The other poster has commented on all of you points bar these two, so I'll add something.
- No modularisation
Incorrect. This can be done by separating out the work to different sheets. The sheets themselves can also be separated into sections. While this isn't true modularisation, you can go some of the way there. It does demand some discipline, however so does coding modules that don't run to thousands of lines of code.
- No capability to test spreadsheet sub-components in isolation
Refer to ealier point. Build spreadsheets like you code. Define interfaces between the sheets and the sections in the sheets. Build it section (module) by section, sheet by sheet and test each section in isolation.
All of this is about discipline. You may be thinking of spreadsheets as they are normally built, rather than as they *should* be built.
Ever build an SQL query with Access? Pretty simple if you ask me. How about an excel spreadsheet formula?
Yep, but if you want to do anything more complicated than a couple of simple joins, it is much faster to code the SQL yourself. I have yet to see a decent graphical tool to replace hand coded SQL.
Would you care to justify that comment? I don't know a whole lot about Java, but frankly that statement is so sweeping, that I can't imagine it is correct.
Since hordes of curious programmers aren't busy analyzing the Java code base freely, all sorts of critical bugs are slipping through the cracks and risk the fate of humanity as a whole.
This does not necessarly make code more secure. If there is no systematic review, some sections of code may not be reviewed, and others may be reviewed multiple times. Point me to the study that proves many eyes make bugs shallow.
I'd say a better argument would be to say that review of code by good programmers makes code secure (hence many open source products are more secure), but that is another thing altogether.
Re:Problem that doesn't exist big time...
on
Passport to Nowhere
·
· Score: 1
If it just displayed a message, you might have a point. I'd consider it rather funny. However as it stands you and your friends are probably well intentioned spyware distributors.
Logging the IP address or any information from their machine is crossing the line.
1. This isn't tracking pirates this is tracking someone who downloads a key cracker from p2p. They could be downloading the application to see how it works or to be able to run a copy of UT2004 they have legitmately purchased. I'll admit that this is not going to be the intention of most people who download it, but you are tarring all those who download it with the same brush.
2. Your application is no better than any other piece of spyware or adware that phones home.
For the reasons above, you sir are a tool. Your intentions may be good, but your actions aren't. I don't agree with software piracy, however this is not the way forward.
You say that this isn't mailicious. How about this, you have posted details about a bunch of IP addresses that may be used for targetted advertising.
> How can you talk about functions and features of software that has not yet been released? How can companies "early adopt" vaporware?
There has been a beta yukon program, some of the DBAs on the mailing lists I am on have been testing and evaluating a copy. People could have planned an application around what they say in the beta, with the expectation of of the full product being released later. It is still a pretty dumb thing to do though as the features in the beta may not be the same as in the full version.
I like the image of the door knocker and the caption: "Music firms might come knocking if you are swapping pop". Swapping pop, why on earth would you want to do that? Don't you want to swap music you want?
Well clearly you weren't interested enough in my workd view for a discussion. In case you didn't get it, my point was that there is a flaw underlying your world view, namely it starts with the underlying assumption that there is no God. I think you should explain that assumption. Any proof or theory is only as good as the underlying assumptions.
I can take some more time to justify my position but before I begin down that path I wanted to point out the assumption.
But the cost of that would be high. Network admins would not know which malware they should concentrate on most. There was a recent/. article that looked at the guys (in this case from sophos) who examine email bourne malware. The article mentioned that the number of worms these guys analyse is huge. I forget the exact numbers (~20 a day?), but the point is that these are also cumulative.
So unless there is some sort of list ranking these threats, the net admins need to remain on top of *all* of them. Add to that the fact that worms tend to hang around for a long time. I'll bet there are still quite a few machines out there is code red, nimda, slammer and blaster. MyDoom-A is more than a month and a half old, and the sunset clause came into effect 20 days or more ago however it is still 2nd top in Sophos' virus threat list.
Sure you can take away the lists, but that may decrease security as the net admins will be spending so much time responding to low risk threats and miss the high risk threats. Or they may just find it all to hard to keep up.
