Because who determines what gets on the "white" list? The same censors who created the blacklist?
Yes, I know you said people could suggest things, but there is obviously an intermediary between the library users and the whitelist. Suggestions to add Goatse.CX are going to get shot down (hopefully), but what about less obvious choices?
If the whitelist is just a blacklist with the criteria reversed, then it's not going to help anyone.
And yes, a human being will probably judge this differently from a keyword filter, but if they had that kind of man-hours, then why would they use the blacklisting software in the first place?
Shouldn't we be past the "Ooh, another place Linux is being used! Hooray!" phase by now?
I mean it's one thing if Linux passes some milestone in usage, or a really huge group of users (e.g. the government in India) switches over from the MS hegemony.
But doesn't presenting something like this as "news... stuff that matters", simply undercut how far Linux has come?
The number one goal for developing Safari was to create the fastest web browser on Mac OS X. When we were evaluating technologies over a year ago, KHTML and KJS stood out. Not only were they the basis of an excellent modern and standards compliant web browser, they were also less than 140,000 lines of code. The size of your code and ease of development within that code made it a better choice for us than other open source projects. Your clean design was also a plus. And the small size of your code is a significant reason for our winning startup performance as you can see reflected in the data at http://www.apple.com/safari/.
The question remains though: why KHTML and not Gecko?
More precisely, why does Apple think using KHTML instead of Gecko is in their own interests?
Pardon my cynicism, but I doubt they did it out of the public interest or open-source philosophy.
Is Mozilla/Gecko that hard to work with? Have there been frustrations with Chimera? Licensing issues with including Mozilla or Chimera with the system, but not Safari?
Why don't your managers want to try something new? If it's price, tell them bugzilla is free, and is used by companies from Red Hat to Netscape. If it's a political issue, that's a whole 'nother story.
Also, why is there so much overhead? Entering a bug should be as simple as filling out a single HTML form. Is your UI too big and complicated? You can probably strip it down to the essentials, without discarding it entirely. Is it on more than one page? You can probably condense them into one form. Are the bugs stored in a database? You can write your own search page.
And if you said which bug software you're currently using, you could probably have gotten more specific and relevant tips on how to make the best use of it (change the configuration, prepopulate certain fields, roll your own modified templates, etc.).
Wow, a response from an author! I'm very flattered.
Can you provide some insight on why the price went up 25% in under two years?
Hacking Linux Exposed, Second Edition by Brian Hatch, James Lee List Price: $49.99 Paperback - 720 pages (Dec, 2002)
Hacking Linux Exposed: Network Security Secrets and Solutions by Brian Hatch, James Lee, George Kurtz List Price: $39.99 Paperback - 608 pages (Mar, 2001)
Are the extra 112 pages that nice? Not to be cynical, but are you trying to be agressive about the people who already own version 1 (like me)?
Joe
P.S. Lest you get the impression otherwise, I liked the book.
You're assuming all network admins keep tabs on the vulnerabilities, update their software frequently and have the necessary time to dedicate to such important things.
Let me clarify: I'm not saying that "Customer On Site" is a Bad Thing. I think it'd help the developers a lot, by cutting down on guesswork and time spend "waiting for feedback/approval" (assuming that the one person on site is thoroughly knowledgeable(sp?) about the problem domain, is a good communicator and has authority to make decisions/tradeoffs).
I'm just saying it seems pie-in-the-sky unrealistic. Moreso than the much-maligned pair programming (which I also think is written off too soon), because you need *two* bosses to sign off on it: the developers' and the on-site customer's.
Is the degree of customer involvement that they expect.
To quote their site: "One of the few requirements of extreme programming (XP) is to have the customer... be a part of [the development team]. All phases of an XP project require communication with the customer, preferably face to face, on site. It's best to simply assign one or more customers to the development team."
WTF? How many clients are willing to assign an employee to work with/at the software/website vendor full-time? None, in my experience.
