There are checkboxes that control that you know, they are there in 2.0 as well.
Account Settings -> select an account -> Offline and Disk Space
It does occasionally download messages multiple times if your mail server is retarded and doesn't use the same message id for some weird reason for each new connection, but thats a mail server issue and will effect clients other than thunderbird since it breaks the protocol.
"Easy to corrupt", "difficult to recover", and "doesn't scale well" are each a pretty good reason to dislike it.
Citation needed, for all 3.
The problem isn't caused by the registry, its caused by code that uses the registry API, more than a slight difference there.
I've written wrappers to access mysql and postgresql via an API that matches the registry API, I suppose you think it would apply to those as well?
Yes, large registry hives get slower for certain operations, but not all, and the same is true for any database. Thats all it is, a database.
Its easy to backup and recover, regedit will be happy to export the entire thing for you, and import it as well. Doesn't have to be done online, some things do require offline access and their are tools for that.
I've seen far more corrupted mysql databases than registries, and I've dealt with 100s of times more registries than mysql dbs.
There is no problem with the registry in principal. Acting like their is just shows your ignorance.
There have certainly been implementation issues with the libraries to access it. There almost certainly will be more in the future.
This is no different than any library that provides the same sort of functionality.
The problem could be the same if we used ini files, or xml files, or some random file format.
The only thing the 'registry' actually is, is a set of defined API calls to access data. The backend is irrelevant, and you can in fact remap just about any part of the registry into ini files if you know how.
So once you've flipped the bit to map to an ini file, are you going to now say that ini files are bad? You could put some effort into hooking the registry code so it used xml files if you really wanted, whats the problem now. If you're implying that the problem is entirely in the library behind the API that allows you to access the registry than I challenge you to show me a library that has never had any bugs that can be exploited. You can do it, but you're going to have to use a library thats either never been seen by anyone or has no useful purpose.
Bad code can not be prevented, it happens and will happen until humans are perfect, which is unlikely.
You can change the API, but you'll just create a new set of bugs and problems that manifest themselves in a new and exciting way.
Implying the registry is 'bad' is like implying stdin/stdout/stderr are bad. You realize these have had their implementations exploited as well right?
Theres nothing wrong with an app installing to the user installing it's directory.
It is retarded to allow a normal user to write to a shared system location.
By default there isn't really a reason to let users install to a shared system directory. It is acceptable to allow a group of users to install there, if no one is automatically put into that group rather than the machine admin(s).
By default users are more than welcome to install in their home directory, this won't trigger a UAC prompt, and it works like that on any sane UNIX I'm aware of as well.
What Microsoft should have done is said, "you're not allowed to claim your application works with Vista and 7 unless it behaves nicely with UAC."
Actually, they did, except they started that with at least Windows XP (probably win2k due to terminal services, but my memory is too fuzy to remember those Windows Logo guidelines), they just started really getting around to making the changes that breaks applications that didn't adhere to the Windows Logo program guidelines in Vista, 2k8 and Win7.
Apps shouldn't ask to escalte to administrator level. They should ask only to escalate the rights they specifically need, such as writing to C:\Program Files\Foo\.
They can, and my guess is MS will work that in better later. They are taking baby steps trying to give AMPLE time for software to be repaired or replaced.
Microsoft is happy to blame the users, but it is Microsoft who established the industry standards. They set the table. They tell the users how to use their OS, and they tell developers how to develop for their OS.
And they've told users not to do it for a while now, although it wasn't the default for XP. They also have told developers to use the least privilege model for a while, but many don't listen as they run their development software as an administrator to make things easier on themselves.
If MS shipped a more secure OS by design no one would use it right now, and they'd not bother to migrate to anything else. You have tunnel vision. You have the insight of someone who is used to using OSS software that someone else can fix for you.
MS hasn't completely switched from the DOS mode of thinking where everyone has free run of the system, but they are switching to a more UNIX-like way of thinking and access control. When you have the install base and number of third party apps that Windows has, you can't do it over night even if you did have the source, there are far too many apps out there when you take the number of old windows apps that are no longer maintained, all the existing apps, and the number of competent developers, the ratio is just too big. Even if everyone stopped developing software now and spent all their time fixing existing apps, it would still take years, and in the mean time nothing would get done.
I don't mind blaming MS for their own problems, but to pretend that they haven't been working to change it just shows your ignorance, They've been working on changing it, from a public perspective for at least 10 years. They just don't intend to shoot themselves in the face to accomplish the make over.
MS didn't become the 'industry standard' by taking the typical OSS philosophy of making radical changes and then telling users to 'deal with it' in the name of security. The typical OSS dev will break compatibility in exchange for a security fix, this is fine from some perspectives, but not from others.
Finally, Windows is at least going in the right direction. Its not like we're talking about Fedora here, who is going in the exact opposite direction and even though they've been smacked in the face by people explaining to them WHY its a bad idea, vow to do it anyway.
Windows is a BIG target, it would still have the most people target it even if it were 10 times more secure than any other OS you can find. Nothing else presents a barn broadside as large as the Windows install base. You only need one exploit to get in. Lets assume every OS has 1, and they do all have at least 1, then why would you target one with a lower target audience? You wouldn't do it for money. You might do it for prestige or research or because you like puzzles, but if you're trying to make money, Windows is your target, regardless of how secure it is or isn't. The fact that it appears to be relatively easy just makes it that much better.
Script kiddies pull it of because SOMEONE ELSE DID THE WORK. Script kiddies will always target whatever
That statement bans child porn (which is likely illegal in their service areas anyway) and racism. It doesn't ban porn in general, which much to most peoples surprise is illegal in many areas as well. I live in NC and pretty much every porn site on the Internet is illegal to visit, regardless of Verizon's policies. Whats better is it IS perfectly legal for me to go to a titty bar.
