I had been undecided on Gartner up until now. I mean, not all of their advice is pro-Microsoft; they seemed fairly balanced to me. But this is just too much...
From Gartner.com, recommendations as at 23 Jul:
Contact SCO to discuss its claims, compensation requirements and your potential future liability.
FUD FUD FUD + hefty helping of bad advice
Organize a review board that audits and documents all Linux installations by kernel version and server roles.
FUD FUD FUD
Delay deployments of application and database servers if they involve critical applications that must be unencumbered of IP infringement claims. You can fence off such systems from the license obligation if you have deployed Linux strictly for basic infrastructure roles (such as firewalls and simple Web servers) that do not require the 2.4 kernel or its SMP capability.
FUD FUD FUD
Determine whether Unix or Windows will provide functions equivalent to those of Linux deployments.
OMFG FUD FUD FUD
Investigate outsourcing, system integration or other relationships that transfer license issues to the third party.
valid advice, but still FUD FUD FUD
Don't ignore the problem by hoping IBM will win or settle its lawsuit (that could take a year or more). An IBM win would not prevent SCO from pursuing individual claims, which, if successful, could cost far more in penalties than buying a SCO license would. If you find SCO's case compelling and you use few instances of v.2.4, pay the license fees.
FUD FUD FUD
While the actions by SCO are pending, take a go-slow approach to Linux in high-value or mission-critical production systems. Instead, keep pursuing your Unix and Windows strategies.
OMFG FUD FUD FUD
The lawsuits against IBM and Linux users could take a year or more. Minimize Linux in complex, mission-critical systems until the merits of SCO's claims or any resulting judgments become clear.
FUD FUD FUD
If you plan large Linux deployments on the platforms of Dell Computer, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun Microsystems or other major vendors, seek a comprehensive support contract, including pre-installation, configuration testing and operating system certification.
FUD FUD FUD
IS organizations, with advice from their legal departments, should perform due diligence on Linux or other open-source code (explore its source, integrity and any encumbrances) as a prerequisite to adoption in the enterprise.
FUD FUD FUD
Actually, that is what they ARE doing, it is just that their hash function does not include any "random" salt, so the same password always generates the same hash.
Actually, your last statement (or is it a tagline?) has been shown to be incorrect! Bayesian filters can actually be better at sorting mail than a live person. Probably because they do not use a fixed set of rules.
A while ago when I was researching mail classification techniques, I saw a study that compared the accuracy of some classification techniques. The study took mail that had been manually classified, and compared that to how a several trained filters classified the mail.
They found, as a side-note, that the filter actually did a better job than the people they got to manually sort the mail!
I'm not much for the details, so no URL for the study, sorry:(
In any case, reading emails manually defeats the point, especially for my poor mom who is horrified by some of the messages she recieves.
I think you are on the right track, but OCR is not the way to go, since it can easily be confused, plus it is very processor intensive. Any technique that we apply to filtering spam has to be resistant to being confused by the next generation of spam.
A better idea (I think) is to have an HTML "normalizer", i.e. a parser that takes the HTML and simplifies it into its simplest representation. This would get rid of many of the HTML tricks like entities, white text, etc.
This problem has already been addressed in a simple form in an international programming competition (earlier this year I think). I do not recall the URL, but the task was to simplify a document containing a subset of HTML-type tags into its simplest form.
Even a simple HTML validator would be helpful, because some of the tricks involve invalid HTML. If the HTML in a message is invalid then it is unlikely to be non-spam.
As for the Javascript trick, IMO Javascript has no place in emails.
PS: Kudos to ActiveState & Dr JGC, excellent stuff.
Maybe you know this already, but you can give up your leechiness, by opening and forwarding the relevant ports to the PC you are using. Most NAT boxes support some form of doing this. Once I did that, BitTorrent was much more pleasant:)
Although I did have to start worrying about the shiny new security hole. Oh well, you can't have everything.
I do not know of any implementations, but I do not think there is anything inherent about a stream that prevents a single xpath expression from being evaluated. The stream just has to skip over parts of the document that are not relevant to the Xpath expression.