Not only that, but when they were comparing prices, they said that the 2Mb cache Xeons were twice the price of the Opterons. Howevere in the article they tested the *4Mb cache Xeons*, which you can expect to be even more expensive.
I've posted a longer comment in reply to the original poster's reply.
Put simply I don't believe that right and wrongs are defined as absolutes by us. On the other hand the same action in two different situations might be right or wrong.
I've reached where I am now by examining all the evidence that I have on hand and making a decision. I'm interested in being proven wrong on this if I am wrong.
Before I begin what promises to be a long comment I'll declare my bias. I am a Christian (I can already hear everyone tuning out). I live in Australia, not the "the South", and I'd probably be considered very liberal Christian by some, and I imagine also that they consider that I'm far left I'm off the scale. In Australian terms that means I have a slight leaning to the left.
I'm going to try to explain modernism and post-modernism as I understand them (yes I'm going somewhere with this). I'm no philosophy major, so I may be wrong. I also haven't looked at this for a little while so I might be hazy on details, I also have a bad habit of forgetting opposing arguments once I have proved something to my own satisfaction. I'm going to use the word man to describe humanity occasionally. Deal with it.
Modernism is the belief that man continually improves himself. This manifests itself in a number of ways. The core is that you believe man is getting better and better. The means by which this happens is normally considered to be science. Hence science is applied to everything (including social and moral behaviour) and is elevated to the point where it can do no wrong. The problem with Modernism is that man didn't seem to be going anywhere good. Despite our best efforts, you have the appalling wars and massacres of the 20th century.
Post-modernism, by its title, says we have moved on from modernism. It originally came from English departments at Universities when examining "texts". It was noticed that different people took away different messages from the same text. So that text itself was subject to interpretation, hence the truth in it was subjective. This was a very valid point, however it was then applied to life in general. So you end up with the line "What is OK for you is OK for you and what is OK for me is OK for me", in other words all truth becomes subjective. There is a strong emphasis in experience in post-modernism.
From where I stand there are problems with both modernism and post-modernism. Both place the person at the centre. In modernism, it is assumed that man can improve himself, and that truth/good/bad can be modified by scientific discoveries.
The post-modernist idea that there are no absolutes is even more silly, Belief not matter how earnest, does not make something true. I can believe that area of a circle is 4r, it doesn't make it true. To get around this, post-modernism seems to say that religious/moral beliefs are the only things that this applies to. This ignores contradictions inherent in different belief structures. I believe you are going to hell, and you believe you are going to heave: whose belief wins?
When we come to what is good and bad, this is also considered subjective. This flies in the face of common sense, however that is normally worked around by declaring that what the majority believes in are the facts (eg Murder is bad). Truth by democracy, ah so Iraq *did* have WMD.
The flaw in all of this is the initial assumption: there is no greater being that is outside of our system that has imposed absolutes on us.
This is absolute right and wrong, to attempt to decompile right and wrong to simply pain and pleasure is to buy the lie. One immediate point, one person's subjective pleasure is anothers subjective pain. The denial of absolutes is the lie sold to us by the current postmodern viewpoint. It will die, as did the modernist viewpoint before it.
I'm not sure why I bother, you've bought the lie and I don't imagine that you are going to be really interested in hearing conflicting views.
Actually under simulations worms with a destructive payload could still spread well. Check out the following article
The relevant quote is:
"At the end of this simulation run, there were 2,774 infected and 1,979 not infected systems left, of an initial 166,730. While this not quite "annihilation", it does mean that within two minutes, 161,977 hosts or about 97% of the vulnerable population were wiped out."
Note, the article is focussed primarily on the spread of worms in a closed network, rather than in Internet.
The valid only reason to post AC IMO is if posting the information will somehow endanger your job/future/life.
To post AC for any other reason means you want to live a double life. You aren't willing to stand behind your comments, hence you post AC. What is rather more interesting is that the orignal comment that was posted was an attack on me, and clearly the AC didn't want their precious UID linked to the attack.
Well troll boy, my name is David Cameron (hence my/. name). I live in Sydney, Australia, and I am the same person online and offline. I have no need to create some alternate character for myself. Who are you?