Most states have rather out dated laws that are roughly the same, although never actually enforced. They are handy to have around when some douche bag does something there isn't actually a law against but is clearly 'wrong'. You'd be amazed at the number of criminals that are put in jail for things other than what you'd like them to go to jail for. Many criminals are often good at not breaking the laws related to what they are doing, but still tend to get caught because they didn't cover ALL their bases. Just ask Mr Capone.
Sorry slashdotters. You don't have any rights to tell a company what they can and can't do with their network for the most part.
Their network is private, even if the public has the ability to use it. They can terminate you for any reason they'd like to, even if they don't like your race, sex, or religion.
They aren't even a monopoly in most of their service areas. They may be the only company that offers the type of service they offer but you can get phone, internet, and tv from someone else in every case. All of it can be handled by someone else using satellites. It may cost a lot more. It may not have the channels you want. It may not be as fast or up to your quality standards, but you CAN go elsewhere.
The basic complaint here is 'omg they are stating clearly that they may turn me off for doing something they don't like' rather than just leaving it to the default 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' Likewise, you certainly have the right to not use them.
The really sad thing that rather than a logical discussion about this, we have a bunch of people acting like angst ridden teenagers showing Verizon how cool they are by 'intentionally' posting stuff that would normally be deemed 'off topic'. The funny part about it is, its on topic to this discussion so you've utterly failed at that if you've bothered to go out of your way to be cool and post something off topic.
If this is the most you have to bitch about then you really don't have anything to bitch about, you're just being a whiney bitch and not doing anything useful.
Very few managers will pick the worse of two options for themselves.
The problem is, many times those people making the argument for why something is better have tunnel vision. They are bound by their own rules for what 'better' is.
The reality is the manager is ALWAYS going to pick what they perceive as best for THEMSELVES. If you and the company they work for are lucky, they'll be looking out for the overall welfare of the company and world in general. If thats the case than you simply have to provide them with the information to see you are right.
Most of the time however, they are looking out for what makes THEM the most benefit. If you want to get your way, you have to show them how they can get the most benefit overall for their agenda from your option.
Its much easier to get a manager to side with you when you stop trying to prove your values are the right ones and start trying to show the manager how to get what they want from your solution. You have to sell vi over VisualStudio to your manager. That may mean you have to sell why vi is a better solution for them than the kickbacks Microsoft gives them for using all MS software (just a hypothetical statement, don't know if MS really does that or not).
Regardless of which is better 10 years from now, if the choice comes down to MS saying 'we'll fund your company enough to stay in business for the next 2 years if you use and tell people you used VisualStudio rather than vi' versus using vi now and going out of business in 4 months because you don't have the money to survive... well, than what happens in 10 years isn't going to play into the current decision.
The 'best choice' is really rarely the 'best choice' in the grand scheme of things.
As someone who officially holds the title of 'Chief Technology Officer' in a tiny company, where it actually means nothing I can safely say the reason people are so obsessed with titles is because we've been trained to think that unless we are special in some way we are less important than others. We've been trained to 'NEED' to be special. We all (generally speaking) 'NEED' to be royalty. We all want to have others look up to us.
Very few people are capable of realizing that we all have a place in the world, there are few people who contribute NOTHING AT ALL to the world. I still care about my title, I still want to be special and think I'm better than others. I know I'm not special. I know I'm just another cog in the machine. I realize that even though logically I am not really special, I still think I am and I will continue to look down on others I don't think are as special as myself.
Thats one of the sad things about being human, I realize I'm full of myself but that doesn't actually stop me from being full of myself. Logic does not always win out, even when you realize it.
Hell, I think I'm better than others just because I realize that I'm not. Talk about a retarded contradiction of your own self worth.
I HATE being called the IT guy. That is a term generally referred to as the guy who fixes our computers.
My primary job is to manage the development of our software products. When one of our support staff emails a customer or talks to them on the phone and says something like 'I've contacted our IT guys for help' it just irks me.
But this is probably the only place I'll say it.
Why?
Because, like it or not, I am also the IT guy. We're a small company, I DO fix our internal machines. I DO manage our servers. I DO help with customer issues. I AM capable of doing all of these functions. The reason I don't like being the IT guy is because I DON'T LIKE doing a lot of these things. I like not getting paid even less, so I'll continue to be called the IT guy for a while in exchange for getting paid.
I don't like being called the IT guy because that makes me one of the people who get called when something completely unrelated to my primary job responsibility goes wrong. I don't like dealing with customers or end users. I don't like being called the IT guy because its not what I WANT to be.
I deal with being called the IT guy because the people calling me the IT guy don't mean it in a derogatory way, thats something in my head, not theirs. The IT guy is still some mythical creature who can fix their PC and software. To people outside of our world, the IT guy is still someone who knows far more about computing than they do.
The only thing wrong with being 'the IT guy' is in OUR heads. Its our own selfish need to consider ourselves better than someone else. Its our own need to be 'better' than the help desk guy. In reality however, being good at help desk type work is extremely challenging. Most developers limit themselves to know a particular subject matter very well (their own software). Most help desk workers in the field (not the guys reading a script that have no idea how to deal with an unexpected situation at all) don't get that luxury. They have to deal with our software, the OS, different patch levels, different interactions between our dependancies and the other 100 apps on the systems they deal with.
