A new curriculum for universities has surfaced in the last 4 eyars , i think. I was told it originated from texas universities.
I enrolled in engineering university, in the software engineering concentration. We have a common classes made up of the basic science courses (maths and physics mostly) that all curriculums share (electrical, mecanical, civil). We do mostly analysis, design, architecture, project management, norms (ISO, IEEE, etc) and methodologies (RUP, SEI, etc).
Our goal is to be able to sign our designs with the engineers seals of approval (which makes us personaly liable). This means we can lose our practice license if dangerous bugs appear. Of course, this is mostly meant for software critical applications, but we still have the responsability of quality.
Most business don't know about us yet. I think there's just 1 or 2 batches of bachelors in software engineering that graduated to this day.
In essence, this degree is made to seperate the software engineer from the 2 bit coder.
What you say is all true, but you forgot to mention that exploiting a vulnerability is much more easier in an open source application than in a closed source one.
In closed source, exploiting a buffer overflow demands serious reversing, with trial and error do discover how much code you can inject based on the stack adresses given in the error message, if you can at all.
In open source, you can build the flawed code with debug info if you want, making it MUCH easier to write an exploit.
What matters most in the end is the patching habits of opensource software using sysadmins vs the rest, because the real vulnerabilities are the unpatched servers. That's why MS decided to slow down the fix releases. They know that most exploits come AFTER a flaw is patched, because flaws are often discovered by reversing the patch, not by finding the original flaw.
Quit.
By using your site, you vent, try to get some sympathy and well, end up losing. Many people probably had the same problem you had, but no audience to hear their pleas.
No amount of whining will amount to anything until you cancel your subscription.
By continuing to give them your money after this speech, you admit that you're STILL willing to accept their policies and agree to their judgement.
Do the right thing: cancel your subscription and give them bad publicity
IMO
A while back, blizzard made a similar splash screen for battle.net with a countdown timer and a fuzzy background image. for something like a week, people claimed that the announcement was to be Starcraft 2 or diablo 3. And then Blizzard disappointed everyone with the Starcraft:ghost announcement. This game isnt even complete yet.
Now, will they do the same?
They know people have been dying for sequels to Starcraft and Diablo, yet, they continually tease fans with vague replies.
I hope this is it, cause I don't care for a WoW expansion.
"Einstein, whose name is now synonymous with genius was a frequent guest lecturer at Leiden in the 1920s due to his friendship with physicist Paul Ehrenfest, among whose papers the manuscript was found. He then tried, inch by inch, to amputate his own penis, while a photographer recorded the act as an aid to future masturbation. The paper predicted that at temperatures near absolute zero - around 460 degrees below zero - particles in a gas can reach a state of such low energy that they clump together in one larger "mono-atom."
Our school, with IEEE boards and other universities (i think U Of Texas started the thing) made the curriculum expressedly for the purpose liability and warrantability. A body of knowledge was made (www.swebok.org) and everything is in place.
You're absolutely right.
But for those interested, the program offers a better alternative to getting a MBA or something. The curriculum merely open doors, you are the one to decide if if the path leads where you want to go.
I'm not lying.
The program was started by university of Texas I heard and it's officially an engineering discipline.
The university I attend has been at the forefront of bringing this new curriculum in Canada. Most of my teachers sit on the IEEE boards. The Canadian order of engineers recognise our domain of expertise.
I am studying in an engineering university with a new "software engineering" degree.(I got in the program at the 4th year of it's existance, so they had their first promotion last year).
Half our classes don't involve coding. We get told day after day that we are not to be "computer scientists". Sure, we will start coding, but we are formed to grow to become analysts, designers, and managers.
I just finished my Software quality class. We had to learn about IEEE and ISO standards, and most importantly WHY they are important. As engineers, we are liable to our products. We can lose the right to exercice our profession if we deliver crap products. Standards help us focusing on the important issues.
