We're not talking about IPv6 not working, we're talking about ONE site, that is incorrectly configured. TO say its MS' fault is asinine. Should DNS fall back to IPX should IPv4 lookups fail? Then to WINS? It doesn't work on Vista because the people at facebook are incompetition.
Don't give me that crap about its hard to setup; if it is, you'd better fucking doing TEST runs before you push something into production. Then once its in production, test again. The people at FB don't have ONE Vista computer they could try with? Give me a break.
I think if both protocol stacks are present, with IPv6 doing the job first, they really have no choice. It is either fallback or connection error. And connection error is for users a missing functionality.
Huh? So if the connection problem is between the user's ISP and the server, its missing functionality on the user's OS?
Really, why? Should I expect IPv4 to fallback to WINS? What were there to be fallback on if the client isn't using IPv6 anyway? What if this person didn't have IPv4 setup? What do you fall back to then?
Funny. I ran Linux on my server for about a decade, and Linux on the desktop for three or four years. I now happily pay for Windows to use my computer instead of fighting with it. The quality is about the same, its just that I don't need to research 20 hours to figure out why my printer isn't working.
How do you know if they didn't? You really believe they should say "oh well, guess we'll ship with IPv6 off again, because Facebook can't be bothered to setup their site correctly?"
You are required by federal law to disclose relevant passwords during a search, just like handing the keys to your car over to a police officer during a "probable cause" search.
Really? Please cite the law. I also seem to remember reading a story on this site a few days ago where a judge ruled just the opposite.
I'm not sure. I couldn't get past the part where he figured out it wasn't MS' fault facebook didn't work, but still blamed Vista anyway.
I guess MS should have checked every IPv6 site out there and ensured they worked fine, and if they found any that didn't (like facebook, because they are too incompetent to setup IPv6 correctly for their site) then IPv6 should again default to not enabled.
Oh, lets not forget "30 isn't a good scientific sample size, but because I live in my mom's basement and can only spend $5 to get 'statistics, I'll continue to use data I know is not representitive to prove my point. Oh yes, and I understand that such polls regardless of size are worthless, because people happy with Vista won't go out en masse and post praise."
I can't believe how many people can't be bothered to even visit the companies page. The price of the car includes battery replacement, and they require you ship it back to them and they recycle it.
Um, to the Telsa Motor's site, and they'll have answered this already. Basically a cell in the battery pack can be on fire, and it won't affect the other cells.
We already have that, in case you haven't noticed. You never did address my point about the difference between schooling and education. Mark Twain knew not to let the former interfere with the latter. Do you?
I said that we do need changes, yes. My point is that eliminating public education as you propose is NOT the solution. The is the crux of our debate, not whether or not the current system needs fixing, but whether or not it should exist.
You can say a lot about young adults graduating from public school, and even from college, but I doubt you can call them 'well-educated'. I would know; I did my time in government-run schools. At best, they're 'well-schooled'. Most of them will do what they're told, as long as they consider the person telling them what to do to be a legitimate authority. They will go where they're told to go, and be there when they're told they're supposed to be there. That doesn't make them well-educated. It just makes them useful if you need compliant workers, or compliant taxpayers, or compliant consumers.
Its a shame your schools were crap; mine however I credit with instilling in that authority always needs to be questioned, that we shouldn't be blindly following. We were actually taught to think. So again, the schools you attended need work, and I'm sure many others do as well, but to say the system is so screwed we need to scrap it is ridiculous.
The founders were human beings, not demigods. Care to prove to me ho
No one said they weren't, but I bet they put a lot more thought into it than you have. Honestly, is that the best point you can come up with now?
You first, friend. What books have you written. Let's see how big your dick is.
I'm not the one claiming I have thought things out more than a group of men that founded a new nation in an attempt to protect individual freedom. I've read what the founders wrote, and it makes sense and I think that's how we should be running things in this country.