Being a good help desk tech is a lot like being a veterinarian versus a general practitioner on humans. Most of them know a lot less about any given species of animal than the GP knows about humans. They know about a TON of different species. They know that just because a drug is has a specific effect on a poodle that doesn't mean it will have the same effect on a bird, or even a different type of poodle for that matter. They know that what may help a German shepard could very well kill a border collie in a matter of minutes. They know that in a lot of cases they need to stabilize the patient first, then figure out what the actual problem is and finally how they can address it. They (help desk tech or vet, take your pick) have to deal with a far wider range of issues than we confine ourselves to, and because of that, they have to work by a different set of methods than we do.
You would do well to not take being called an IT guy as a bad thing, 99.9% of the world looks up to their IT guys for help on a range of issues that they are fully aware they aren't the best suited to deal with. They don't always expect you ('the IT guy') to know everything, but they expect you'll know more about it and possibly finding the right guy to fix the problem. Yes, you find people who think its your job as 'the IT guy' to change a light bulb. In most cases it IS better if you do it, even as a programmer, because you are FAR more likely to work safely with electricity than they are. You are more likely to turn the switch off first at the very least. Very few people account for the assholes who think of the IT guy as their bitch for doing crap that is beneath them. These people will think of you that way regardless of what they call you.
Only a tiny fraction of the population really think of 'the IT guy' as a bad thing,
You are a rather inexperienced developer by the sound of it.
A keyboard can in fact be incompatible. Its is very RARE, but it DOES happen. It is often FAR easier for the IT to keep systems in consistent configurations that are known to work than to deal with your retarded quirks. The machine really is far less flexible than you are, well, than you should be. You can easily adjust to the different clickiness of the keyboard, the computer may very well not be able to adjust to extremely minor voltage differences.
Another indication of your lack of experience is that you're upset about the loss of POP and SMTP support. I can see being upset about losing IMAP and SMTP support, but POP needs to die sooner rather than later at any company worth its salt.
IE supports different authentication methods than Firefox. NTLM auth actually works in IE with IIS, FireFox, Kerberos and IIS are much more flacky and tend to stop working for what appears to be random reasons. I use Firefox and Chrome to authentication against IIS using NTLM and Apache using mod_NTLM or kerberos, do you have any idea how many times IE works perfectly against all of these servers yet both Firefox and Chrome have issues where they do stupid crap like re-authenticating for every request?
So thanks for posting here, you've just helped prove that you are as much if not more of the problem then your help desk who at least knows what does work. Its cute that you think because you are a 'software engineer' that you have a clue, but its pretty clear that you're just arrogant and really don't have that much experience with the systems involved, or in fact any sufficiently complex system such as the one you're describing.
I wish I could just make people such as yourself disappear. You work for their organization as well. You are on the same team. You think you know more than they do about doing the job they do. You don't, that much is clear. Do you have any clue how frustrating it is for them to deal with a jackass like yourself that thinks he knows more about doing their job than they do? Think about how you'd feel if they came to you and told you that you were writing code wrong and provided you with a compiler error from their system that was clearly incorrect?
Have you ever even had to support or debug your own software in a unknown environment? Everything about your post wreaks of inexperienced, arrogant, fresh out of ITT tech developer with absolutely no clue of how it works in the real world. Even end users are better to deal with than people like you, 9 times out of 10 the only problem with end users is getting them to give you information they don't realize is important. Dealing with someone like you is worse as its fighting with someone who should know better, but instead fights you every step of the way in an effort to establish that you are better than them and that you know more about the problem than the people who deal with it all day long. Save everyone the trouble and when you call them, drop the fucking attitude and do what they ask, if you actually do what they ask it will then be their problem and it's unlikely you'll ever get any flack from anyone for it. Fight them like you seem so inclined to do and you'll quickly find yourself on the list of developers to replace for being a pain in the ass to deal with.
What you'll see is a lot of people telling you what they 'USED TO DO' when they 'USED TO BE ON CALL'.
I.E. You're going to hear a bunch of unemployed slashdotters telling you about how you are being treated bad and how you need to tell the guy to fuck off and he's wrong.
Thats all well and good but he's not an employee, he's a contractor. He is effectively his own company. FLSA doesn't apply to him at all.
But, lets pretend he is an employee for the sake of argument.
If he was considered an employee, 'salaried' employees are exempt, most of the FLSA applies to non-exempt employees. He can be considered working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, still doesn't mean he gets paid extra.
Its cute that you started talking about it like you know what you're talking about but its pretty clear that you've never read the FLSA, or at the very least are incapable of basic reading comprehension. At least read the damn statutes you're throwing out there before you spew on about them.
The technology is no more specific to the company than wiring or plumbing in a building. The technology may be 'custom' but so is the wiring and the plumbing. There is nothing that prevents anyone else from coming in and working on it if they have the skill to do so.
The problem is that IT people seem to think they are special. In case you haven't noticed, they aren't, we are, in fact, a dime a dozen. Considering the job market pretty much everywhere in the US right now, being cocky and thinking you are indispensable is just about the dumbest move you can make for your ability to feed yourself.
I'm sure there are plenty of people here that would love to take his place and would do his job without any bitching, including being on call, rather than being on unemployment.
If it takes someone else any significant amount of time to 'get up to speed' on a website, then he deserves to be fired for doing it wrong. All your arguments for why this guy is worth more are based on the premise that he's doing a shitty job in the first place.
Thats rather common here and I fail to see why the IRS would object, they still have to be paid either way, just now the contractor is the one paying instead of the company.
That is incredible naive. Both Google and Apple would LOVE to be the only player in 'The Market', they just haven't pulled it off yet. They both take a different approach, but its just silly to pretend that isn't a goal.
