I don't think there was any damage. I think some don't like having their leaders/representatives in public matters pick themselves. Was this a community move or ESR's move for the community? I don't really know and I am not saying anything he did was wrong. When you come first and say (or act as if) you speak for OSS, you both represent the community (in outsider's minds) and assume some of the community's respect (again, from outsiders).
Also, some people simply do not like him and some are probably (*gasp*) jealous of his status (especially as an arguably self-proclaimed hacker - a lot of people read his howto). Some people have written more OSS code, for example, yet ESR is known as ESR and they are completely unknown.
People like karma outside of/. too, and are jealous of karma whores. I'm not saying ESR is a karma whore. But he does have karma, so by that very fact some people will label him a karma whore.
Good thought. It's really just another way to encapsulate your argument. What makes me agree with you is that I have never seen it used outside of an argument or persuasive line of thought. I always see it, even in a/. thread, as a medium for complaint, argument, proposal-you-do-something, etc. Of course, these are the things which are more intertesting to the public at large.
The format is more about bringing issues to public view, perhaps as an invitation to public discussion. But when the topic is really important I think we see a news story and some industry politics over a discussion. Both sides usually think they are right, and they are not out to prove each other wrong so much as to gain popular support either way (or negative support one way). That or just tug control away from another company.
The thing is, when you get popular and you start thinking about your public image, image can become very important. Redesigns attract people - plain and simple (and "old") less so. When you want hype about your company and you want that kind of attention, you do silly things like make a new sign or logo. Cosmetics/aesthetics sell most crowds. And Google is looking to sell soon (and big).
Reboot seems to be the tech monkey equvalent of using convenient gotos or calling main() in highlevel code. In some cases, it's necessary, but in most cases, there should be a better way. Sometimes it's just a tradeoff for convenience, to which we can all relate.
I don't think they want to drop the coporate desktop. It seems that is where companies like MS made a lot of money. When Linux catches on there, I assume Redhat wants to be the cheaper alternative with a strong brand name.
Still, I suspect the embedded market is growing with healthly profit margins. Redhat has been interested in this market for a while. I think they bought eCos around 1999. It was already open source (they really bought Cygnus which developed eCos).
Sadly, I am not sure the average person really cared (i.e. understood and actively made a personal decision on this issue) to begin with. I think most people are almost trained to listen, make a poor, quick judgement based on the first angle they get, and pass it by. Are we even used to a government who responds? Avoidance of the issues seems to be the theme of our times.
Both the people and the government are just going through the motions of a democractic republic. Behind the scenes, there is a dangerous mix of apathy, ignorance, and corruption (on both sides). The lack of trust between a government and its people seems only to grow. Trust doesn't have to be an undisclosed, ask-no-questions affair. There should be a public trust which the government serves through and the people rule through. A relationship where tactics like renaming a control program targeted at citizens is disgusting and a threat to the trust (and therefore the nation state).
OT, but trolling and posting flamebait is not beyond/. editors. I try not to complain too much about free things, but...
How do/. subscribers feel about this? Imagine subscribing to a newspaper, which happened to repeat an article or editorial every now and then. I would be annoyed at least - maybe insulted. As if the subscribers are too stupid to notice (obviously not true) or the editors simply don't care enough to pick a different story. What are you paying for? Certainly not what the editors are providing (I don't know though, maybe some are). It's not like the editors generate any content - its submitted. So the same, not-really-worth-the-first-read article three times? Something about the Windows source code, the 2.6.x kernel, etc. with an update would be OK as a duplicate. Not this, IMO.
Either the editors
1) Don't care
2) Don't know
3) Intentionally do this
Whatever the reason(s), it's not in line with service to the subscribers and it's not professional.
User comments are the only reason to view this thread - in fact user comments (freedom of speech) are the real reason to view/. And for myself, the only reason.
I agree, when I read "Lucky Hack", I think of getting around software and hardware limitations. I don't think of using features as they were meant to be used.
From the article's description, it doesn't sound like anything to do with hacking - It sounds like offsite system administration.