When I wrote my comment I thought that.NET had such a beast, but further investigation showed it does not. In any case, I do not think it could be based off of something derived from SAX, but it could be derived from an XMLReader (.NET object).
I get your point about//foo[position()=last()], i.e. the stream would be past where it needs to be before it knew that it should have returned something. However, that is a minor technical hurdle.
If you break it down, there are two basic methods of parsing XML - DOM-based or Stream-based. DOM requires the whole XML document to be loaded in memory, and so is inherently bad for scalability.
Stream-based combined with XPATH processing is the way to go if you want to just get particular elements from the document. Even if you need to parse the whole document, I would still stay with stream-based method.
You cannot watch while you record!
on
New Linux PVR Box
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the manual, page 17: "While Telly is recording, Telly's TV window goes blank and you can't watch TV. You can use other Telly features like the music library, photo library or TellyPortal."
Arg. Sounds like a step back from my VCR.
Otherwise, the idea is great, the interface looks wonderful. Just a little work needed on the TV watching features and the price.
Yes, definitely Windows centric; there is nothing wrong with being focused on a particular area...they make no secret of it: "The Code Project is a community of Visual Studio.NET developers joined together with a common goal: To learn, to teach, to have fun programming"
What I was trying to convey is that the site does what it does very well! Code snippets are easy to find, articles are generally well thought out and written. And the focus is on the code.
It may be not be for everyone, but almost 1/2 million other people have registered on the site - perhaps there is something worth learning from them.
Going with the analogy of glue vs bricks and mortar, I'd like to point out some obvious problems with C++, from the point of view of someone who works more on the "glue" side.
When I write a program in VB, there are precisely two ways that I can mess things up from the point of view of causing an application crash. One is to create circular references between objects, and the other is to cause a stack overflow. I know enough to avoid those two problems, but my programs still crash sometimes, because of the brick & mortar that my program relies on.
I don't blame MS for that, I blame the languages they use, i.e. C and C++. What C++ needs is better protection from programmers against themselves. Buffer overflows, pointers pointing where they should not; all that stuff needs to be harder to do. Give us guys with the sticky-glue fingers something decent to work with!
MS have it right with C#, i.e. no more pointers, no possibility of circular references. Unfortunately, the cost of that seems to be the runtime framework to do GC, which would be unacceptable for low-level stuff in C++.
It depends entirely on what the job is. If the position is for a person that must do sweeping redesigns of the entire business IT infrastructure, then domain knowledge is very important. But good communication skills will allow someone with solid design skills to do just as well.
All the domain knowledge in the world does not make you a good programmer; it makes you a user with some tech knowledge:)
That said, becoming an expert in a certain domain is certainly one approach to building a career. It is similar to the approach of becoming a specialist in a single product though -- when that product becomes outdated and no longer in use, you are in trouble. Translation = if the business domain you are in no longer has need for your type of tech skills, or even worse, if you get a bad reputation (even undeservedly), then you are stuffed.
A little box on every plane with GPS co-ordinates of prime terrorism targets? Seems like a wealth of valuable info for some loon with a couple of ICBMs to spare.
Apparently the pilots are not too fond of the idea. And its not really surprising considering the name. Even crashing into a soft wall may seem like a bad thing to a pilot.
Perhaps they should rename it something less threatening, like "airspace avoidance system", or "redundant hijacker prevention".
I think programmers get desensetized (spelling?) to some sorts of phrases, and some of us miss out because of it.
Best Practices are actually a Good Thing(tm). They are what separates professional Software Engineers from most coders who don't have a clue about system design, and aren't interested in learning.
There are some good books in this area, although the primary one escapes me now...
In the not too distant future, when sending email is taxed, and greylisting is common, estimated time of email delivery = 3 days, eta on snail mail = 3 days; what's the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wait, its in Swedish!
Anyway, AFAIK ASP.NET is the only web technology with built in support for cookieless sessions. Obviously you can roll your own in other technologies.
<conspiracy type="theory">
Microsoft fudged the issue for Swedish lawmakers, thus making ASP.NET the web technology of choice in Sweden?
