monthS should be "month" singular. Microsoft may or may not hire poor programmers. There are a number of things that combine to get the end result of shoddy apps from microsoft.
1. The developers cannot interact with eachother! They must develop their portion independantly without seeing what they are interacting with. This leads to bugs where the interaction occurs... some things are perfectly stable solutions except when this other app is doing THIS otherwise perfectly stable action.
2. Memory is STILL shared between apps.
3. They push to market, and their beta program is a joke. They actually expect YOU to PAY THEM, to find bugs in their software. Because they push to market, they beta their software in a state it should still be considered alpha, and they final it once it reaches beta or near beta quality.
4. They severely stunt themselves by coding in a closet, if they don't even let the programmers see what eachother are doing, they are hardly going to allow massive review of the code. I'm sorry but 10,000 programmers reviewing the code is going to be at least 1,000 GOOD programmers, and 1,000 GOOD programmers and 9,000 average programmers are going to spot problems alot quicker than ONE programmer whether that one is poor, average or good, especially if he/she the one who wrote it to begin with trying to avoid any problems during the writing!!!
5. I don't think the programmers ARE encourage to try to avoid bugs to begin with at microsoft. They almost couldn't be. It reminds me of typing class, "type as fast as you can, don't worry about typos, it's faster to go back and correct them afterward instead of as you go"... in programming you better correct them as you go, and go back over it afterward ANYWAY and have another few thousand programmers go over it on top of yourself.
don't forget apt for rpm also. That way you can find a repository you trust to get up to date immediately and you don't have to pay for a service either. You can also maintain your own repository to use corporate wide that only contains the patches you've approved.
yes there is still a problem. It doesn't matter if they altered the existing code or added something to it. It's the same thing. The cost of piggybacking on the sweat of the gpl authors is that they must give their code back. They can't simply write code and stick it in another file and link it in, even the code in that file is 100% written by them, the cost is the same, 99% of that code is still property of the respective contributors and linksys must release the code in that seperate file under the gpl as well to take advantage of it.
We is a collective of thousands of individuals who are interested in protecting the interests of linux. This includes multi-billion dollar companies like IBM to a teenager who will contribute to a "donate to help" paypal link. We includes some of the top minds in tech today WORLDWIDE. And yes, we even includes a lawyer or two.
There is nothing special or magical about lawyers either. Any individual can study the law, any individual can press a case without a lawyer simply by doing a little research. I know someone who passed the missouri bar exam with high scores, no law school, and no study whatsoever of law until two weeks prior to the exam. As for research, the open source community is one HELL of a reasearch engine... when pressed with a question which interests it there is virtually no force, no group, no company, and no legal team that can compare with the speed of the communities parallel processing. OSS makes for one hell of s distributed super computer;)
The GPL is one thing, but most people license libraries which will be linked under the LGPL which specifically covers this issue and AFAIK is it's purpose for existance.
"1. Be under a BSD-ish license, so it could be linked in to commercial and non-commercial products.
2. Be a LIBRARY, not a stand-alone executable, so it can be linked into anything at all."
Gee let me take a wild shot in the dark, you need a good crypto system for a mail app your writing. You either are too lazy, don't have the skill or can't afford the development time to write one yourself. So you want to fscking LEECH of the blood and sweat of other coders, stealing and closing up their code. But alas, the only thing you can find for free out there isn't in library form and is under a license which would require you to give your sweat back in turn instead of taking everything for yourself.
There is no such thing as secure software, there never will be. Accept that now and you won't be disappointed when your foolproof app is cracked.
For software to be "secure" it need only be difficult enough to break into to make the average teenager spend more than 5 minutes on it and give someone a "sense" of security. Security is an illusion, it's one that many of us cannot have without seeing the code OURSELVES. I can't use your product if I can't review it to make sure you don't have any back doors or spyware. The single entity I'm most concerned about breaking through the security is YOU.
Am I just supposed to take your word that the code is good? Is there anything else you evaluate that way? Do you go about saying head and shoulders is good stuff without checking the active ingredients to see if it in reality will slowly fry your hair and strip it of all natural oils?
yeah anything is "possible", being realistic or having greater odd than two people with the same dna living on earth at the same time... well I would go that far.