You on the other hand think we're better off with a bunch of uneducated morons running around that won't be able to take care of themselves.
Interestingly, user mode network drivers do not add appreciably to OS stability. The reason is that the driver needs to interact intimately with the network stack -- if the driver is in user mode, the network stack is also in user mode.
Really? And you've seen the crash reports that MS has? Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. The network stack doesn't need to be in user land (and in Vista, is not) for the drivers to be in user land.
If this is not done, either (1) certain features won't work well (failover for one), or (2) performance will be REALLY bad (each packet will require many more context switches - many more than 4 per packet).
Again, no one cares how many context switches networking will incur. I'd rather decreased performance over system relability.
Presuming that the network stack itself is moved into user space, it can be brought down with the (supposedly) buggy driver. In turn, the network stack will/may not be able to transfer any other traffic, rendering most any socket level services useless.
The implication is that a bad driver can shut down the network stack. This doesn't affect non-networked or local use, but is just as much of a show stopper as having the OS itself crash.
Last I checked, networking wasn't a requirement of an OS. That is, you don't need networking to use an OS.
Personally, I think that the network drivers have been moved to isolate them and prevent driver issues from being potential security holes. This is the (arguably) the only use of the feature. So, the tradeoff is security vs. speed in the context of unreviewed drivers.
Security and reliablity can complement each other. Moving the drivers to userland may have improved security as well, but that's not been the stated reason.
We can regain the speed by simply reviewing the drivers -- and network physical drivers are simple enough to verify.
Your agenda is showing.
[tinfoil hat] There is another possiblity. Network drivers are SO simple, that the mechanism to actually run the driver has been put into alternate Operating Environments. The "NDIS" driver model no longer locks the user into Windows. It was time to change the model to keep drivers from the other Operating Environments. [/tinfoil hat]
Thomas Jefferson as right about ignorant people being unable to guard their liberty. He forgot to mention that the gap between education and schooling is so wide that Evel Knievel would have earned a billion dollars just for attempting to jump it.
I see, so because the implementation may be broken, we scrap the idea. I'm glad that you, sitting here on/., are smarter than one of the Founders of this country. Tell me, what books have you written pondering liberty and freedom?
Considering that the US government's meddling set the stage for 9/11 in the first place, I'd suggest that the existence of government itself is a bigger problem than having idiots run the government.
Right again! Jefferson was wrong, we shouldn't have a government at all! Brilliant!
I can't give a concise answer to these questions here on Slashdot. May I suggest reading the works of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and Milton Friedman?
Wow.. you can't even lay out the premise of the argument? If you can't even do that, I suggest you don't understand what those people were saying.
Trusting a stranger armed with mod points is about as smart as trusting a stranger with a badge and a 9mm semi-automatic.
Right, because/. karma matters in the slightest. Just a question; when do you plan to move out of your parents basement?
Last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't spend 12 years doing time in a modern American public school. In fact, the public schools in which you and I did time didn't exist until the late 19th century. They were created in imitation of Prussia's system, which was meant for one purpose: to create a uniform citizenry that would obey the government.
No, you don't, unless you want the family next door to have a say in your life when you do something they deem objectionable.
We're not talking about something that's merely "objectionable." Stupid people invariably end up poor, and a good number of poor people end up as criminals. Also, what Jefferson had to say about public education, specifically that an uneducated person cannot hope to guard their own liberty. Given how stupid many Americans are today and what our government is up to, I have to think he was on to something.
As for paying for other kids' education: I don't think you should have to do that. I don't think I should have to do it either. Your kids are your problem; nobody else should be taxed to subsidize your inability to use contraceptives.
I agree with that; I don't really want as much say, other than you kids should be educated. Beyond that, I don't care. But that's not what we have today.
Yes, I want to get rid of that shit. As long as nobody can prove that you're harming them or damaging their property, nobody should have a say in how you live your life or what you do with your property.