</conspiracy>
I had been undecided on Gartner up until now. I mean, not all of their advice is pro-Microsoft; they seemed fairly balanced to me. But this is just too much...
From Gartner.com, recommendations as at 23 Jul:
Contact SCO to discuss its claims, compensation requirements and your potential future liability.
FUD FUD FUD + hefty helping of bad advice
Organize a review board that audits and documents all Linux installations by kernel version and server roles.
FUD FUD FUD
Delay deployments of application and database servers if they involve critical applications that must be unencumbered of IP infringement claims. You can fence off such systems from the license obligation if you have deployed Linux strictly for basic infrastructure roles (such as firewalls and simple Web servers) that do not require the 2.4 kernel or its SMP capability.
FUD FUD FUD
Determine whether Unix or Windows will provide functions equivalent to those of Linux deployments.
OMFG FUD FUD FUD
Investigate outsourcing, system integration or other relationships that transfer license issues to the third party.
valid advice, but still FUD FUD FUD
Don't ignore the problem by hoping IBM will win or settle its lawsuit (that could take a year or more). An IBM win would not prevent SCO from pursuing individual claims, which, if successful, could cost far more in penalties than buying a SCO license would. If you find SCO's case compelling and you use few instances of v.2.4, pay the license fees.
FUD FUD FUD
While the actions by SCO are pending, take a go-slow approach to Linux in high-value or mission-critical production systems. Instead, keep pursuing your Unix and Windows strategies.
OMFG FUD FUD FUD
Previous recommendations, 21 May:
The lawsuits against IBM and Linux users could take a year or more. Minimize Linux in complex, mission-critical systems until the merits of SCO's claims or any resulting judgments become clear.
FUD FUD FUD
If you plan large Linux deployments on the platforms of Dell Computer, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun Microsystems or other major vendors, seek a comprehensive support contract, including pre-installation, configuration testing and operating system certification.
FUD FUD FUD
IS organizations, with advice from their legal departments, should perform due diligence on Linux or other open-source code (explore its source, integrity and any encumbrances) as a prerequisite to adoption in the enterprise.
Install Linux, the anti-SCOFUD FUD FUD
Actually, that is what they ARE doing, it is just that their hash function does not include any "random" salt, so the same password always generates the same hash.
Actually, your last statement (or is it a tagline?) has been shown to be incorrect! Bayesian filters can actually be better at sorting mail than a live person. Probably because they do not use a fixed set of rules.
:(
A while ago when I was researching mail classification techniques, I saw a study that compared the accuracy of some classification techniques. The study took mail that had been manually classified, and compared that to how a several trained filters classified the mail.
They found, as a side-note, that the filter actually did a better job than the people they got to manually sort the mail!
I'm not much for the details, so no URL for the study, sorry
In any case, reading emails manually defeats the point, especially for my poor mom who is horrified by some of the messages she recieves.
I think you are on the right track, but OCR is not the way to go, since it can easily be confused, plus it is very processor intensive. Any technique that we apply to filtering spam has to be resistant to being confused by the next generation of spam.
A better idea (I think) is to have an HTML "normalizer", i.e. a parser that takes the HTML and simplifies it into its simplest representation. This would get rid of many of the HTML tricks like entities, white text, etc.
This problem has already been addressed in a simple form in an international programming competition (earlier this year I think). I do not recall the URL, but the task was to simplify a document containing a subset of HTML-type tags into its simplest form.
Even a simple HTML validator would be helpful, because some of the tricks involve invalid HTML. If the HTML in a message is invalid then it is unlikely to be non-spam.
As for the Javascript trick, IMO Javascript has no place in emails.
PS: Kudos to ActiveState & Dr JGC, excellent stuff.
Maybe you know this already, but you can give up your leechiness, by opening and forwarding the relevant ports to the PC you are using. Most NAT boxes support some form of doing this. Once I did that, BitTorrent was much more pleasant :)
Although I did have to start worrying about the shiny new security hole. Oh well, you can't have everything.