The quality standards have little to do with the code quality. They rather sya that if you did a good analysis, detailed specs, reviews, inspections and all those planification documents with a project manager behind them to make sure they're followed, code quality will be a natural result. So, take the good programmers and put them higher up in the production chain, make them leaders, designers, managers. Make them tell other people how to work.
Software has a rework percentage far higher than any other engineering domains, between 20 and 40%. Not because software isnt engineering, but because it's a new discipline. We built bridges for thousands of years now, and software for only 50. That's why you dont see bridges collapse as often as software fail.
Of course, these enginerring practices are new to the field and not yet popular. People still argue their validity, businesses fear the price tag. The thing is, read about the cost of quality:
http://www.asq.org/topics/coq.html
(this is one example, with many more on this topic)
or the SEI
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/managing/managing.html
these things were made by and for good programmers.
TFA didnt mention this one bit.
Thinking that quality comes from programmers alone displays a serious lack of vision.
it's because of people like you that they get away with it. small startup companies with good intentions can't compete with the massive machine pulled forth by slaves that EA is. At least, if you're to buy games, don't buy EA.
From the comments I'd say customers want Apple's OS and dont give a crap about the Apple hardware.
I havent RTFA but what sense i can make is that Apple is not giving what (tech) customers want.
I want Linux on my desktop, and I'm not alone. I know I'm a minority and I'm cost innefficient, the thing is that I think the Linux desktop community is self supporting. Release specs and docs for hardware, costs nothing, community will do the rest. Naive or idealist?
The Aveo analogy makes no sense. My laptop runs Linux fine. The problems I have are with sleep mode and extra multimedia keys.
I own a hp laptop and i cant get some of it's features to work under Linux. Thanks to the good work of the open source community, some patches were made available but none of them works flawlessly.
The developpers explicitely included hp support email response in the.diff files as an apology to the buggy nature of the patch, which mention that hp don't support Linux, hence, these patches are the work of reverse engineering.
They put on their most expensive hardware an OS that they don't support.
I'm a gamer and a game dev and I still use 2k. Less memory hogging means better performances. I never had any problems gaming or coding games under 2k.
What's so special about flight sim? I would assume it would require lots of memory you could save up by using 2k.
the vendors are not stupid. they know fully well the pitfalls of security, but the marketing departments dictate the selling pitch to the public, and, well, they can pretty much lie all they want it seems.
Lots of people swear by hardcore only, and diablo 2 is still very popular after all these years.
the problem i had with hardocre is that the risk of dying to lag and latency is very high and completely game ruining. Your windows box crashes when you'Re in a hot situation, *poof*. Annoying 12 years old kids can be a pain too.
For MMORPGs, a separate server for hardcore is nice, dotn force people to, but give them the choice.
in the local newspapers, they mentionned that the new studio will focus on games for cellphones and other handhelds systems, not specifiying if the new portable consoles were going to be included.
Is it the first major pro game publisher to announce cellphones as a target?
The point is that with the money you save on liscensing fees, you get funding for such things. If everybody would do it, there would be less bugs, less spending, more saving, better software. . ..
Initially it might cost a small fortune, but divide it up by all the potential companies that could help, it will be really small. Anyway, like someone said above, with tha amount of cash LA pays for office alone, they could built their own office suite. Open Office is better than to start up from scratch, so invest, it will indeniably pay off.
i only bought those for a while, they just looked so nice. No idea about their longevity tho, but i had some for at least 4-5 years and never had any problems. All maxells are cheap a reliable enough for me. Now, i wonder if they make them in dvds.
Companies use software to gain productivity. When some crap software lowers productivity because of flaws, companies hire technicians that know workarounds to support users that continually screw their system around, starting an ever widening circle. Techs love crappy softwares as they can get certifications that ensure they get paid higher because they know how to deal with bad products, instead of learning to fix them, which would make their jobs obsolete. Companies see the cost of techs rising, offshores and starts a new circle of mediocrity (not because offshores represent lower quality-support, but because language, culture and distance make the communication suck).
Software makers see that they can sell crappy products and even charge for support of their broken tools.