I tend to agree with that, except that stupid people are harming my freedom, because they are stupid. Most reasonable, intelligent people don't support the knee-jerk reactions to 9/11. But look at who does..
You shouldn't even have to pay taxes; the money you earn is yours by right
Mostly agree, but how do you think we should build roads, a communications infrastructor, etc? Those things DO benefit the public good, its been proven already, so I feel for those limited projects taxes are necessary. Also, we do need to be able to raise an army, and we need money to pay judges and court clerks for example.. so unless you have another fair way of funding things like that, I think we have to live with some taxes.
It's hard to understand that I don't want to get modded down for being "Off-topic"?
Well all of the things we are talking about are wrapped in political debate, and Ron Paul talks about going back to the Constitution.. I fail to see how debating public policy (politics) on a political thread would be modded off-topic.
Why? What do you gain by trying to mold tens of thousands of children into a known quantity? Is your name John D. Rockefeller, by any chance?
Well, do it your way and we have a large number of morons running around and we fall behind as a society, which leads out the collapse of our society. Oh wait, we have that now.. but your plan would simply accelerate ten-fold.
So what? Who are you to tell somebody else how to raise their kids?
When I have to live among their kids, I get a say. Besides, right now I'm PAYING for other peoples kids, so yes, that definately gives me a say today.
If you want to go all the way, and eliminate all social programs then fine.
In other words, you don't trust others with liberty. Zip up, pal; your elitism is showing.
Why should I? Other's don't seem to trust me, so I need permission to be able to travel to work, modify my house and a host of other things.
If you want to get rid of all that too, good. But I can't understand why you'd single out education.
Try it yourself - hack up some script to randomly generate IPs and then ping sweep the network blocks. You'll probably be quite surprised at the result.
Um, my router which has a public IP doesn't respond to pings. I think its set that way by default. I wouldn't be suprised if there were many IPs that ignore pings.
And, this means that *I* am supposed to? The reason I spend money on an OS is to assure that it has been tested; if I do the testing there are plenty of no-cost alternatives.
No, nobody said you should either. Yes, they fucked up by not testing this scenario well. It happens though; I know because I develop software for a living. FWIW, I tried the "no-cost" alternative. That only works if you're 1) lucky 2) buy hardware from a list of things known to work and 3) have lots of time to invest. No thanks.
Is this good?
Well, given that the automated crash reporting Windows has had built in for some time now says that many failures were attributed to crappy network and sound card drivers, yes. I'd rather a slower file copy than crap network drivers bringing the WHOLE system down.
Back to the gbit network, that would be 100mbytes/second of data. Passed through kernel (i/o priviledged) layers back to "userland" (non i/o priviledged), back to kernel (process isolation) and to another process. What this means: A block of data (of, say, 50K) needs 4 process/privilege transitions. 2000 blocks per second to saturate the link -- that is 8000 context switches per second.
So what? Everything is a trade off; I'd take a perf hit for reliability, especially for something I don't necessarly care about.. which is does it take 5 minutes or 6 to copy a file to my server.
But then, processors *are* cheap these days.
Yup. MS got what it has been pushing for; commodization of hardware. Hardware is now cheap, and the main value is in the software.
Maybe you should, you know, keep up. Network and sound drivers are both now userland. Network purposefully yields to the sound driver when its playing sound so you don't get choppy sound. There's a bug where it yields too much. And only if you're copying files on a LAN, IIRC. It was missed because they didn't do testing on a gbit network card.
This has been known almost since Vista's release... where have you been?
I have to disagree here. We need to set a baseline that all Americans can be expected to know / perform. Some parents wouldn't even force their kids to learn basic math and reading, instead focusing on art. Its not a good idea.
I'm all for having the parents pay for their kids schooling, but to say we shouldn't strive to get a certain level of capability from ALL schools is absurd.