I see linux at the moment as having a real place in boxes that are dedicated to a single purpose. A great example of this is smoothwall, you've already mentioned servers.
I'm torn on desktops. I'd love to say that I could migrate across, but I'm not sure that it is possible. eg at the moment I have managed to se things up so that my palm pilot synchs with my PC and my phone sources its phone numbers from my PC. I had a lot of grief getting to where it is on Windows. I'd be really surprised if I could get it working at all in any version of Linux.
I don't disagree about the server market. My point was about the desktop market.
I am considering going into business for myself at the moment. I'll need a few servers (mail, file, source control) and there is no question in my mind that linux will be the way to go. Reasons: 1. Doesn't cost AUS$1200 (= win2k3) 2. Is stable
Servers (in my situation) make sense because once they are set up properly, the only work involved in keeping the patches up to date, because they run only a few apps, and those apps don't change.
For my home PC, the apps I run constantly change and I regularly use probably 30-40 different applications.
Hence I'm going to write my code for the windows platform on a windows box, backed by Linux servers. Oh the irony!
I'd agree on the high powered workstation and add a one other possible place: desktop in a big org. They have the time to work out and debug a base image.
I made a concerted effort to move to Mandrake 8.1. In the end I just worked out I was spending more time working on getting my system working, than I was in working on my system. I don't see myself migrating to Linux in a hurry.
On the other hand I have been reading reports on Longhorn and I'm not impressed. From what I can understand of the press releases XML is being used *everywhere*, which does not sound at all promising. So I might try to migrate before then.
PS I knew someone would mention COBOL. Legacy apps don't count.
Slashdot Mirror
The other poster has commented on all of you points bar these two, so I'll add something.
- No modularisation
Incorrect. This can be done by separating out the work to different sheets. The sheets themselves can also be separated into sections. While this isn't true modularisation, you can go some of the way there. It does demand some discipline, however so does coding modules that don't run to thousands of lines of code.
- No capability to test spreadsheet sub-components in isolation
Refer to ealier point. Build spreadsheets like you code. Define interfaces between the sheets and the sections in the sheets. Build it section (module) by section, sheet by sheet and test each section in isolation.
All of this is about discipline. You may be thinking of spreadsheets as they are normally built, rather than as they *should* be built.
Ever build an SQL query with Access? Pretty simple if you ask me. How about an excel spreadsheet formula?
Yep, but if you want to do anything more complicated than a couple of simple joins, it is much faster to code the SQL yourself. I have yet to see a decent graphical tool to replace hand coded SQL.
Sorry for biting.
Java is inherently insecure and malfunctional.
Would you care to justify that comment? I don't know a whole lot about Java, but frankly that statement is so sweeping, that I can't imagine it is correct.
Since hordes of curious programmers aren't busy analyzing the Java code base freely, all sorts of critical bugs are slipping through the cracks and risk the fate of humanity as a whole.
This does not necessarly make code more secure. If there is no systematic review, some sections of code may not be reviewed, and others may be reviewed multiple times. Point me to the study that proves many eyes make bugs shallow.
I'd say a better argument would be to say that review of code by good programmers makes code secure (hence many open source products are more secure), but that is another thing altogether.
Two words: USB key.
If it just displayed a message, you might have a point. I'd consider it rather funny. However as it stands you and your friends are probably well intentioned spyware distributors.
Logging the IP address or any information from their machine is crossing the line.
I think there are a couple of things to say.
1. This isn't tracking pirates this is tracking someone who downloads a key cracker from p2p. They could be downloading the application to see how it works or to be able to run a copy of UT2004 they have legitmately purchased. I'll admit that this is not going to be the intention of most people who download it, but you are tarring all those who download it with the same brush.
2. Your application is no better than any other piece of spyware or adware that phones home.
For the reasons above, you sir are a tool. Your intentions may be good, but your actions aren't. I don't agree with software piracy, however this is not the way forward.
You say that this isn't mailicious. How about this, you have posted details about a bunch of IP addresses that may be used for targetted advertising.