Meanwhile, hobbyists and professionnals alike with a conscience start a quiet revolution by embracing new economic and engineering philosophies.
Microsoft, the biggest software maker on the earth sets the pace for the others to follow, and make a culture of mediocrity for the software industry a standard, with ever-growing profits, to prove that even tho they suck, it works, BIG time.
Open source gathers steam and can only settle things in the long run. If the movement uses the microsoft tactic of cloning every potentially successful application, system or idea but making it good, not exceptionnal, just good (which is better than MS can do), they will slowly make the windows dependance recede.
In my first university course in software engineering, a MS EULA for Windows was used to discuss "flawless software", something, as aspiring engineers, we should all strive to aim. This EULA said (paraphrased): "This software comes as-is with all flaws and MS cannot be held responsible or should expressly remediate to any flaws"
Sun java disclaimer: "The java technology should not be used in critical condition softwares, ex: airplane traffic control and medical context where lives of humans beign might be endangered"
the only flawless software case we could study was the NASA ones where they exuastively test ALL system possibilities in simulation, but these things cost and take at least 10 times the commercial software. In this case, BSD is stronger than Linux, with better development methodologies and a less commercial aim.
So, the point is moot, FUD, and hypocritical. The real secure software is used in critical condition environment and lack the features for desktops and small to mid business managemement, as they where designed for other aims.
Software engineering is a young discipline not recognised as true engineering compared to civil or mechanic. If bridges were to fail all around as often as we find bugs in software, the world would be in chaos, but bridges where built thousands of years ago and the discipline evolved. Same will happen with software. I see microsoft as the potential leader in the evolutionary process, but they took the corporate way and only care about revenue.
Researchers will take the role, and open-source is the way to go IMO. This is where open source is strong and MS is flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
A new curriculum for universities has surfaced in the last 4 eyars , i think.
I was told it originated from texas universities.
I enrolled in engineering university, in the software engineering concentration. We have a common classes made up of the basic science courses (maths and physics mostly) that all curriculums share (electrical, mecanical, civil). We do mostly analysis, design, architecture, project management, norms (ISO, IEEE, etc) and methodologies (RUP, SEI, etc).
Our goal is to be able to sign our designs with the engineers seals of approval (which makes us personaly liable). This means we can lose our practice license if dangerous bugs appear. Of course, this is mostly meant for software critical applications, but we still have the responsability of quality.
Most business don't know about us yet. I think there's just 1 or 2 batches of bachelors in software engineering that graduated to this day.
In essence, this degree is made to seperate the software engineer from the 2 bit coder.
What you say is all true, but you forgot to mention that exploiting a vulnerability is much more easier in an open source application than in a closed source one.
In closed source, exploiting a buffer overflow demands serious reversing, with trial and error do discover how much code you can inject based on the stack adresses given in the error message, if you can at all.
In open source, you can build the flawed code with debug info if you want, making it MUCH easier to write an exploit.
What matters most in the end is the patching habits of opensource software using sysadmins vs the rest, because the real vulnerabilities are the unpatched servers. That's why MS decided to slow down the fix releases. They know that most exploits come AFTER a flaw is patched, because flaws are often discovered by reversing the patch, not by finding the original flaw.
Quit. By using your site, you vent, try to get some sympathy and well, end up losing. Many people probably had the same problem you had, but no audience to hear their pleas. No amount of whining will amount to anything until you cancel your subscription. By continuing to give them your money after this speech, you admit that you're STILL willing to accept their policies and agree to their judgement. Do the right thing: cancel your subscription and give them bad publicity IMO
Yeah, i should have read the thread before posting.
A wonder i'm not getting modded redundant.
You have to be bloody fast these days to get non-redundant posting here.
Seems every topic gets nailed in 5 minutes. . .
If I could block ads elsewhere, I would.