Exactly. Security is defined by the weakest link. On any given Windows machine, it's a tossup between the user and some wide open feature - both areas are ripe for exploits. You don't have to write a great exploit - just get the user to double click. Conversly, write a great exploit, and you might find a good way to inject it without the user's action (in some instances inaction).
On Linux, there are a growing number of poorly configured machines left with default settings and unpatched. A fraction of these are completely low-hanging fruit. Largely, the fault is the user, with plenty of exceptions for software (less and less I would imagine).
But also, hacking Linux is much more personally entertaining and rewarding than going for Administrator in Windows. Different daemon versions and modules, custom firewall configs, all open source, fun shells, etc. In Windows, a blank password for an admin-level user account is common. Two different worlds for crackers. With Linux, it's about the technical path to root, with Windows, its about screwing with people's computers for a powertrip. In the former, hacking a box in person is (often) the entire point. In the latter, its about doing damage - as much as possible.
"What somebody needs to do is design a course that will actually teach you all you need to know"
That's the problem. Such a course does not exist. No one can be told every explicit thing they need to know. Reality does not allow for this convenience.
You, the learner, student, apprentice, etc. have to learn how to learn. Once you have this generic skill, you can focus it on more specific areas (like a science, a programming language, painting, carpentry, etc.). Soon, you become honed - you are keen to understanding the problem and you can generate solutions, even your own. You can spend some time on Google reading documentation and understand how something works. You no longer need someone to interpret everything for you. You don't need a teacher for everything, but when you have the resource of a teacher, you can extract more pertinent and practical information from them. In short, you know what you are doing. But more importantly, you know what you do not know.
Its like the first step in solving a math problem - what do you know and what do you not know (enumerate these)? Once you have some basic math and know how to balance the equation, the answer is simply you applying the logic.
For CS students, algorithms are huge. At all levels of a system, there is a process at work, and an algorithm can describe that process. Everything has a process, everything has an algorithm. It's distressing to look at an entry CS course and see the first thing a student learns is how to compile a C++ program. It seems like learning Mathmatica before algebra.
You don't even need to mention the Internet in this kind of thinking. In general, there is no magic in business. If you think there is, you don't know what's really going on.
Avg Investor: "But that's where the money was!"
Exactly. That's where the money was. It didn't seem to stick in many places, not even in this hemisphere.
I like to think when it interferes with someone else's freedom (speech or otherwise). I don't define "someone else" as a government, corporation, non-profit, etc. I mean individual. I'm sure there are cases where this simplistic view fails.
RTFA, and this sounds like the classic investor-targeted article explaining why product x has an advantage because it targets the under-targeted market y.
You do have to think about how much of a profit market there can exist for computers in a place where the local language has no word for computer. There is a reason MS is not bothering to make inroads in Rwanda. It's about making money, so MS is just as evil in this particular case as almost any other business on earth. We could apply this case to any number of products, software or otherwise. "Volunteers build houses in Rwanda, international contractors ignore upcoming market".
Still, this highlights a difference between open and closed source. Open source needs a community, not a company. That community actively shares and extends itself.
"Computer technology is seen as at least one possible route to lead the country out of poverty..."
We can debate that all day. Needless to say, industrialization happened in most countries before computers. I would love to have computers without industrialization's problems, but that doesn't seem to be a reality.
"It's one of those areas where proprietary software companies are fundamentally at a disadvantage because of their method of allocating resources..."
They are disadvantaged because there is no money there. Open source doesn't use money, it uses people (volunteers). So money is the not the goal, hence money is not the deciding factor. We should not need analysts to communicate this.
Exactly, every programmer needs to understand that goto as an instruction is different in the context of the CPU vs. the context of an algorithm. In other words, programmers should understand their logic on two levels, not just one.
I get your point, and from a business perspective this is right on. But the end users have their own perspective, and that controls what they buy and how they spend their money.
Linux is basically free. At a base price of nothing for the core components (and with alternative distros like Mandrake), it doesn't make sense to try to sell a distribution without allowing someone to preview it. What you are paying for is support (especially easy updates), to get hard copy documentation and media, as well as to support Linux in general. Note: I bet a lot of people (percentage-wise) bought Redhat to support Linux. Those users downloading the OS can translate into customers and at the very least may influence others (their employers and friends) to buy or use. The bigger the user base, the more influence you have, the more brand recognition, the more people will actually shell out cash.