Slashdot Mirror
monthS should be "month" singular. Microsoft may or may not hire poor programmers. There are a number of things that combine to get the end result of shoddy apps from microsoft. 1. The developers cannot interact with eachother! They must develop their portion independantly without seeing what they are interacting with. This leads to bugs where the interaction occurs... some things are perfectly stable solutions except when this other app is doing THIS otherwise perfectly stable action. 2. Memory is STILL shared between apps. 3. They push to market, and their beta program is a joke. They actually expect YOU to PAY THEM, to find bugs in their software. Because they push to market, they beta their software in a state it should still be considered alpha, and they final it once it reaches beta or near beta quality. 4. They severely stunt themselves by coding in a closet, if they don't even let the programmers see what eachother are doing, they are hardly going to allow massive review of the code. I'm sorry but 10,000 programmers reviewing the code is going to be at least 1,000 GOOD programmers, and 1,000 GOOD programmers and 9,000 average programmers are going to spot problems alot quicker than ONE programmer whether that one is poor, average or good, especially if he/she the one who wrote it to begin with trying to avoid any problems during the writing!!! 5. I don't think the programmers ARE encourage to try to avoid bugs to begin with at microsoft. They almost couldn't be. It reminds me of typing class, "type as fast as you can, don't worry about typos, it's faster to go back and correct them afterward instead of as you go"... in programming you better correct them as you go, and go back over it afterward ANYWAY and have another few thousand programmers go over it on top of yourself.
don't forget apt for rpm also. That way you can find a repository you trust to get up to date immediately and you don't have to pay for a service either. You can also maintain your own repository to use corporate wide that only contains the patches you've approved.
yes there is still a problem. It doesn't matter if they altered the existing code or added something to it. It's the same thing. The cost of piggybacking on the sweat of the gpl authors is that they must give their code back. They can't simply write code and stick it in another file and link it in, even the code in that file is 100% written by them, the cost is the same, 99% of that code is still property of the respective contributors and linksys must release the code in that seperate file under the gpl as well to take advantage of it.
gpl software is not free, you still have to pay for it. You just pay for it with code instead of dollars.
We is a collective of thousands of individuals who are interested in protecting the interests of linux. This includes multi-billion dollar companies like IBM to a teenager who will contribute to a "donate to help" paypal link. We includes some of the top minds in tech today WORLDWIDE. And yes, we even includes a lawyer or two. There is nothing special or magical about lawyers either. Any individual can study the law, any individual can press a case without a lawyer simply by doing a little research. I know someone who passed the missouri bar exam with high scores, no law school, and no study whatsoever of law until two weeks prior to the exam. As for research, the open source community is one HELL of a reasearch engine... when pressed with a question which interests it there is virtually no force, no group, no company, and no legal team that can compare with the speed of the communities parallel processing. OSS makes for one hell of s distributed super computer ;)
The GPL is one thing, but most people license libraries which will be linked under the LGPL which specifically covers this issue and AFAIK is it's purpose for existance.
"1. Be under a BSD-ish license, so it could be linked in to commercial and non-commercial products.
2. Be a LIBRARY, not a stand-alone executable, so it can be linked into anything at all."
Gee let me take a wild shot in the dark, you need a good crypto system for a mail app your writing. You either are too lazy, don't have the skill or can't afford the development time to write one yourself. So you want to fscking LEECH of the blood and sweat of other coders, stealing and closing up their code. But alas, the only thing you can find for free out there isn't in library form and is under a license which would require you to give your sweat back in turn instead of taking everything for yourself.
There is no such thing as secure software, there never will be. Accept that now and you won't be disappointed when your foolproof app is cracked. For software to be "secure" it need only be difficult enough to break into to make the average teenager spend more than 5 minutes on it and give someone a "sense" of security. Security is an illusion, it's one that many of us cannot have without seeing the code OURSELVES. I can't use your product if I can't review it to make sure you don't have any back doors or spyware. The single entity I'm most concerned about breaking through the security is YOU. Am I just supposed to take your word that the code is good? Is there anything else you evaluate that way? Do you go about saying head and shoulders is good stuff without checking the active ingredients to see if it in reality will slowly fry your hair and strip it of all natural oils?
yeah anything is "possible", being realistic or having greater odd than two people with the same dna living on earth at the same time... well I would go that far.
I could have said that from my own experience.
I think exercise is the same.
check out my website!!
http://www.beautipage.com/escape2spa/
People tend to take theory and carry it to far.
check out my website!
http://www.beautipage.com/escape2spa/
I agree with Bobb Barr.
Check out my web site!
http://www.beautipage.com/escape2spa/