I'll just pay them with virtual money
A while back, blizzard made a similar splash screen for battle.net with a countdown timer and a fuzzy background image. for something like a week, people claimed that the announcement was to be Starcraft 2 or diablo 3. And then Blizzard disappointed everyone with the Starcraft:ghost announcement. This game isnt even complete yet. Now, will they do the same? They know people have been dying for sequels to Starcraft and Diablo, yet, they continually tease fans with vague replies. I hope this is it, cause I don't care for a WoW expansion.
"Einstein, whose name is now synonymous with genius was a frequent guest lecturer at Leiden in the 1920s due to his friendship with physicist Paul Ehrenfest, among whose papers the manuscript was found. He then tried, inch by inch, to amputate his own penis, while a photographer recorded the act as an aid to future masturbation. The paper predicted that at temperatures near absolute zero - around 460 degrees below zero - particles in a gas can reach a state of such low energy that they clump together in one larger "mono-atom."
find the sentence that doesn't fit in there. . .
I do have a point, we are liscenced.
Our school, with IEEE boards and other universities (i think U Of Texas started the thing) made the curriculum expressedly for the purpose liability and warrantability. A body of knowledge was made (www.swebok.org) and everything is in place.
You're absolutely right. But for those interested, the program offers a better alternative to getting a MBA or something. The curriculum merely open doors, you are the one to decide if if the path leads where you want to go.
I'm not lying. The program was started by university of Texas I heard and it's officially an engineering discipline. The university I attend has been at the forefront of bringing this new curriculum in Canada. Most of my teachers sit on the IEEE boards. The Canadian order of engineers recognise our domain of expertise.
I am studying in an engineering university with a new "software engineering" degree.(I got in the program at the 4th year of it's existance, so they had their first promotion last year). Half our classes don't involve coding. We get told day after day that we are not to be "computer scientists". Sure, we will start coding, but we are formed to grow to become analysts, designers, and managers. I just finished my Software quality class. We had to learn about IEEE and ISO standards, and most importantly WHY they are important. As engineers, we are liable to our products. We can lose the right to exercice our profession if we deliver crap products. Standards help us focusing on the important issues. The quality standards have little to do with the code quality. They rather sya that if you did a good analysis, detailed specs, reviews, inspections and all those planification documents with a project manager behind them to make sure they're followed, code quality will be a natural result. So, take the good programmers and put them higher up in the production chain, make them leaders, designers, managers. Make them tell other people how to work. Software has a rework percentage far higher than any other engineering domains, between 20 and 40%. Not because software isnt engineering, but because it's a new discipline. We built bridges for thousands of years now, and software for only 50. That's why you dont see bridges collapse as often as software fail. Of course, these enginerring practices are new to the field and not yet popular. People still argue their validity, businesses fear the price tag. The thing is, read about the cost of quality: http://www.asq.org/topics/coq.html (this is one example, with many more on this topic) or the SEI http://www.sei.cmu.edu/managing/managing.html these things were made by and for good programmers. TFA didnt mention this one bit. Thinking that quality comes from programmers alone displays a serious lack of vision.
it's because of people like you that they get away with it. small startup companies with good intentions can't compete with the massive machine pulled forth by slaves that EA is. At least, if you're to buy games, don't buy EA.
From the comments I'd say customers want Apple's OS and dont give a crap about the Apple hardware. I havent RTFA but what sense i can make is that Apple is not giving what (tech) customers want.
I want Linux on my desktop, and I'm not alone. I know I'm a minority and I'm cost innefficient, the thing is that I think the Linux desktop community is self supporting. Release specs and docs for hardware, costs nothing, community will do the rest. Naive or idealist? The Aveo analogy makes no sense. My laptop runs Linux fine. The problems I have are with sleep mode and extra multimedia keys.
I own a hp laptop and i cant get some of it's features to work under Linux. Thanks to the good work of the open source community, some patches were made available but none of them works flawlessly.
.diff files as an apology to the buggy nature of the patch, which mention that hp don't support Linux, hence, these patches are the work of reverse engineering.
The developpers explicitely included hp support email response in the
They put on their most expensive hardware an OS that they don't support.