Big point being that Redhat got its reputation with those freeloaders, some of which became into customers. The net gain was Redhat's growth and popularity, which somehow found a place in the business world with marketing direction. Basically, no one paid for the OS upfront, but rather tried it and then paid. So the customer pool comes from freeloaders, directly or indirectly that is why Redhat is purchased (because someone uses it for free to begin with).
Redhat wanted business contracts, because those are stable and there is a growing market (not to mention good money). Redhat took its good name, and now sells it to businesses. But that name became popular largely with the aid of freeloaders.
I think the parent is leading to the question: Why do we have to survive with cell phones in every facet of life?
America is strange. I remember people trying to ban Segways in major cities. Yeah, how about banning phones while driving over 45mph, the highway, in a theater, etc.? I'm not really out to get people on their phones, but there's no etiquette and in some cases (like driving) the phone is a distraction in a distracting world. Using technology still requires common sense and etiquette/ethics.
Seriously though, don't you think the reason Linux isn't as big as we all think it should be is because we have all been stressing reality and the points of fact where Linux is a great OS?
We have the great OS, but is that really what people want - is that even enough to promote adoption? I think we need to become disillusioned with the masses and realize they don't care about all the things/.-types care about. Sex excluding, of course;)
It seems to me there is a world of difference between saying, in your experience, someone cannot teach or is poor at that function and why, than calling them names and making libelous statments. Welcome to the Internet, some people have opinions and they are not always in your favor. There needs to be better, clearer guidelines for posting reviews (i.e. no name calling, no mention of physical conditions, etc.).
BTW, I don't know if "libelous" is a word, but the parent post used it.
It's a sign of immaturity that you have to prove yourself and exercise your ability in every small way. For example, locksmiths don't go around opening people's doors and leaving strange notes just because they can. They have a job where these abilities are applied for a wage. Their capabilities are productive and non-intrusive.
Some hackers find problems with popular software, others create security schemes, some experiment with protocols, some reverse engineer drivers, etc. Some hackers are productive and non-intrusive.
" Part of the beauty of the Internet is that no single entity has control over it."
Decentralized power and freedoms of speech (open or private communication) are the whole point of the Internet. We are all a part of it - everyone you love, hate, flame, etc. It has achieved unity and some sanity where governments and other social movements have failed. It's far from perfect, but it serves us all better. How many governments can host/tolerate nearly everyone's freedoms like the Internet? How many are limited by the local elite or majority?
Re:Language/tools are secondary
on
How C# Was Made
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"There are so many parts of the whole software development process that needs to be improved."
Completely true.
In a time when tools are myriad, code can be found for free, and the Internet archives and Google searches lessons and tutorials for us, software developement is crazy. And its funny and ironic that the most essential part to software developement, the developement (it's process: the drafting, coherent, problem-solving design, habitual testing and review, documentation, etc.) is seen as expendable!
Someone somewhere once had the great idea to cut back in software developement - make an unrealistic timeline, change the project's goals and pretend the code will reflect those changes, switch people in and out during developement like nodes in cluster, outsource, skip some testing or only test what you know works, etc.
You are right. Programmers, engineers, etc. can make wonders with far fewer resources, capable tools, and little financial incentive. But without some sense in the process, without a plan to succeed and solve problem(s) with this software (especially adherence to the plan), whatever wonders may have been created are lost in bad habit. So what happens in a lot projects (probably the majority)? Let's buy more resources, more capable tools, and dump other things into the developement.
Fifth grade, I had a teacher who made us repeat a short sentence to her everytime we "forgot" to do our homework:
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there was any damage. I think some don't like having their leaders/representatives in public matters pick themselves. Was this a community move or ESR's move for the community? I don't really know and I am not saying anything he did was wrong. When you come first and say (or act as if) you speak for OSS, you both represent the community (in outsider's minds) and assume some of the community's respect (again, from outsiders).