I do not know of any implementations, but I do not think there is anything inherent about a stream that prevents a single xpath expression from being evaluated. The stream just has to skip over parts of the document that are not relevant to the Xpath expression.
.NET had such a beast, but further investigation showed it does not. In any case, I do not think it could be based off of something derived from SAX, but it could be derived from an XMLReader (.NET object).
//foo[position()=last()], i.e. the stream would be past where it needs to be before it knew that it should have returned something. However, that is a minor technical hurdle.
When I wrote my comment I thought that
I get your point about
If you break it down, there are two basic methods of parsing XML - DOM-based or Stream-based. DOM requires the whole XML document to be loaded in memory, and so is inherently bad for scalability.
Stream-based combined with XPATH processing is the way to go if you want to just get particular elements from the document. Even if you need to parse the whole document, I would still stay with stream-based method.
From the manual, page 17: "While Telly is recording, Telly's TV window goes blank and you can't watch TV. You can use other Telly features like the music library, photo library or TellyPortal."
Arg. Sounds like a step back from my VCR.
Otherwise, the idea is great, the interface looks wonderful. Just a little work needed on the TV watching features and the price.
Yes, definitely Windows centric; there is nothing wrong with being focused on a particular area...they make no secret of it: "The Code Project is a community of Visual Studio .NET developers joined together with a common goal: To learn, to teach, to have fun programming"
What I was trying to convey is that the site does what it does very well! Code snippets are easy to find, articles are generally well thought out and written. And the focus is on the code.
It may be not be for everyone, but almost 1/2 million other people have registered on the site - perhaps there is something worth learning from them.
Took a look at the site. And I thought /. was anti-MS!
I won't be returning to the site...I don't want social commentary, I want useful source code and coding techniques, algorythms.
Try www.codeproject.com for a decent site.
Going with the analogy of glue vs bricks and mortar, I'd like to point out some obvious problems with C++, from the point of view of someone who works more on the "glue" side.
When I write a program in VB, there are precisely two ways that I can mess things up from the point of view of causing an application crash. One is to create circular references between objects, and the other is to cause a stack overflow. I know enough to avoid those two problems, but my programs still crash sometimes, because of the brick & mortar that my program relies on.
I don't blame MS for that, I blame the languages they use, i.e. C and C++. What C++ needs is better protection from programmers against themselves. Buffer overflows, pointers pointing where they should not; all that stuff needs to be harder to do. Give us guys with the sticky-glue fingers something decent to work with!
MS have it right with C#, i.e. no more pointers, no possibility of circular references. Unfortunately, the cost of that seems to be the runtime framework to do GC, which would be unacceptable for low-level stuff in C++.
Oh well. I forgot my point. Anyone?
It depends entirely on what the job is. If the position is for a person that must do sweeping redesigns of the entire business IT infrastructure, then domain knowledge is very important. But good communication skills will allow someone with solid design skills to do just as well.
:)
All the domain knowledge in the world does not make you a good programmer; it makes you a user with some tech knowledge
That said, becoming an expert in a certain domain is certainly one approach to building a career. It is similar to the approach of becoming a specialist in a single product though -- when that product becomes outdated and no longer in use, you are in trouble. Translation = if the business domain you are in no longer has need for your type of tech skills, or even worse, if you get a bad reputation (even undeservedly), then you are stuffed.
A little box on every plane with GPS co-ordinates of prime terrorism targets? Seems like a wealth of valuable info for some loon with a couple of ICBMs to spare.
Apparently the pilots are not too fond of the idea. And its not really surprising considering the name. Even crashing into a soft wall may seem like a bad thing to a pilot.
Perhaps they should rename it something less threatening, like "airspace avoidance system", or "redundant hijacker prevention".
I think programmers get desensetized (spelling?) to some sorts of phrases, and some of us miss out because of it. Best Practices are actually a Good Thing(tm). They are what separates professional Software Engineers from most coders who don't have a clue about system design, and aren't interested in learning. There are some good books in this area, although the primary one escapes me now...
In the not too distant future, when sending email is taxed, and greylisting is common, estimated time of email delivery = 3 days, eta on snail mail = 3 days; what's the difference?