I'm not aware of any Software Engineering licenses, and I'm inclined to say calling yourself a "Software Engineer" carries a certain connotation that it doesn't really deserve.
And would you believe the same of someone that DOES have a degree in Software Engineering? What about employers that post positions as Software Engineer? If there's no license, and both employee and employer are using the term to describe what they want, what is the problem?
While it would be pompous to say there's no "engineering" in Software Engineering, I feel it's equally pompous to call yourself a engineer professionally unless you hold both personal and legal liability for the quality of your work. If your code screws up and you, personally, don't end up in court...
I'm not aware of any EE's (say, building computer chips) that end up personally in court and held liable. I'm not aware of anyone even being sued for a faulty chip design... the F00F Intel bug comes to mind...
I guess the US government doesn't spell it out exactly. The Labor board puts it as a subcategory of computer specialist. I, however, can call myself a Software Engineer, and do to those that ask what I do (although technically my degree was in Computer Science). But my title has typically vaired with my employer, its whatever they deem the position to be. Currently, I don't really have a defined title.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about IPv6 not working, we're talking about ONE site, that is incorrectly configured. TO say its MS' fault is asinine. Should DNS fall back to IPX should IPv4 lookups fail? Then to WINS? It doesn't work on Vista because the people at facebook are incompetition.
Don't give me that crap about its hard to setup; if it is, you'd better fucking doing TEST runs before you push something into production. Then once its in production, test again. The people at FB don't have ONE Vista computer they could try with? Give me a break.
I think if both protocol stacks are present, with IPv6 doing the job first, they really have no choice. It is either fallback or connection error. And connection error is for users a missing functionality.
Huh? So if the connection problem is between the user's ISP and the server, its missing functionality on the user's OS?
Really, why? Should I expect IPv4 to fallback to WINS? What were there to be fallback on if the client isn't using IPv6 anyway? What if this person didn't have IPv4 setup? What do you fall back to then?
Nice try at a red herring. It makes not difference if I'm willing to pay, it doesn't make his sample size or research any more relevent.
Funny. I ran Linux on my server for about a decade, and Linux on the desktop for three or four years. I now happily pay for Windows to use my computer instead of fighting with it. The quality is about the same, its just that I don't need to research 20 hours to figure out why my printer isn't working.
Fine, then cite the cases which follow that interpertation.
How do you know if they didn't? You really believe they should say "oh well, guess we'll ship with IPv6 off again, because Facebook can't be bothered to setup their site correctly?"
You are required by federal law to disclose relevant passwords during a search, just like handing the keys to your car over to a police officer during a "probable cause" search.
Really? Please cite the law. I also seem to remember reading a story on this site a few days ago where a judge ruled just the opposite.
I'm not sure. I couldn't get past the part where he figured out it wasn't MS' fault facebook didn't work, but still blamed Vista anyway.
I guess MS should have checked every IPv6 site out there and ensured they worked fine, and if they found any that didn't (like facebook, because they are too incompetent to setup IPv6 correctly for their site) then IPv6 should again default to not enabled.
Oh, lets not forget "30 isn't a good scientific sample size, but because I live in my mom's basement and can only spend $5 to get 'statistics, I'll continue to use data I know is not representitive to prove my point. Oh yes, and I understand that such polls regardless of size are worthless, because people happy with Vista won't go out en masse and post praise."
What an ass.
I can't believe how many people can't be bothered to even visit the companies page. The price of the car includes battery replacement, and they require you ship it back to them and they recycle it.
So... 300 miles isn't a good enough range?
Um, to the Telsa Motor's site, and they'll have answered this already. Basically a cell in the battery pack can be on fire, and it won't affect the other cells.
We already have that, in case you haven't noticed. You never did address my point about the difference between schooling and education. Mark Twain knew not to let the former interfere with the latter. Do you?
I said that we do need changes, yes. My point is that eliminating public education as you propose is NOT the solution. The is the crux of our debate, not whether or not the current system needs fixing, but whether or not it should exist.