/. too, and are jealous of karma whores. I'm not saying ESR is a karma whore. But he does have karma, so by that very fact some people will label him a karma whore.
Also, some people simply do not like him and some are probably (*gasp*) jealous of his status (especially as an arguably self-proclaimed hacker - a lot of people read his howto). Some people have written more OSS code, for example, yet ESR is known as ESR and they are completely unknown.
People like karma outside of
Good thought. It's really just another way to encapsulate your argument. What makes me agree with you is that I have never seen it used outside of an argument or persuasive line of thought. I always see it, even in a /. thread, as a medium for complaint, argument, proposal-you-do-something, etc. Of course, these are the things which are more intertesting to the public at large.
The format is more about bringing issues to public view, perhaps as an invitation to public discussion. But when the topic is really important I think we see a news story and some industry politics over a discussion. Both sides usually think they are right, and they are not out to prove each other wrong so much as to gain popular support either way (or negative support one way). That or just tug control away from another company.
The thing is, when you get popular and you start thinking about your public image, image can become very important. Redesigns attract people - plain and simple (and "old") less so. When you want hype about your company and you want that kind of attention, you do silly things like make a new sign or logo. Cosmetics/aesthetics sell most crowds. And Google is looking to sell soon (and big).
Form should follow function though, I agree.
Reboot seems to be the tech monkey equvalent of using convenient gotos or calling main() in highlevel code. In some cases, it's necessary, but in most cases, there should be a better way. Sometimes it's just a tradeoff for convenience, to which we can all relate.
" So RedHat has dropped the desktop..."
I don't think they want to drop the coporate desktop. It seems that is where companies like MS made a lot of money. When Linux catches on there, I assume Redhat wants to be the cheaper alternative with a strong brand name.
Still, I suspect the embedded market is growing with healthly profit margins. Redhat has been interested in this market for a while. I think they bought eCos around 1999. It was already open source (they really bought Cygnus which developed eCos).
Sadly, I am not sure the average person really cared (i.e. understood and actively made a personal decision on this issue) to begin with. I think most people are almost trained to listen, make a poor, quick judgement based on the first angle they get, and pass it by. Are we even used to a government who responds? Avoidance of the issues seems to be the theme of our times.
Both the people and the government are just going through the motions of a democractic republic. Behind the scenes, there is a dangerous mix of apathy, ignorance, and corruption (on both sides). The lack of trust between a government and its people seems only to grow. Trust doesn't have to be an undisclosed, ask-no-questions affair. There should be a public trust which the government serves through and the people rule through. A relationship where tactics like renaming a control program targeted at citizens is disgusting and a threat to the trust (and therefore the nation state).
OT, but trolling and posting flamebait is not beyond /. editors. I try not to complain too much about free things, but...
/. subscribers feel about this? Imagine subscribing to a newspaper, which happened to repeat an article or editorial every now and then. I would be annoyed at least - maybe insulted. As if the subscribers are too stupid to notice (obviously not true) or the editors simply don't care enough to pick a different story. What are you paying for? Certainly not what the editors are providing (I don't know though, maybe some are). It's not like the editors generate any content - its submitted. So the same, not-really-worth-the-first-read article three times? Something about the Windows source code, the 2.6.x kernel, etc. with an update would be OK as a duplicate. Not this, IMO.
/. And for myself, the only reason.
How do
Either the editors
1) Don't care
2) Don't know
3) Intentionally do this
Whatever the reason(s), it's not in line with service to the subscribers and it's not professional.
User comments are the only reason to view this thread - in fact user comments (freedom of speech) are the real reason to view
I agree, when I read "Lucky Hack", I think of getting around software and hardware limitations. I don't think of using features as they were meant to be used.
From the article's description, it doesn't sound like anything to do with hacking - It sounds like offsite system administration.
Exactly. Security is defined by the weakest link. On any given Windows machine, it's a tossup between the user and some wide open feature - both areas are ripe for exploits. You don't have to write a great exploit - just get the user to double click. Conversly, write a great exploit, and you might find a good way to inject it without the user's action (in some instances inaction).
