but to claim that most companies don't even do anything about bugs in their software until it creates bad press is pretty naive, offensive, and possibly even libelous.
Microsoft used to have a policy of not releasing a bugfix until an exploit had been released in the wild.
That's not libelous. That's the truth. Software developers that choose to ignore security holes deserve all the bad press they get.
Myself and my co-worker work for an educational services company. We manage a smallish network of ~150 UNIX machines and are responsible for maintaining them, the network gear, and network security. We also solve every problem that the applications developers can't figure out (which amounts to a lot). On top of that, we're continually striving to improve our network infrastructure. We're often dragged into meetings to plan and develop infrastructure upgrade projects.
Management's priorities are all over the map, and priorities can change every hour. This makes life incredibly difficult for us.
Our solution was to grab a big-ass whiteboard (you know, 4 feet tall, and 16-feet wide) and write down all of our tasks. No real detail... just enough to indicate what the task is. We mark which task we're currently working on. Whenever management comes by to give us more work, we take them to the whiteboard, write down the task(s), and insist they prioritize what's on there.
The amount of incoming work was enough to keep four people busy. We spent 2 hours daily discussing priorities with management. All tasks were important enough to keep on the board, and our Ops Manager maintained the priority list.
Then one day, the whiteboard filled up.
Management got the hint when we insisted on a second whiteboard. Instead of providing us with a second whiteboard, there's now whitespace available on the first board.
Just keep a list of tasks at hand, and make sure your manager knows what you've got on your plate. If you're given a new task, insist that he looks over your current list and assigns some priority.
Threatened? How so?
I can understand some medical professionals giving you a dirty look or even some stiff words if you said this within shot of their hearing.
You have every right to say that the Canadian medical system sucks (It does) and that all Canadian doctors are quacks (There are some, but not all of them are quacks). Canadian doctors have the same right to respond to you in kind. They have the same rights as you do to say something.
However, I don't think you'd actually have any judge fine you or throw you in jail for making such a statement. After all, you have a right to make such speech.
However, if you were given a death-threat by one of those doctors, you would have grounds for legal recourse. Uttering threats of death or harm *is* illegal. I think you'll also find this to be the case in the USA.
It's not just a matter of Free Speech. It's also a matter of your right to not be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment, the right to life, liberty, etc.. If I'm constantly harassing you by threatening your life, then I'm impeding on your rights. From the Charter:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
So if your right to free speech is diminishing my own personal rights and freedoms, do you really have a right to that free speech? Are you granted the right of free speech in such a manner that diminishes the life, liberty, and/or security of another?
"Canadians don't have the same free speech rights as the US"
What? Are you really that stupid?
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Our equivalent of your constitution. The same rules apply, too. If a law is enacted that is in contravention to the Charter, and if it can be proven so, then it can be stricken from the books.
Intriguing. Aside from the obvious payment, how does one attain a listing on the whitelist? I see the criteria on the website. Who decides if a potential listee meets the criteria?
Although I'm sure that RMS doesn't quite have a bank account as sizeable as Mr. Gates', I'm quite sure that he's doing alright for himself. In fact, I'm quite sure that he's doing better for himself than you are for yourself.
What I don't get is:
SCO claims that "Trade Secrets" have been copied from their source into some portion of either the Linux Kernel or some "peripheral" source tree. SCO has refused to point out the infringing code thusfar, making statements that the code is their "Trade Secret," so they can't point it out.
Well, the "Trade Secret" is no longer secret if it has in fact already been copied and published in some "peripheral" Linux source.
So remind me again... why won't SCO put up or shut up?
I thought "System V" was the product that was sold, and "UNIX" is both the Registered Tradeark and specification of The Open Group. I've noticed that "SCO Unixware" is certified to the Unix 95 specification.
Unless I'm wrong, SCO can't claim they own "UNIX" as the trademark (and specification) is registered to another entity.
Slashdot Mirror
but to claim that most companies don't even do anything about bugs in their software until it creates bad press is pretty naive, offensive, and possibly even libelous.
Microsoft used to have a policy of not releasing a bugfix until an exploit had been released in the wild.
That's not libelous. That's the truth. Software developers that choose to ignore security holes deserve all the bad press they get.
Debian on Solaris. Run JBoss as your app server.