Google doesn't WANT to GIVE people a choice, they want people to use them. Right now that means they have to compete, that means right now, they have to offer an alternative. For NOW that means choice.
Do you really think Google or Apple, if the only options for a particular product would fund someone else to be their competition? Are you really that silly?
Every companies objective is to eliminate competition and choice. Some companies go about it legally, some don't, but they all do it, its just natural. Some companies are more aggressive about it than others, but how many times has Google or Apple given money away to competition for no benefit of their own? Let me count them for you, 0. Done. And before you bring up something like Google funding Mozilla, just take a look at the default search engine in Firefox.
WinDOS... wow, you are so original, witty and insightful...
I actually like Windows for many reasons, and much to my surprise, Windows 7 was a welcome upgrade. I find there are several Windows apps which are better than any alternatives, for me.
Yes, Microsoft works with hardware vendors to get their OS on hardware.
Apple does the same with their own hardware.
Google is doing the same with ChromeOS.
Welcome to the way the world works.
Its been this way since before MS-DOS started competing against Apple and everyone else that had GUI based systems... its been this way pretty much since the dawn of the commercial availability of computing.
Your post wreaks of a angst filled teenager with complete ignorance of the world beyond his own blinders, a rebel with a cause, ignorant of the fact that your 'cause' is no better or even different than what you're fighting against.
Most of your post is bogus. You don't inheriently have more connections because you have a faster connection.
You have more connections because you have more connections. If you have more computers than its likely you'll have more, but assuming the same number of users, upgrading from 1Mb to 100Mb doesn't result in using more connections.
The problem with these crappy routers not handling traffic is certainly a software issue. You can route a 2mb connection on an IBM XT, yes, thats a 8086 at a few MHZ, IF you have properly written software.
Theres no reason that a 150mhz linksys box can't route and NAT 100Mb connection, IF the software is properly written.
In the mid 90s I was routing multiple DS3s, with full BGP tables (mind you, smaller than the current BGP table) well into the 200mb aggregate bandwidth range, on a 150mhz core.
There is a reason for the cheap routers to be capable of it from a hardware perspective, there comes a point when the price of the CPU is so low that the difference between a 8mhz ATMega and a 400mhz core is effectively zero.
Linux is not the solution for these low end devices unless you have an actual need to run Linux. A smaller custom codebase is far more efficient than trying to run an OS and normal services on it. Linux is by no means the most efficient OS to run on a router that is just being a router. It has plenty of other reasons that it makes sense for many people to use Linux on these routers, but efficiency isn't the reason, more features is. FreeBSD is no different in this respect (i.e. m0n0wall).
Again, you don't need multiple connections to saturate bandwidth, in fact more connections means less usable bandwidth due to overhead of the packets themselves.
Turn down the timeout for closing old connections with no traffic, enable keepalives and you can seriously lower the connection tracking issue into oblivion unless you have some REALLY badly behaving code on one end.
The problem is that unless you are a real programmer, you'll get caught by the same bugs as any other languages like this.
VB is easier for most people to learn than C. VB programmers still screw up basic logic which results in bugs and crashes.
The language isn't the problem, although some are better than others are a particular class of problems.
The problem is that the programmer still has to actually be able to say what they are thinking, and in most cases say MORE than what they are thinking in order to catch situations they were not exposed to when they started.
No language can fix that, especially not english. English is a horribly interpretive context based language. You can take two people, twins for example, who have communicated with each other for their entire lives, set up the situation right, one of them can make a single statement to the other and they will both view it with entirely different meanings since so many words have multiple definitions, some of them will fit in both, and even with twins, sometimes one will seem to fit better than the one that was intended.
Last I checked, we were still making mouse and cat-like brains on massive supercomputers that didn't run anywhere near real time. With that in mind it should be pretty clear that a language like this don't really make it any easier to program, they make it harder to write predictable code to anyone without intimate knowledge of the rules of the language, made worse by its close ties to a language that they programmer will think they understand.
Its America, Google is free to do whatever they want with their servers and services they provide. That includes both censorship and being racist if they choose.
In turn, you get the to not do business with them if you don't like it.
Favorite US president's wife? I'm not sure I see it. It shows you're bias however. Its rather silly to make such a bold statement before we're even a year into it. Right now, it is actually race that makes them popular, not any action or lack of action, they haven't actually DONE anything yet. Being black is making them popular because the US is still shocked that it happened.
Google is free to do whatever they want with their services, there are other search engines, and there is no rule, written or unwritten that requires you to be listed on a search engine in order for your life to continue.
God I hate people that scream censorship for retarded freaking reasons. Yes its censorship, it happens EVERY DAY. You do so yourself, every day. How do I know? Walk through your day to day, thinking about EVERY SINGLE ACTION YOU TAKE and word you speak. Come back in 24 hours and let us know how many times you didn't do something or didn't say something because of the effect it might have.
I, generally, censor the hell out of my words throughout the day. If I didn't I'm pretty sure I'd have no friends and possibly get my ass kicked at least once or twice a day. Its just a fact of life.
Well, if you know anything about this history of racism in America, it was quite common to refer to blacks as monkeys, apes, chimps, ect. in the past.
The whole racism thing is played WAY TO FUCKING MUCH now days, but you have to be completely ignorant of history in the US to not at least see how it could be viewed as a racial attack.
If you're not American I can understand, if you are American then you're either 12, have lived in a box for all your life, or have experienced so much censorship in your life that you've never heard of it before, which is equally as sad.
Slashdot Mirror
There are checkboxes that control that you know, they are there in 2.0 as well.