On Linux, there are a growing number of poorly configured machines left with default settings and unpatched. A fraction of these are completely low-hanging fruit. Largely, the fault is the user, with plenty of exceptions for software (less and less I would imagine).
But also, hacking Linux is much more personally entertaining and rewarding than going for Administrator in Windows. Different daemon versions and modules, custom firewall configs, all open source, fun shells, etc. In Windows, a blank password for an admin-level user account is common. Two different worlds for crackers. With Linux, it's about the technical path to root, with Windows, its about screwing with people's computers for a powertrip. In the former, hacking a box in person is (often) the entire point. In the latter, its about doing damage - as much as possible.
I know I'm not alone here. Everytime I punch in a commonly misspelled word, dictionary.com, hyperdictionary, etc. is in the first couple links.
It's probably so often used, it's practically overlooked as feature.
"What somebody needs to do is design a course that will actually teach you all you need to know"
That's the problem. Such a course does not exist. No one can be told every explicit thing they need to know. Reality does not allow for this convenience.
You, the learner, student, apprentice, etc. have to learn how to learn. Once you have this generic skill, you can focus it on more specific areas (like a science, a programming language, painting, carpentry, etc.). Soon, you become honed - you are keen to understanding the problem and you can generate solutions, even your own. You can spend some time on Google reading documentation and understand how something works. You no longer need someone to interpret everything for you. You don't need a teacher for everything, but when you have the resource of a teacher, you can extract more pertinent and practical information from them. In short, you know what you are doing. But more importantly, you know what you do not know.
Its like the first step in solving a math problem - what do you know and what do you not know (enumerate these)? Once you have some basic math and know how to balance the equation, the answer is simply you applying the logic.
For CS students, algorithms are huge. At all levels of a system, there is a process at work, and an algorithm can describe that process. Everything has a process, everything has an algorithm. It's distressing to look at an entry CS course and see the first thing a student learns is how to compile a C++ program. It seems like learning Mathmatica before algebra.
Put that way, it almost sounds like a using a cellphone in the car!
You don't even need to mention the Internet in this kind of thinking. In general, there is no magic in business. If you think there is, you don't know what's really going on.
Avg Investor: "But that's where the money was!"
Exactly. That's where the money was. It didn't seem to stick in many places, not even in this hemisphere.
Wasn't Raymond the guy who decided what the hacker logo should be? I'm still waiting for the ThinkGeek t-shirts...
"When is it ok to silence speech?"
I like to think when it interferes with someone else's freedom (speech or otherwise). I don't define "someone else" as a government, corporation, non-profit, etc. I mean individual. I'm sure there are cases where this simplistic view fails.
RTFA, and this sounds like the classic investor-targeted article explaining why product x has an advantage because it targets the under-targeted market y.
You do have to think about how much of a profit market there can exist for computers in a place where the local language has no word for computer. There is a reason MS is not bothering to make inroads in Rwanda. It's about making money, so MS is just as evil in this particular case as almost any other business on earth. We could apply this case to any number of products, software or otherwise. "Volunteers build houses in Rwanda, international contractors ignore upcoming market".
Still, this highlights a difference between open and closed source. Open source needs a community, not a company. That community actively shares and extends itself.
"Computer technology is seen as at least one possible route to lead the country out of poverty..."
We can debate that all day. Needless to say, industrialization happened in most countries before computers. I would love to have computers without industrialization's problems, but that doesn't seem to be a reality.
"It's one of those areas where proprietary software companies are fundamentally at a disadvantage because of their method of allocating resources..."
They are disadvantaged because there is no money there. Open source doesn't use money, it uses people (volunteers). So money is the not the goal, hence money is not the deciding factor. We should not need analysts to communicate this.
Exactly, every programmer needs to understand that goto as an instruction is different in the context of the CPU vs. the context of an algorithm. In other words, programmers should understand their logic on two levels, not just one.
I get your point, and from a business perspective this is right on. But the end users have their own perspective, and that controls what they buy and how they spend their money.