You can say a lot about young adults graduating from public school, and even from college, but I doubt you can call them 'well-educated'. I would know; I did my time in government-run schools. At best, they're 'well-schooled'. Most of them will do what they're told, as long as they consider the person telling them what to do to be a legitimate authority. They will go where they're told to go, and be there when they're told they're supposed to be there. That doesn't make them well-educated. It just makes them useful if you need compliant workers, or compliant taxpayers, or compliant consumers.
Its a shame your schools were crap; mine however I credit with instilling in that authority always needs to be questioned, that we shouldn't be blindly following. We were actually taught to think. So again, the schools you attended need work, and I'm sure many others do as well, but to say the system is so screwed we need to scrap it is ridiculous.
The founders were human beings, not demigods. Care to prove to me ho
No one said they weren't, but I bet they put a lot more thought into it than you have. Honestly, is that the best point you can come up with now?
You first, friend. What books have you written. Let's see how big your dick is.
I'm not the one claiming I have thought things out more than a group of men that founded a new nation in an attempt to protect individual freedom. I've read what the founders wrote, and it makes sense and I think that's how we should be running things in this country.
You on the other hand think we're better off with a bunch of uneducated morons running around that won't be able to take care of themselves.
Interestingly, user mode network drivers do not add appreciably to OS stability. The reason is that the driver needs to interact intimately with the network stack -- if the driver is in user mode, the network stack is also in user mode.
Really? And you've seen the crash reports that MS has? Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. The network stack doesn't need to be in user land (and in Vista, is not) for the drivers to be in user land.
If this is not done, either (1) certain features won't work well (failover for one), or (2) performance will be REALLY bad (each packet will require many more context switches - many more than 4 per packet).
Again, no one cares how many context switches networking will incur. I'd rather decreased performance over system relability.
Presuming that the network stack itself is moved into user space, it can be brought down with the (supposedly) buggy driver. In turn, the network stack will/may not be able to transfer any other traffic, rendering most any socket level services useless.
The implication is that a bad driver can shut down the network stack. This doesn't affect non-networked or local use, but is just as much of a show stopper as having the OS itself crash.
Last I checked, networking wasn't a requirement of an OS. That is, you don't need networking to use an OS.
Personally, I think that the network drivers have been moved to isolate them and prevent driver issues from being potential security holes. This is the (arguably) the only use of the feature. So, the tradeoff is security vs. speed in the context of unreviewed drivers.
Security and reliablity can complement each other. Moving the drivers to userland may have improved security as well, but that's not been the stated reason.
We can regain the speed by simply reviewing the drivers -- and network physical drivers are simple enough to verify.
Your agenda is showing.
[tinfoil hat]
There is another possiblity. Network drivers are SO simple, that the mechanism to actually run the driver has been put into alternate Operating Environments. The "NDIS" driver model no longer locks the user into Windows. It was time to change the model to keep drivers from the other Operating Environments.
[/tinfoil hat]
Ugh. Get outside more often.
Thomas Jefferson as right about ignorant people being unable to guard their liberty. He forgot to mention that the gap between education and schooling is so wide that Evel Knievel would have earned a billion dollars just for attempting to jump it.
/., are smarter than one of the Founders of this country. Tell me, what books have you written pondering liberty and freedom?
/. karma matters in the slightest. Just a question; when do you plan to move out of your parents basement?
I see, so because the implementation may be broken, we scrap the idea. I'm glad that you, sitting here on
Considering that the US government's meddling set the stage for 9/11 in the first place, I'd suggest that the existence of government itself is a bigger problem than having idiots run the government.
Right again! Jefferson was wrong, we shouldn't have a government at all! Brilliant!
I can't give a concise answer to these questions here on Slashdot. May I suggest reading the works of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and Milton Friedman?
Wow.. you can't even lay out the premise of the argument? If you can't even do that, I suggest you don't understand what those people were saying.