Account Settings -> select an account -> Offline and Disk Space
It does occasionally download messages multiple times if your mail server is retarded and doesn't use the same message id for some weird reason for each new connection, but thats a mail server issue and will effect clients other than thunderbird since it breaks the protocol.
Perhaps thats because the resolve is on ipv4 address space, meant to be responding to ipv4 clients, so returning an ipv4 answer makes sense.
Now if your request is done on ipv6 address, then google tends to return ipv6 answers from their servers.
Its all documented on their pages somewhere. Then only return AAAA addresses to clients and servers which have ipv6 addresses.
Google knows less about you than most credit card companies do.
Citation needed, for all 3.
The problem isn't caused by the registry, its caused by code that uses the registry API, more than a slight difference there.
I've written wrappers to access mysql and postgresql via an API that matches the registry API, I suppose you think it would apply to those as well?
Yes, large registry hives get slower for certain operations, but not all, and the same is true for any database. Thats all it is, a database.
Its easy to backup and recover, regedit will be happy to export the entire thing for you, and import it as well. Doesn't have to be done online, some things do require offline access and their are tools for that.
I've seen far more corrupted mysql databases than registries, and I've dealt with 100s of times more registries than mysql dbs.
Citation needed.
There is no problem with the registry in principal. Acting like their is just shows your ignorance.
There have certainly been implementation issues with the libraries to access it. There almost certainly will be more in the future.
This is no different than any library that provides the same sort of functionality.
The problem could be the same if we used ini files, or xml files, or some random file format.
The only thing the 'registry' actually is, is a set of defined API calls to access data. The backend is irrelevant, and you can in fact remap just about any part of the registry into ini files if you know how.
So once you've flipped the bit to map to an ini file, are you going to now say that ini files are bad? You could put some effort into hooking the registry code so it used xml files if you really wanted, whats the problem now. If you're implying that the problem is entirely in the library behind the API that allows you to access the registry than I challenge you to show me a library that has never had any bugs that can be exploited. You can do it, but you're going to have to use a library thats either never been seen by anyone or has no useful purpose.
Bad code can not be prevented, it happens and will happen until humans are perfect, which is unlikely.
You can change the API, but you'll just create a new set of bugs and problems that manifest themselves in a new and exciting way.
Implying the registry is 'bad' is like implying stdin/stdout/stderr are bad. You realize these have had their implementations exploited as well right?
Except that its a system wide directory.
Theres nothing wrong with an app installing to the user installing it's directory.
It is retarded to allow a normal user to write to a shared system location.
By default there isn't really a reason to let users install to a shared system directory. It is acceptable to allow a group of users to install there, if no one is automatically put into that group rather than the machine admin(s).
By default users are more than welcome to install in their home directory, this won't trigger a UAC prompt, and it works like that on any sane UNIX I'm aware of as well.
Actually, they did, except they started that with at least Windows XP (probably win2k due to terminal services, but my memory is too fuzy to remember those Windows Logo guidelines), they just started really getting around to making the changes that breaks applications that didn't adhere to the Windows Logo program guidelines in Vista, 2k8 and Win7.
They can, and my guess is MS will work that in better later. They are taking baby steps trying to give AMPLE time for software to be repaired or replaced.
And they've told users not to do it for a while now, although it wasn't the default for XP. They also have told developers to use the least privilege model for a while, but many don't listen as they run their development software as an administrator to make things easier on themselves.
If MS shipped a more secure OS by design no one would use it right now, and they'd not bother to migrate to anything else. You have tunnel vision. You have the insight of someone who is used to using OSS software that someone else can fix for you.
MS hasn't completely switched from the DOS mode of thinking where everyone has free run of the system, but they are switching to a more UNIX-like way of thinking and access control. When you have the install base and number of third party apps that Windows has, you can't do it over night even if you did have the source, there are far too many apps out there when you take the number of old windows apps that are no longer maintained, all the existing apps, and the number of competent developers, the ratio is just too big. Even if everyone stopped developing software now and spent all their time fixing existing apps, it would still take years, and in the mean time nothing would get done.
I don't mind blaming MS for their own problems, but to pretend that they haven't been working to change it just shows your ignorance, They've been working on changing it, from a public perspective for at least 10 years. They just don't intend to shoot themselves in the face to accomplish the make over.
MS didn't become the 'industry standard' by taking the typical OSS philosophy of making radical changes and then telling users to 'deal with it' in the name of security. The typical OSS dev will break compatibility in exchange for a security fix, this is fine from some perspectives, but not from others.
Finally, Windows is at least going in the right direction. Its not like we're talking about Fedora here, who is going in the exact opposite direction and even though they've been smacked in the face by people explaining to them WHY its a bad idea, vow to do it anyway.
Windows is a BIG target, it would still have the most people target it even if it were 10 times more secure than any other OS you can find. Nothing else presents a barn broadside as large as the Windows install base. You only need one exploit to get in. Lets assume every OS has 1, and they do all have at least 1, then why would you target one with a lower target audience? You wouldn't do it for money. You might do it for prestige or research or because you like puzzles, but if you're trying to make money, Windows is your target, regardless of how secure it is or isn't. The fact that it appears to be relatively easy just makes it that much better.
Script kiddies pull it of because SOMEONE ELSE DID THE WORK. Script kiddies will always target whatever
That statement bans child porn (which is likely illegal in their service areas anyway) and racism. It doesn't ban porn in general, which much to most peoples surprise is illegal in many areas as well. I live in NC and pretty much every porn site on the Internet is illegal to visit, regardless of Verizon's policies. Whats better is it IS perfectly legal for me to go to a titty bar.