> How can you talk about functions and features of software that has not yet been released? How can companies "early adopt" vaporware?
There has been a beta yukon program, some of the DBAs on the mailing lists I am on have been testing and evaluating a copy. People could have planned an application around what they say in the beta, with the expectation of of the full product being released later. It is still a pretty dumb thing to do though as the features in the beta may not be the same as in the full version.
Wasn't GWB a pilot?
I like the image of the door knocker and the caption: "Music firms might come knocking if you are swapping pop". Swapping pop, why on earth would you want to do that? Don't you want to swap music you want?
Well clearly you weren't interested enough in my workd view for a discussion. In case you didn't get it, my point was that there is a flaw underlying your world view, namely it starts with the underlying assumption that there is no God. I think you should explain that assumption. Any proof or theory is only as good as the underlying assumptions.
I can take some more time to justify my position but before I begin down that path I wanted to point out the assumption.
And to Symantec for not alerting you to the new pattern file and allowing you to download it.
But the cost of that would be high. Network admins would not know which malware they should concentrate on most. There was a recent /. article that looked at the guys (in this case from sophos) who examine email bourne malware. The article mentioned that the number of worms these guys analyse is huge. I forget the exact numbers (~20 a day?), but the point is that these are also cumulative.
So unless there is some sort of list ranking these threats, the net admins need to remain on top of *all* of them. Add to that the fact that worms tend to hang around for a long time. I'll bet there are still quite a few machines out there is code red, nimda, slammer and blaster. MyDoom-A is more than a month and a half old, and the sunset clause came into effect 20 days or more ago however it is still 2nd top in Sophos' virus threat list.
Sure you can take away the lists, but that may decrease security as the net admins will be spending so much time responding to low risk threats and miss the high risk threats. Or they may just find it all to hard to keep up.
If cost isn't a factor. Anand makes the point that the Opterons are less that half the price of the Xeons.
Not only that, but when they were comparing prices, they said that the 2Mb cache Xeons were twice the price of the Opterons. Howevere in the article they tested the *4Mb cache Xeons*, which you can expect to be even more expensive.
In terms of bang for your buck Opterons rock.
I've posted a longer comment in reply to the original poster's reply.
Put simply I don't believe that right and wrongs are defined as absolutes by us. On the other hand the same action in two different situations might be right or wrong.
I've reached where I am now by examining all the evidence that I have on hand and making a decision. I'm interested in being proven wrong on this if I am wrong.
OK a good point well made, I'll bite.
Before I begin what promises to be a long comment I'll declare my bias. I am a Christian (I can already hear everyone tuning out). I live in Australia, not the "the South", and I'd probably be considered very liberal Christian by some, and I imagine also that they consider that I'm far left I'm off the scale. In Australian terms that means I have a slight leaning to the left.
I'm going to try to explain modernism and post-modernism as I understand them (yes I'm going somewhere with this). I'm no philosophy major, so I may be wrong. I also haven't looked at this for a little while so I might be hazy on details, I also have a bad habit of forgetting opposing arguments once I have proved something to my own satisfaction. I'm going to use the word man to describe humanity occasionally. Deal with it.
Modernism is the belief that man continually improves himself. This manifests itself in a number of ways. The core is that you believe man is getting better and better. The means by which this happens is normally considered to be science. Hence science is applied to everything (including social and moral behaviour) and is elevated to the point where it can do no wrong. The problem with Modernism is that man didn't seem to be going anywhere good. Despite our best efforts, you have the appalling wars and massacres of the 20th century.
Post-modernism, by its title, says we have moved on from modernism. It originally came from English departments at Universities when examining "texts". It was noticed that different people took away different messages from the same text. So that text itself was subject to interpretation, hence the truth in it was subjective. This was a very valid point, however it was then applied to life in general. So you end up with the line "What is OK for you is OK for you and what is OK for me is OK for me", in other words all truth becomes subjective. There is a strong emphasis in experience in post-modernism.
From where I stand there are problems with both modernism and post-modernism. Both place the person at the centre. In modernism, it is assumed that man can improve himself, and that truth/good/bad can be modified by scientific discoveries.