Linux is basically free. At a base price of nothing for the core components (and with alternative distros like Mandrake), it doesn't make sense to try to sell a distribution without allowing someone to preview it. What you are paying for is support (especially easy updates), to get hard copy documentation and media, as well as to support Linux in general. Note: I bet a lot of people (percentage-wise) bought Redhat to support Linux. Those users downloading the OS can translate into customers and at the very least may influence others (their employers and friends) to buy or use. The bigger the user base, the more influence you have, the more brand recognition, the more people will actually shell out cash.
Big point being that Redhat got its reputation with those freeloaders, some of which became into customers. The net gain was Redhat's growth and popularity, which somehow found a place in the business world with marketing direction. Basically, no one paid for the OS upfront, but rather tried it and then paid. So the customer pool comes from freeloaders, directly or indirectly that is why Redhat is purchased (because someone uses it for free to begin with).
Redhat wanted business contracts, because those are stable and there is a growing market (not to mention good money). Redhat took its good name, and now sells it to businesses. But that name became popular largely with the aid of freeloaders.
I think the parent is leading to the question: Why do we have to survive with cell phones in every facet of life?
America is strange. I remember people trying to ban Segways in major cities. Yeah, how about banning phones while driving over 45mph, the highway, in a theater, etc.? I'm not really out to get people on their phones, but there's no etiquette and in some cases (like driving) the phone is a distraction in a distracting world. Using technology still requires common sense and etiquette/ethics.
"We need more skilled and better educated engineers, not more language constructs."
Think about what you are saying - is that what management wants to hear?
Seriously though, don't you think the reason Linux isn't as big as we all think it should be is because we have all been stressing reality and the points of fact where Linux is a great OS?
/.-types care about. Sex excluding, of course ;)
We have the great OS, but is that really what people want - is that even enough to promote adoption? I think we need to become disillusioned with the masses and realize they don't care about all the things
It seems to me there is a world of difference between saying, in your experience, someone cannot teach or is poor at that function and why, than calling them names and making libelous statments. Welcome to the Internet, some people have opinions and they are not always in your favor. There needs to be better, clearer guidelines for posting reviews (i.e. no name calling, no mention of physical conditions, etc.).
BTW, I don't know if "libelous" is a word, but the parent post used it.
It's a sign of immaturity that you have to prove yourself and exercise your ability in every small way. For example, locksmiths don't go around opening people's doors and leaving strange notes just because they can. They have a job where these abilities are applied for a wage. Their capabilities are productive and non-intrusive.
Some hackers find problems with popular software, others create security schemes, some experiment with protocols, some reverse engineer drivers, etc. Some hackers are productive and non-intrusive.
" Part of the beauty of the Internet is that no single entity has control over it."
Decentralized power and freedoms of speech (open or private communication) are the whole point of the Internet. We are all a part of it - everyone you love, hate, flame, etc. It has achieved unity and some sanity where governments and other social movements have failed. It's far from perfect, but it serves us all better. How many governments can host/tolerate nearly everyone's freedoms like the Internet? How many are limited by the local elite or majority?
"There are so many parts of the whole software development process that needs to be improved."
Completely true.
In a time when tools are myriad, code can be found for free, and the Internet archives and Google searches lessons and tutorials for us, software developement is crazy. And its funny and ironic that the most essential part to software developement, the developement (it's process: the drafting, coherent, problem-solving design, habitual testing and review, documentation, etc.) is seen as expendable!
Someone somewhere once had the great idea to cut back in software developement - make an unrealistic timeline, change the project's goals and pretend the code will reflect those changes, switch people in and out during developement like nodes in cluster, outsource, skip some testing or only test what you know works, etc.
You are right. Programmers, engineers, etc. can make wonders with far fewer resources, capable tools, and little financial incentive. But without some sense in the process, without a plan to succeed and solve problem(s) with this software (especially adherence to the plan), whatever wonders may have been created are lost in bad habit. So what happens in a lot projects (probably the majority)? Let's buy more resources, more capable tools, and dump other things into the developement.
Fifth grade, I had a teacher who made us repeat a short sentence to her everytime we "forgot" to do our homework:
"Mrs. H, I failed to plan to succeed."
And everytime we said it, it was true.