What to make of this?
just check the time difference it takes between the two developments.
I'm a gamer and a game dev and I still use 2k.
Less memory hogging means better performances. I never had any problems gaming or coding games under 2k.
What's so special about flight sim? I would assume it would require lots of memory you could save up by using 2k.
the vendors are not stupid.
they know fully well the pitfalls of security, but the marketing departments dictate the selling pitch to the public, and, well, they can pretty much lie all they want it seems.
business and profit before customers.
i say it does.
Lots of people swear by hardcore only, and diablo 2 is still very popular after all these years.
the problem i had with hardocre is that the risk of dying to lag and latency is very high and completely game ruining. Your windows box crashes when you'Re in a hot situation, *poof*. Annoying 12 years old kids can be a pain too.
For MMORPGs, a separate server for hardcore is nice, dotn force people to, but give them the choice.
in the local newspapers, they mentionned that the new studio will focus on games for cellphones and other handhelds systems, not specifiying if the new portable consoles were going to be included.
Is it the first major pro game publisher to announce cellphones as a target?
The point is that with the money you save on liscensing fees, you get funding for such things. If everybody would do it, there would be less bugs, less spending, more saving, better software. . . .
Initially it might cost a small fortune, but divide it up by all the potential companies that could help, it will be really small. Anyway, like someone said above, with tha amount of cash LA pays for office alone, they could built their own office suite. Open Office is better than to start up from scratch, so invest, it will indeniably pay off.
i only bought those for a while, they just looked so nice. No idea about their longevity tho, but i had some for at least 4-5 years and never had any problems. All maxells are cheap a reliable enough for me. Now, i wonder if they make them in dvds.
Companies use software to gain productivity.
When some crap software lowers productivity because of flaws, companies hire technicians that know workarounds to support users that continually screw their system around, starting an ever widening circle. Techs love crappy softwares as they can get certifications that ensure they get paid higher because they know how to deal with bad products, instead of learning to fix them, which would make their jobs obsolete. Companies see the cost of techs rising, offshores and starts a new circle of mediocrity (not because offshores represent lower quality-support, but because language, culture and distance make the communication suck).
Software makers see that they can sell crappy products and even charge for support of their broken tools.
Meanwhile, hobbyists and professionnals alike with a conscience start a quiet revolution by embracing new economic and engineering philosophies.
Microsoft, the biggest software maker on the earth sets the pace for the others to follow, and make a culture of mediocrity for the software industry a standard, with ever-growing profits, to prove that even tho they suck, it works, BIG time.
Open source gathers steam and can only settle things in the long run. If the movement uses the microsoft tactic of cloning every potentially successful application, system or idea but making it good, not exceptionnal, just good (which is better than MS can do), they will slowly make the windows dependance recede.
MS is a manopoly and that is why they still suck.
In my first university course in software engineering, a MS EULA for Windows was used to discuss "flawless software", something, as aspiring engineers, we should all strive to aim. This EULA said (paraphrased): "This software comes as-is with all flaws and MS cannot be held responsible or should expressly remediate to any flaws"
Sun java disclaimer: "The java technology should not be used in critical condition softwares, ex: airplane traffic control and medical context where lives of humans beign might be endangered"
the only flawless software case we could study was the NASA ones where they exuastively test ALL system possibilities in simulation, but these things cost and take at least 10 times the commercial software. In this case, BSD is stronger than Linux, with better development methodologies and a less commercial aim.
So, the point is moot, FUD, and hypocritical. The real secure software is used in critical condition environment and lack the features for desktops and small to mid business managemement, as they where designed for other aims.
Software engineering is a young discipline not recognised as true engineering compared to civil or mechanic. If bridges were to fail all around as often as we find bugs in software, the world would be in chaos, but bridges where built thousands of years ago and the discipline evolved. Same will happen with software. I see microsoft as the potential leader in the evolutionary process, but they took the corporate way and only care about revenue.
Researchers will take the role, and open-source is the way to go IMO. This is where open source is strong and MS is flawed.