The company I work at has replaced Weblogic with Jboss. Much cheaper, and the migration wasn't overly painful at all.
We're also running Debian/Sparc on several Sun-boxen, and I've noticed an incredible improvement over Solaris when comparing IO latency and the like.
Sun hardware is nice, albeit pricey. Solaris is a pig.
Myself and my co-worker work for an educational services company. We manage a smallish network of ~150 UNIX machines and are responsible for maintaining them, the network gear, and network security. We also solve every problem that the applications developers can't figure out (which amounts to a lot). On top of that, we're continually striving to improve our network infrastructure. We're often dragged into meetings to plan and develop infrastructure upgrade projects.
Management's priorities are all over the map, and priorities can change every hour. This makes life incredibly difficult for us.
Our solution was to grab a big-ass whiteboard (you know, 4 feet tall, and 16-feet wide) and write down all of our tasks. No real detail... just enough to indicate what the task is. We mark which task we're currently working on. Whenever management comes by to give us more work, we take them to the whiteboard, write down the task(s), and insist they prioritize what's on there.
The amount of incoming work was enough to keep four people busy. We spent 2 hours daily discussing priorities with management. All tasks were important enough to keep on the board, and our Ops Manager maintained the priority list.
Then one day, the whiteboard filled up.
Management got the hint when we insisted on a second whiteboard. Instead of providing us with a second whiteboard, there's now whitespace available on the first board.
Just keep a list of tasks at hand, and make sure your manager knows what you've got on your plate. If you're given a new task, insist that he looks over your current list and assigns some priority.
Threatened? How so? I can understand some medical professionals giving you a dirty look or even some stiff words if you said this within shot of their hearing.
You have every right to say that the Canadian medical system sucks (It does) and that all Canadian doctors are quacks (There are some, but not all of them are quacks). Canadian doctors have the same right to respond to you in kind. They have the same rights as you do to say something.
However, I don't think you'd actually have any judge fine you or throw you in jail for making such a statement. After all, you have a right to make such speech.
However, if you were given a death-threat by one of those doctors, you would have grounds for legal recourse. Uttering threats of death or harm *is* illegal. I think you'll also find this to be the case in the USA.
It's not just a matter of Free Speech. It's also a matter of your right to not be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment, the right to life, liberty, etc.. If I'm constantly harassing you by threatening your life, then I'm impeding on your rights. From the Charter:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
So if your right to free speech is diminishing my own personal rights and freedoms, do you really have a right to that free speech? Are you granted the right of free speech in such a manner that diminishes the life, liberty, and/or security of another?
I'd personally have to say no, you don't.
"only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Well, I'm sure that you'll find that there's actions and speech in the USA that aren't permitted.
Try holding a seminar in the USA on how to covertly build a home-brew nuclear weapon and sneak it into public buildings.
I bet you won't get very far.
"Canadians don't have the same free speech rights as the US" What? Are you really that stupid? http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ Our equivalent of your constitution. The same rules apply, too. If a law is enacted that is in contravention to the Charter, and if it can be proven so, then it can be stricken from the books.
Intriguing. Aside from the obvious payment, how does one attain a listing on the whitelist? I see the criteria on the website. Who decides if a potential listee meets the criteria?
So how exactly is this going to *stop* spam? Isn't that what blacklists (SPEWS, SpamHaus, et al) are for?
How about the "bulkiness" of the message? Sent to one person versus a million?
Although I'm sure that RMS doesn't quite have a bank account as sizeable as Mr. Gates', I'm quite sure that he's doing alright for himself. In fact, I'm quite sure that he's doing better for himself than you are for yourself.
What I don't get is: SCO claims that "Trade Secrets" have been copied from their source into some portion of either the Linux Kernel or some "peripheral" source tree. SCO has refused to point out the infringing code thusfar, making statements that the code is their "Trade Secret," so they can't point it out.
Well, the "Trade Secret" is no longer secret if it has in fact already been copied and published in some "peripheral" Linux source.
So remind me again... why won't SCO put up or shut up?
I may be even more ignorant, but....
I thought "System V" was the product that was sold, and "UNIX" is both the Registered Tradeark and specification of The Open Group. I've noticed that "SCO Unixware" is certified to the Unix 95 specification.
Unless I'm wrong, SCO can't claim they own "UNIX" as the trademark (and specification) is registered to another entity.