Most states have rather out dated laws that are roughly the same, although never actually enforced. They are handy to have around when some douche bag does something there isn't actually a law against but is clearly 'wrong'. You'd be amazed at the number of criminals that are put in jail for things other than what you'd like them to go to jail for. Many criminals are often good at not breaking the laws related to what they are doing, but still tend to get caught because they didn't cover ALL their bases. Just ask Mr Capone.
Sorry slashdotters. You don't have any rights to tell a company what they can and can't do with their network for the most part.
Their network is private, even if the public has the ability to use it. They can terminate you for any reason they'd like to, even if they don't like your race, sex, or religion.
They aren't even a monopoly in most of their service areas. They may be the only company that offers the type of service they offer but you can get phone, internet, and tv from someone else in every case. All of it can be handled by someone else using satellites. It may cost a lot more. It may not have the channels you want. It may not be as fast or up to your quality standards, but you CAN go elsewhere.
The basic complaint here is 'omg they are stating clearly that they may turn me off for doing something they don't like' rather than just leaving it to the default 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' Likewise, you certainly have the right to not use them.
The really sad thing that rather than a logical discussion about this, we have a bunch of people acting like angst ridden teenagers showing Verizon how cool they are by 'intentionally' posting stuff that would normally be deemed 'off topic'. The funny part about it is, its on topic to this discussion so you've utterly failed at that if you've bothered to go out of your way to be cool and post something off topic.
If this is the most you have to bitch about then you really don't have anything to bitch about, you're just being a whiney bitch and not doing anything useful.
Very few managers will pick the worse of two options for themselves.
The problem is, many times those people making the argument for why something is better have tunnel vision. They are bound by their own rules for what 'better' is.
The reality is the manager is ALWAYS going to pick what they perceive as best for THEMSELVES. If you and the company they work for are lucky, they'll be looking out for the overall welfare of the company and world in general. If thats the case than you simply have to provide them with the information to see you are right.
Most of the time however, they are looking out for what makes THEM the most benefit. If you want to get your way, you have to show them how they can get the most benefit overall for their agenda from your option.
Its much easier to get a manager to side with you when you stop trying to prove your values are the right ones and start trying to show the manager how to get what they want from your solution. You have to sell vi over VisualStudio to your manager. That may mean you have to sell why vi is a better solution for them than the kickbacks Microsoft gives them for using all MS software (just a hypothetical statement, don't know if MS really does that or not).
Regardless of which is better 10 years from now, if the choice comes down to MS saying 'we'll fund your company enough to stay in business for the next 2 years if you use and tell people you used VisualStudio rather than vi' versus using vi now and going out of business in 4 months because you don't have the money to survive ... well, than what happens in 10 years isn't going to play into the current decision.
The 'best choice' is really rarely the 'best choice' in the grand scheme of things.
I always preferred the term 'Router flunky'.
As someone who officially holds the title of 'Chief Technology Officer' in a tiny company, where it actually means nothing I can safely say the reason people are so obsessed with titles is because we've been trained to think that unless we are special in some way we are less important than others. We've been trained to 'NEED' to be special. We all (generally speaking) 'NEED' to be royalty. We all want to have others look up to us.
Very few people are capable of realizing that we all have a place in the world, there are few people who contribute NOTHING AT ALL to the world. I still care about my title, I still want to be special and think I'm better than others. I know I'm not special. I know I'm just another cog in the machine. I realize that even though logically I am not really special, I still think I am and I will continue to look down on others I don't think are as special as myself.
Thats one of the sad things about being human, I realize I'm full of myself but that doesn't actually stop me from being full of myself. Logic does not always win out, even when you realize it.
Hell, I think I'm better than others just because I realize that I'm not. Talk about a retarded contradiction of your own self worth.
I HATE being called the IT guy. That is a term generally referred to as the guy who fixes our computers.
My primary job is to manage the development of our software products. When one of our support staff emails a customer or talks to them on the phone and says something like 'I've contacted our IT guys for help' it just irks me.
But this is probably the only place I'll say it.
Why?
Because, like it or not, I am also the IT guy. We're a small company, I DO fix our internal machines. I DO manage our servers. I DO help with customer issues. I AM capable of doing all of these functions. The reason I don't like being the IT guy is because I DON'T LIKE doing a lot of these things. I like not getting paid even less, so I'll continue to be called the IT guy for a while in exchange for getting paid.
I don't like being called the IT guy because that makes me one of the people who get called when something completely unrelated to my primary job responsibility goes wrong. I don't like dealing with customers or end users. I don't like being called the IT guy because its not what I WANT to be.
I deal with being called the IT guy because the people calling me the IT guy don't mean it in a derogatory way, thats something in my head, not theirs. The IT guy is still some mythical creature who can fix their PC and software. To people outside of our world, the IT guy is still someone who knows far more about computing than they do.
The only thing wrong with being 'the IT guy' is in OUR heads. Its our own selfish need to consider ourselves better than someone else. Its our own need to be 'better' than the help desk guy. In reality however, being good at help desk type work is extremely challenging. Most developers limit themselves to know a particular subject matter very well (their own software). Most help desk workers in the field (not the guys reading a script that have no idea how to deal with an unexpected situation at all) don't get that luxury. They have to deal with our software, the OS, different patch levels, different interactions between our dependancies and the other 100 apps on the systems they deal with.
Being a good help desk tech is a lot like being a veterinarian versus a general practitioner on humans. Most of them know a lot less about any given species of animal than the GP knows about humans. They know about a TON of different species. They know that just because a drug is has a specific effect on a poodle that doesn't mean it will have the same effect on a bird, or even a different type of poodle for that matter. They know that what may help a German shepard could very well kill a border collie in a matter of minutes. They know that in a lot of cases they need to stabilize the patient first, then figure out what the actual problem is and finally how they can address it. They (help desk tech or vet, take your pick) have to deal with a far wider range of issues than we confine ourselves to, and because of that, they have to work by a different set of methods than we do.
