a crim) an excellent tool for playing their often illegaly acquired music, as well as to the RIAA-friendly users out there - what makes file sharing so goddamn different?
How about writing secure code that is secure right out of the box?
How about you 'write secure code that is secure right out of the box'? Despite what you may believe, nothing is completely secure - and I'm sure the people who do their best to write secure code know that.
Sounds to me like Mr. McBride is trying to make up for the self-hurt caused by his company's own arrogance. What better way to ruin your competitor than by scaring the shit out of their users?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, consider that Netscape is a third party in this instance. There's a difference between passive logging by a HTTP server and blatant spying by a third party such as Netscape.
This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate their origin and make the responses available for some period of time. This will likely have a chilling effect on Internet communication (at least in Europe).
Bit strange... any definitions as to how specific you would have to be before this took effect? e.g. if I called 'programmers of operating systems' - now, note how vague the term is - if I called them something mean like 'wankers', am I then expected to post responses from - say - Microsoft, even though I wasn't referring directly to them?
The analogy is shocking, I know, but I hope it conveys my point.
Which is probably wrong.
Anyway ...
No, no, the other was Satan & Co. - a subsidiary of Microsoft ;)
Programming is NOT about knowing as many programming languages as possible.
Programming is NOT about writing as many lines of code as possible in a day.
Nor did I once say that it was.
Programming IS about knowing your own limits, and programming around them, just as you would program around hardware limits. When you have learned not to write "if (a = 1)" in C but "if (1 == a)", you will next learn that you are now capable of much more creative mistakes.
I think I first read about this in McConnell's Code Complete. It's a good idea, as are most bits of advice in that book. Thank you for your little rant on what programming 'IS'. Moving on ...
The problem is, management and customers EXPECT software to be shitty. They have grown used to it. And KLOC per day is the only productivity number they are interested in.
Now this I agree with. Metrics, metrics, metrics. This is something I wouldn't know, but how many developers themselves keep a proper track of metrics other than KLOC? The 'bugs per line of code' metric I feel would prove invaluable here -> so if a manager complains about the speed of your work, you can point him/her toward the facts. That said, I'd be willing to bet he/she wouldn't even read it.
What's more, if you think you know many programming languages, you will probably not know them well, and get caught by simple but basic things or small differences between the languages.
Thanks for the little personal attack. Fact: I can confidently say that I have a firm enough grip on three of the languages I know (PHP, Java and C++) to the point where I know I won't get caught up in any 'small differences' between the languages.
As for the rest of your post, for most part I agree. Next time, however, you'd probably best to shove your grazing little remarks up your own ass.
lmfao!
What I learned from this is as follows:
1) Managers suck! They look at their own perspective and think the rest of world must be like that.
2) People like to validate sterotypes. ONLY young people can learn new technologies and are flexible.
3) GenX's are screwed!
I like to think of myself as a pretty fast learner - I'm 19, doing the rounds at uni, and have taught myself a bunch of different programming languages ranging from PHP and Python to C/C++ and Java.
However, I fail to see the logic behind the idea that 'young people learn faster'. A person's ability to learn is not a function of their age.
I know for a fact, through all the personal research I've done into things related to software engineering, that in order to do the job properly a little more care (read: 'time') has to be taken to plan things out in advance. The inexperienced software engineer, otoh, will run into the problem and solve it with little thought - often resulting in a monolithic, incohesive mess that's impossible to extend should the need ever arise.
I know for a fact that most students my age don't give a fuck about good software engineering practices - 'software engineering principles' to them is just another unit to study up to the exam and then forget about. So they'll get out of uni and will no doubt get a job somewhere developing software, and most of them will do a shit job. But they're fast, and if they're fast, they make the managers look good in the short term. If the managers are made to look good, then they're going to keep doing what they're doing.
So I think it's not that managers 'look from their own perspective', but that they seek professional recognition from their bosses. And in order to stay 'competitive', so to speak, with other hirers-and-firers, they work towards what's best for them - not what's best for the company.
And besides, your wife has no argument. What the fuck sort of a reason is 'they can learn quicker'? So what? Seasoned developers have less to learn anyway!
I have problems learning these days in contrast to previous years. And GenX's demand too much.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your wife's a fucking idiot. Last I checked, you get what you pay for - and at the moment I'd bet she's paying for green, poorly trained, ill experienced code monkeys.
Here's hoping somebody comes across the shitty code written by all the people she's hired, and raises the alarm.
If a radionuclide has a long half life it will be less radioactive in the short term.
Great! So we'll just die really really slowly? :)
Well, actually, they only have one religeon that accounts for all three: Polypolytheism
Yes, almost all broadband providers have download caps (typically around 1 - 4Gb/month), but that's not a problem for most people, just leeches mostly.
I downloaded RedHat 8 on Telstra cable. Came to about 1.5Gb. I had a 3Gb cap.
Being a bit of a software dev nut, I also downloaded things like J#, updates to the .NET framework, the Java SDK, Apache 2 and related modules (PHP, Perl, Python), security updates for windows and ... well you can see where this is going, can't you?
I've spoken of all legit software, but in a week, without trying, I could have pushed my cap - and then paid the 20c per Mb over the limit.