Unless you're dealing with an utterly massive project for a heavily-staffed client, their IT guy leading this effort has more responsibilities than this one project.
Actually, female bonobos are known for their hypersexuality:
"Pygmy chimps are the opposite of sexually selective: females mate in sequence with many males, and there is much sexual activity between females and between males as well." -- Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee
Not to be rude, but there's a lot of middle ground between "a slick professional web site" and a nighmarishly ugly one.
I mean, if you're over your head in making it look halfway decent (never mind steps like accessibility, XHTML compliance and CSS) then ask for help, instead of pretending that bad design is something positive.
I mean, no one is born knowing this stuff, and I don't want to discourage you from working at it. But the site looks bad, the JavaScript apps have errors, and the heralded "The Linux Chronicles" have only been updated twice in six months. So don't oversell yourself or your site (by announcing it on Slashdot, for example).
It's funny, because I just finished Chris Lavers' Why Elephants Have Big Ears: Patterns of Life on Earth and I was wondering about a differe dichotomy. Paleontologists are obsessed with the question of whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded. I couldn't help but think to myself, "Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not in some middle ground, where they regulate their temperature to a limited extent?"
Slashdot Mirror
Because who determines what gets on the "white" list? The same censors who created the blacklist?
Yes, I know you said people could suggest things, but there is obviously an intermediary between the library users and the whitelist. Suggestions to add Goatse.CX are going to get shot down (hopefully), but what about less obvious choices?
If the whitelist is just a blacklist with the criteria reversed, then it's not going to help anyone.
And yes, a human being will probably judge this differently from a keyword filter, but if they had that kind of man-hours, then why would they use the blacklisting software in the first place?
Actually, I was hoping for a Score: 5, Funny.
I guess it's a sign of the times.
Don't you know that God created everything in six days, the world's only 5000 years old, and dinosaurs are planted hoaxes?
Even reputable news sources agree.
P.S. First post.
Can someone provide a list, or at least a link, describing how the MS implementation of Java was broken?
So then you'll add to the whining?
Hmm ... now that you mention it, you're right. Maybe the summary overemphasized the Linux aspect of it? Or maybe I was just reading into it too much.
Shouldn't we be past the "Ooh, another place Linux is being used! Hooray!" phase by now?
... stuff that matters", simply undercut how far Linux has come?
I mean it's one thing if Linux passes some milestone in usage, or a really huge group of users (e.g. the government in India) switches over from the MS hegemony.
But doesn't presenting something like this as "news
Or was the pun headline too much to resist?
How is the parent a Troll?!? Mod it back up!
I attributed it to the source, Apple themselves.
Should be +1 Informative, since I bothered to do some research instead of just speculating.
One answer:
.
The number one goal for developing Safari was to create the fastest web
browser on Mac OS X. When we were evaluating technologies over a year
ago, KHTML and KJS stood out. Not only were they the basis of an
excellent modern and standards compliant web browser, they were also
less than 140,000 lines of code. The size of your code and ease of
development within that code made it a better choice for us than other
open source projects. Your clean design was also a plus. And the
small size of your code is a significant reason for our winning startup
performance as you can see reflected in the data at
http://www.apple.com/safari/
Quoted from here.
The question remains though: why KHTML and not Gecko?
More precisely, why does Apple think using KHTML instead of Gecko is in their own interests?
Pardon my cynicism, but I doubt they did it out of the public interest or open-source philosophy.
Is Mozilla/Gecko that hard to work with? Have there been frustrations with Chimera? Licensing issues with including Mozilla or Chimera with the system, but not Safari?
Why don't your managers want to try something new? If it's price, tell them bugzilla is free, and is used by companies from Red Hat to Netscape. If it's a political issue, that's a whole 'nother story.