You would do well to not take being called an IT guy as a bad thing, 99.9% of the world looks up to their IT guys for help on a range of issues that they are fully aware they aren't the best suited to deal with. They don't always expect you ('the IT guy') to know everything, but they expect you'll know more about it and possibly finding the right guy to fix the problem. Yes, you find people who think its your job as 'the IT guy' to change a light bulb. In most cases it IS better if you do it, even as a programmer, because you are FAR more likely to work safely with electricity than they are. You are more likely to turn the switch off first at the very least. Very few people account for the assholes who think of the IT guy as their bitch for doing crap that is beneath them. These people will think of you that way regardless of what they call you.
Only a tiny fraction of the population really think of 'the IT guy' as a bad thing,
You are a rather inexperienced developer by the sound of it.
A keyboard can in fact be incompatible. Its is very RARE, but it DOES happen. It is often FAR easier for the IT to keep systems in consistent configurations that are known to work than to deal with your retarded quirks. The machine really is far less flexible than you are, well, than you should be. You can easily adjust to the different clickiness of the keyboard, the computer may very well not be able to adjust to extremely minor voltage differences.
Another indication of your lack of experience is that you're upset about the loss of POP and SMTP support. I can see being upset about losing IMAP and SMTP support, but POP needs to die sooner rather than later at any company worth its salt.
IE supports different authentication methods than Firefox. NTLM auth actually works in IE with IIS, FireFox, Kerberos and IIS are much more flacky and tend to stop working for what appears to be random reasons. I use Firefox and Chrome to authentication against IIS using NTLM and Apache using mod_NTLM or kerberos, do you have any idea how many times IE works perfectly against all of these servers yet both Firefox and Chrome have issues where they do stupid crap like re-authenticating for every request?
So thanks for posting here, you've just helped prove that you are as much if not more of the problem then your help desk who at least knows what does work. Its cute that you think because you are a 'software engineer' that you have a clue, but its pretty clear that you're just arrogant and really don't have that much experience with the systems involved, or in fact any sufficiently complex system such as the one you're describing.
I wish I could just make people such as yourself disappear. You work for their organization as well. You are on the same team. You think you know more than they do about doing the job they do. You don't, that much is clear. Do you have any clue how frustrating it is for them to deal with a jackass like yourself that thinks he knows more about doing their job than they do? Think about how you'd feel if they came to you and told you that you were writing code wrong and provided you with a compiler error from their system that was clearly incorrect?
Have you ever even had to support or debug your own software in a unknown environment? Everything about your post wreaks of inexperienced, arrogant, fresh out of ITT tech developer with absolutely no clue of how it works in the real world. Even end users are better to deal with than people like you, 9 times out of 10 the only problem with end users is getting them to give you information they don't realize is important. Dealing with someone like you is worse as its fighting with someone who should know better, but instead fights you every step of the way in an effort to establish that you are better than them and that you know more about the problem than the people who deal with it all day long. Save everyone the trouble and when you call them, drop the fucking attitude and do what they ask, if you actually do what they ask it will then be their problem and it's unlikely you'll ever get any flack from anyone for it. Fight them like you seem so inclined to do and you'll quickly find yourself on the list of developers to replace for being a pain in the ass to deal with.
Really?
Non-MALicious MALware?
Its awesome to see non-malicious malicious software for Linux.
Way to go the kdawson, your reading comprehension skills are just freaking top notch.
minute.
What you'll see is a lot of people telling you what they 'USED TO DO' when they 'USED TO BE ON CALL'.
I.E. You're going to hear a bunch of unemployed slashdotters telling you about how you are being treated bad and how you need to tell the guy to fuck off and he's wrong.
There may just be a reason they are unemployed.
Thats all well and good but he's not an employee, he's a contractor. He is effectively his own company. FLSA doesn't apply to him at all.
But, lets pretend he is an employee for the sake of argument.
If he was considered an employee, 'salaried' employees are exempt, most of the FLSA applies to non-exempt employees. He can be considered working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, still doesn't mean he gets paid extra.
Its cute that you started talking about it like you know what you're talking about but its pretty clear that you've never read the FLSA, or at the very least are incapable of basic reading comprehension. At least read the damn statutes you're throwing out there before you spew on about them.
Wrong.
The technology is no more specific to the company than wiring or plumbing in a building. The technology may be 'custom' but so is the wiring and the plumbing. There is nothing that prevents anyone else from coming in and working on it if they have the skill to do so.
The problem is that IT people seem to think they are special. In case you haven't noticed, they aren't, we are, in fact, a dime a dozen. Considering the job market pretty much everywhere in the US right now, being cocky and thinking you are indispensable is just about the dumbest move you can make for your ability to feed yourself.
I'm sure there are plenty of people here that would love to take his place and would do his job without any bitching, including being on call, rather than being on unemployment.
If it takes someone else any significant amount of time to 'get up to speed' on a website, then he deserves to be fired for doing it wrong. All your arguments for why this guy is worth more are based on the premise that he's doing a shitty job in the first place.
Citation needed
Thats rather common here and I fail to see why the IRS would object, they still have to be paid either way, just now the contractor is the one paying instead of the company.
That is incredible naive. Both Google and Apple would LOVE to be the only player in 'The Market', they just haven't pulled it off yet. They both take a different approach, but its just silly to pretend that isn't a goal.