No fuckin' thanks. I'm glad it serves you well, but to me it's barely worth the money. I'm currently on a dial-up with no download cap and unlimited hours (by lack of choice - no ADSL/Cable in a new estate apparrently) - and I'm almost as happy as I would be with cable.
THE ROCKET IS POWERED BY COMBUSTIBLE FUEL! LINUX IS NOT A POWER SOURCE!
Through your usage of capital letters, I have become a wiser man.
Smart ass comments aside, I agree with your point. Obviously, they're using the meat of a penguin who - by the cruelty of his Geek master - was named 'Linux'.
One _conspiracy theory_ I've been harbouring is that the USA's plan is to politically assimilate the rest of the world so that there will not BE another place to go to
Good luck to 'em.
well, yes, if you wear it on your head
int i = 0;
/* XXX: [dm] can't remember for loop syntax */
printk( buf[i++] ); /* 0 */ /* 1 */ /* 2 */ /* 3 */ /* 4 */ /* 5 */ /* 6 */ /* 7 */ /* 8 */
printk( buf[i++] );
printk( buf[i++] );
printk( buf[i++] );
printk( buf[i++] );
printk( buf[i++] );
printk( buf[i++] );
printk( buf[i++] );
printk( buf[i++] );
etc.
(Bugtraq is part of Symantec)
Well don't I look like a dick? :) Isn't it a full disclosure list? Wonder what's to become of that, then.
While this is no doubt disturbing, there's more to the security world than those 11 companies. Yes, some of the security firms involved are high profile and there's a lot lost in their soul-selling, but there will always be BugTraq - and there will always be other researchers who don't believe in this shit.
I can't believe @stake is involved ... doesn't it consist largely of former l0pht hackers?
Apparently the most telling evidence is that parts of the SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers when they wrote the programs, says DiDio, who compares such notes to the signature or fingerprint of a developer's work. "The fact that these appear to be transposed from Unix System V into Linux I find to be very damaging."
Now, who in the hell at IBM would be stupid enough to include identical source code 'annotations' (which I'm assuming are comments) when stealing code?
Similar annotations, maybe, but come on - even Joe Dumbass wouldn't be so fucking stupid so as to copy-and-paste proprietary source code from one to the other, comments and all.
Further, does SCO have proof that the infringing Linux code is indeed the egg? (i.e. was SCO's code even written first?) Who's to say this case should be about a GPL violation?
To imply that IBM's developers are so stupid as to copy and paste code simply begs the question, from their own logic: Who's to say that SCO's developers who weren't so bright and pulled the copy-paste job from Linux? Who's to say that SCO didn't put the source code in there themselves, intentionally. I mean, that scenario seems more likely to me: Linux source code is freely available. Nobody outside of SCO will have seen SCO source - and if they have, they're tied and raped with NDAs.
Anyway, that's enough. Here's to SCO choking on its own arrogance.
That's fine, but you have to admit: you're not exactly in the majority.
I'm not trying to stereotype - rather, I'm trying to point out that one man's hacksaw is another man's harmonica.
While you're imagining the gruesome mess of a man trying to play "Lady in Blue" on a hacksaw, take a moment to think about what the logic behind AOL's repeated pulling of Nullsoft file sharing projects must be.
My guess would be fear of getting their asses sued, ala Napster. They have a lot of money to spend, which means they have a lot of money to lose.
Still, I look forward to the day when a big company gets behind file sharing. And by 'get behind', I don't mean for them to fuck it up the arse - in both senses of the phrase.
I find it really strange that AOL should pull things like Gnutella and WASTE, considering that Nullsoft's primary product, WinAmp, is perhaps the most frequently used by Joe Internet for playing often illegal MP3s. Admittedly, people can use it for legal music too - but go on, most people don't give a fuck.
Likewise, Gnutella/WASTE could be used for good or evil (in the political sense). What makes them so different from WinAmp? Why is file sharing worse than playing music? Given that they already provide the criminal community (so to speak, I mean - call me a crim) an excellent tool for playing their often illegaly acquired music, as well as to the RIAA-friendly users out there - what makes file sharing so goddamn different?
Here we have another story of a billion dollar company, run by a 10 cent brain, i.e. Bill Gates, et al.
Right. Which is why he's the richest man in the world, and you're not.
How about writing secure code that is secure right out of the box?
How about you 'write secure code that is secure right out of the box'? Despite what you may believe, nothing is completely secure - and I'm sure the people who do their best to write secure code know that.
How is this different? Using a chat system to find people who like to ... uh ... chat?
If they try to go legal, they'll get trounced by Apple, disowned by computer users, and end up lie the legal version of Napster...forgotten.
There is another
it looks like windows on the bottom-part (task bar) and Mac on the top part (menu)... it must be... linux!
How do you come to that conclusion?
I'd be more inclined to call it "WinMac" ;)
Among other things, McBride says: "I'm not trying to screw up the Linux business,"
Oh really? Then could Mr. McBride please explain why I hear things like, "SCO to Linux Users: Cease and Desist" and "SCO delivers a warning"?
Sounds to me like Mr. McBride is trying to make up for the self-hurt caused by his company's own arrogance. What better way to ruin your competitor than by scaring the shit out of their users?