Also, why is there so much overhead? Entering a bug should be as simple as filling out a single HTML form. Is your UI too big and complicated? You can probably strip it down to the essentials, without discarding it entirely. Is it on more than one page? You can probably condense them into one form. Are the bugs stored in a database? You can write your own search page.
And if you said which bug software you're currently using, you could probably have gotten more specific and relevant tips on how to make the best use of it (change the configuration, prepopulate certain fields, roll your own modified templates, etc.).
Wow, a response from an author! I'm very flattered.
Can you provide some insight on why the price went up 25% in under two years?
Hacking Linux Exposed, Second Edition
by Brian Hatch, James Lee
List Price: $49.99
Paperback - 720 pages (Dec, 2002)
Hacking Linux Exposed: Network Security Secrets and Solutions
by Brian Hatch, James Lee, George Kurtz
List Price: $39.99
Paperback - 608 pages (Mar, 2001)
Are the extra 112 pages that nice? Not to be cynical, but are you trying to be agressive about the people who already own version 1 (like me)?
Joe
P.S. Lest you get the impression otherwise, I liked the book.
How about ...
Ads for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
You're assuming all network admins keep tabs on the vulnerabilities, update their software frequently and have the necessary time to dedicate to such important things.
But they don't always. Yes, even on Linux.
Dammit, Timothy!
Enable commenting, and change the topic from AMD to Security.
Please mod this up so he sees it.
Let me clarify: I'm not saying that "Customer On Site" is a Bad Thing. I think it'd help the developers a lot, by cutting down on guesswork and time spend "waiting for feedback/approval" (assuming that the one person on site is thoroughly knowledgeable(sp?) about the problem domain, is a good communicator and has authority to make decisions/tradeoffs).
I'm just saying it seems pie-in-the-sky unrealistic. Moreso than the much-maligned pair programming (which I also think is written off too soon), because you need *two* bosses to sign off on it: the developers' and the on-site customer's.
Is the degree of customer involvement that they expect.
... be a part of [the development team]. All phases of an XP project require communication with the customer, preferably face to face, on site. It's best to simply assign one or more customers to the development team."
To quote their site:
"One of the few requirements of extreme programming (XP) is to have the customer
WTF? How many clients are willing to assign an employee to work with/at the software/website vendor full-time? None, in my experience.
Unless you're dealing with an utterly massive project for a heavily-staffed client, their IT guy leading this effort has more responsibilities than this one project.
Actually, female bonobos are known for their hypersexuality:
"Pygmy chimps are the opposite of sexually selective: females mate in sequence with many males, and there is much sexual activity between females and between males as well."
-- Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee
If it's from the MS-DOS era, and we already have gcc, what is the significance?
Not to be rude, but there's a lot of middle ground between "a slick professional web site" and a nighmarishly ugly one.
I mean, if you're over your head in making it look halfway decent (never mind steps like accessibility, XHTML compliance and CSS) then ask for help, instead of pretending that bad design is something positive.
I mean, no one is born knowing this stuff, and I don't want to discourage you from working at it. But the site looks bad, the JavaScript apps have errors, and the heralded "The Linux Chronicles" have only been updated twice in six months. So don't oversell yourself or your site (by announcing it on Slashdot, for example).
Also, there is no value checking on input for the program. Ugh.
The instructions say from 1-10, but a user can input 0, 11, or "a".
No kidding. That was the first thing I tried. random735 is talking about the basketball simulator in case you were wondering.
Something as important as a package manager can't be this buggy.
The people at Los Alamos didn't do the "fudging our data" stuff, they did the Dennis Kozlowski type.
This ranges from $3 million in "lost" equipment and improper credit card use, under Browne and Salgado's watch.
It's funny, because I just finished Chris Lavers' Why Elephants Have Big Ears: Patterns of Life on Earth and I was wondering about a differe dichotomy. Paleontologists are obsessed with the question of whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded. I couldn't help but think to myself, "Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not in some middle ground, where they regulate their temperature to a limited extent?"