Google doesn't WANT to GIVE people a choice, they want people to use them. Right now that means they have to compete, that means right now, they have to offer an alternative. For NOW that means choice.
Do you really think Google or Apple, if the only options for a particular product would fund someone else to be their competition? Are you really that silly?
Every companies objective is to eliminate competition and choice. Some companies go about it legally, some don't, but they all do it, its just natural. Some companies are more aggressive about it than others, but how many times has Google or Apple given money away to competition for no benefit of their own? Let me count them for you, 0. Done. And before you bring up something like Google funding Mozilla, just take a look at the default search engine in Firefox.
WinDOS ... wow, you are so original, witty and insightful ...
I actually like Windows for many reasons, and much to my surprise, Windows 7 was a welcome upgrade. I find there are several Windows apps which are better than any alternatives, for me.
Yes, Microsoft works with hardware vendors to get their OS on hardware.
Apple does the same with their own hardware.
Google is doing the same with ChromeOS.
Welcome to the way the world works.
Its been this way since before MS-DOS started competing against Apple and everyone else that had GUI based systems ... its been this way pretty much since the dawn of the commercial availability of computing.
Your post wreaks of a angst filled teenager with complete ignorance of the world beyond his own blinders, a rebel with a cause, ignorant of the fact that your 'cause' is no better or even different than what you're fighting against.
Just for reference, the 2924 is a 24 port switch, not a router.
Most of your post is bogus. You don't inheriently have more connections because you have a faster connection.
You have more connections because you have more connections. If you have more computers than its likely you'll have more, but assuming the same number of users, upgrading from 1Mb to 100Mb doesn't result in using more connections.
The problem with these crappy routers not handling traffic is certainly a software issue. You can route a 2mb connection on an IBM XT, yes, thats a 8086 at a few MHZ, IF you have properly written software.
Theres no reason that a 150mhz linksys box can't route and NAT 100Mb connection, IF the software is properly written.
In the mid 90s I was routing multiple DS3s, with full BGP tables (mind you, smaller than the current BGP table) well into the 200mb aggregate bandwidth range, on a 150mhz core.
There is a reason for the cheap routers to be capable of it from a hardware perspective, there comes a point when the price of the CPU is so low that the difference between a 8mhz ATMega and a 400mhz core is effectively zero.
Linux is not the solution for these low end devices unless you have an actual need to run Linux. A smaller custom codebase is far more efficient than trying to run an OS and normal services on it. Linux is by no means the most efficient OS to run on a router that is just being a router. It has plenty of other reasons that it makes sense for many people to use Linux on these routers, but efficiency isn't the reason, more features is. FreeBSD is no different in this respect (i.e. m0n0wall).
Again, you don't need multiple connections to saturate bandwidth, in fact more connections means less usable bandwidth due to overhead of the packets themselves.
Turn down the timeout for closing old connections with no traffic, enable keepalives and you can seriously lower the connection tracking issue into oblivion unless you have some REALLY badly behaving code on one end.
The problem is that unless you are a real programmer, you'll get caught by the same bugs as any other languages like this.
VB is easier for most people to learn than C. VB programmers still screw up basic logic which results in bugs and crashes.
The language isn't the problem, although some are better than others are a particular class of problems.
The problem is that the programmer still has to actually be able to say what they are thinking, and in most cases say MORE than what they are thinking in order to catch situations they were not exposed to when they started.
No language can fix that, especially not english. English is a horribly interpretive context based language. You can take two people, twins for example, who have communicated with each other for their entire lives, set up the situation right, one of them can make a single statement to the other and they will both view it with entirely different meanings since so many words have multiple definitions, some of them will fit in both, and even with twins, sometimes one will seem to fit better than the one that was intended.
Last I checked, we were still making mouse and cat-like brains on massive supercomputers that didn't run anywhere near real time. With that in mind it should be pretty clear that a language like this don't really make it any easier to program, they make it harder to write predictable code to anyone without intimate knowledge of the rules of the language, made worse by its close ties to a language that they programmer will think they understand.
Its America, Google is free to do whatever they want with their servers and services they provide. That includes both censorship and being racist if they choose.
In turn, you get the to not do business with them if you don't like it.
Favorite US president's wife? I'm not sure I see it. It shows you're bias however. Its rather silly to make such a bold statement before we're even a year into it. Right now, it is actually race that makes them popular, not any action or lack of action, they haven't actually DONE anything yet. Being black is making them popular because the US is still shocked that it happened.
Google is free to do whatever they want with their services, there are other search engines, and there is no rule, written or unwritten that requires you to be listed on a search engine in order for your life to continue.
God I hate people that scream censorship for retarded freaking reasons. Yes its censorship, it happens EVERY DAY. You do so yourself, every day. How do I know? Walk through your day to day, thinking about EVERY SINGLE ACTION YOU TAKE and word you speak. Come back in 24 hours and let us know how many times you didn't do something or didn't say something because of the effect it might have.
I, generally, censor the hell out of my words throughout the day. If I didn't I'm pretty sure I'd have no friends and possibly get my ass kicked at least once or twice a day. Its just a fact of life.
Well, if you know anything about this history of racism in America, it was quite common to refer to blacks as monkeys, apes, chimps, ect. in the past.
The whole racism thing is played WAY TO FUCKING MUCH now days, but you have to be completely ignorant of history in the US to not at least see how it could be viewed as a racial attack.
If you're not American I can understand, if you are American then you're either 12, have lived in a box for all your life, or have experienced so much censorship in your life that you've never heard of it before, which is equally as sad.
Never heard the phrase 'Porch Monkey' even?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6OselVRTsM ... but more on topic for the ignorant
Great scene
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Porch+Monkey&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10