The post-modernist idea that there are no absolutes is even more silly, Belief not matter how earnest, does not make something true. I can believe that area of a circle is 4r, it doesn't make it true. To get around this, post-modernism seems to say that religious/moral beliefs are the only things that this applies to. This ignores contradictions inherent in different belief structures. I believe you are going to hell, and you believe you are going to heave: whose belief wins?
When we come to what is good and bad, this is also considered subjective. This flies in the face of common sense, however that is normally worked around by declaring that what the majority believes in are the facts (eg Murder is bad). Truth by democracy, ah so Iraq *did* have WMD.
The flaw in all of this is the initial assumption: there is no greater being that is outside of our system that has imposed absolutes on us.
This is absolute right and wrong, to attempt to decompile right and wrong to simply pain and pleasure is to buy the lie. One immediate point, one person's subjective pleasure is anothers subjective pain. The denial of absolutes is the lie sold to us by the current postmodern viewpoint. It will die, as did the modernist viewpoint before it.
I'm not sure why I bother, you've bought the lie and I don't imagine that you are going to be really interested in hearing conflicting views.
Actually under simulations worms with a destructive payload could still spread well. Check out the following article
The relevant quote is: "At the end of this simulation run, there were 2,774 infected and 1,979 not infected systems left, of an initial 166,730. While this not quite "annihilation", it does mean that within two minutes, 161,977 hosts or about 97% of the vulnerable population were wiped out."
Note, the article is focussed primarily on the spread of worms in a closed network, rather than in Internet.
Why am I feeding the trolls?
/. name). I live in Sydney, Australia, and I am the same person online and offline. I have no need to create some alternate character for myself. Who are you?
The valid only reason to post AC IMO is if posting the information will somehow endanger your job/future/life.
To post AC for any other reason means you want to live a double life. You aren't willing to stand behind your comments, hence you post AC. What is rather more interesting is that the orignal comment that was posted was an attack on me, and clearly the AC didn't want their precious UID linked to the attack.
Well troll boy, my name is David Cameron (hence my
Yeah it is pretty sad.
It is almost as sad as the fact that so many commonly used languages are VB based.
It isn't quite as sad as the fact that you can't suggest any other commonly used languages.
It is nowhere near as sad as posting AC though.
I see linux at the moment as having a real place in boxes that are dedicated to a single purpose. A great example of this is smoothwall, you've already mentioned servers.
I'm torn on desktops. I'd love to say that I could migrate across, but I'm not sure that it is possible. eg at the moment I have managed to se things up so that my palm pilot synchs with my PC and my phone sources its phone numbers from my PC. I had a lot of grief getting to where it is on Windows. I'd be really surprised if I could get it working at all in any version of Linux.
I don't disagree about the server market. My point was about the desktop market.
I am considering going into business for myself at the moment. I'll need a few servers (mail, file, source control) and there is no question in my mind that linux will be the way to go. Reasons:
1. Doesn't cost AUS$1200 (= win2k3)
2. Is stable
Servers (in my situation) make sense because once they are set up properly, the only work involved in keeping the patches up to date, because they run only a few apps, and those apps don't change.
For my home PC, the apps I run constantly change and I regularly use probably 30-40 different applications.
Hence I'm going to write my code for the windows platform on a windows box, backed by Linux servers. Oh the irony!
I'd agree on the high powered workstation and add a one other possible place: desktop in a big org. They have the time to work out and debug a base image.
I made a concerted effort to move to Mandrake 8.1. In the end I just worked out I was spending more time working on getting my system working, than I was in working on my system. I don't see myself migrating to Linux in a hurry.
On the other hand I have been reading reports on Longhorn and I'm not impressed. From what I can understand of the press releases XML is being used *everywhere*, which does not sound at all promising. So I might try to migrate before then.
PS I knew someone would mention COBOL. Legacy apps don't count.
PPS Yes I'm being abitrary.
What if you've RTFMed, googled for answers two hours (finding three contradictory solutions) *before* you asked the question?