Trusting a stranger armed with mod points is about as smart as trusting a stranger with a badge and a 9mm semi-automatic.
Right, because
Last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't spend 12 years doing time in a modern American public school. In fact, the public schools in which you and I did time didn't exist until the late 19th century. They were created in imitation of Prussia's system, which was meant for one purpose: to create a uniform citizenry that would obey the government.
Interesting you mention Thomas Jefferson.
No, you don't, unless you want the family next door to have a say in your life when you do something they deem objectionable.
We're not talking about something that's merely "objectionable." Stupid people invariably end up poor, and a good number of poor people end up as criminals. Also, what Jefferson had to say about public education, specifically that an uneducated person cannot hope to guard their own liberty. Given how stupid many Americans are today and what our government is up to, I have to think he was on to something.
As for paying for other kids' education: I don't think you should have to do that. I don't think I should have to do it either. Your kids are your problem; nobody else should be taxed to subsidize your inability to use contraceptives.
I agree with that; I don't really want as much say, other than you kids should be educated. Beyond that, I don't care. But that's not what we have today.
Yes, I want to get rid of that shit. As long as nobody can prove that you're harming them or damaging their property, nobody should have a say in how you live your life or what you do with your property.
I tend to agree with that, except that stupid people are harming my freedom, because they are stupid. Most reasonable, intelligent people don't support the knee-jerk reactions to 9/11. But look at who does..
You shouldn't even have to pay taxes; the money you earn is yours by right
Mostly agree, but how do you think we should build roads, a communications infrastructor, etc? Those things DO benefit the public good, its been proven already, so I feel for those limited projects taxes are necessary. Also, we do need to be able to raise an army, and we need money to pay judges and court clerks for example.. so unless you have another fair way of funding things like that, I think we have to live with some taxes.
It's hard to understand that I don't want to get modded down for being "Off-topic"?
Well all of the things we are talking about are wrapped in political debate, and Ron Paul talks about going back to the Constitution.. I fail to see how debating public policy (politics) on a political thread would be modded off-topic.
Why? What do you gain by trying to mold tens of thousands of children into a known quantity? Is your name John D. Rockefeller, by any chance?
Well, do it your way and we have a large number of morons running around and we fall behind as a society, which leads out the collapse of our society. Oh wait, we have that now.. but your plan would simply accelerate ten-fold.
So what? Who are you to tell somebody else how to raise their kids?
When I have to live among their kids, I get a say. Besides, right now I'm PAYING for other peoples kids, so yes, that definately gives me a say today.
If you want to go all the way, and eliminate all social programs then fine.
In other words, you don't trust others with liberty. Zip up, pal; your elitism is showing.
Why should I? Other's don't seem to trust me, so I need permission to be able to travel to work, modify my house and a host of other things.
If you want to get rid of all that too, good. But I can't understand why you'd single out education.
Try it yourself - hack up some script to randomly generate IPs and then ping sweep the network blocks. You'll probably be quite surprised at the result.
Um, my router which has a public IP doesn't respond to pings. I think its set that way by default. I wouldn't be suprised if there were many IPs that ignore pings.
And, this means that *I* am supposed to? The reason I spend money on an OS is to assure that it has been tested; if I do the testing there are plenty of no-cost alternatives.
No, nobody said you should either. Yes, they fucked up by not testing this scenario well. It happens though; I know because I develop software for a living. FWIW, I tried the "no-cost" alternative. That only works if you're 1) lucky 2) buy hardware from a list of things known to work and 3) have lots of time to invest. No thanks.
Is this good?
Well, given that the automated crash reporting Windows has had built in for some time now says that many failures were attributed to crappy network and sound card drivers, yes. I'd rather a slower file copy than crap network drivers bringing the WHOLE system down.
Back to the gbit network, that would be 100mbytes/second of data. Passed through kernel (i/o priviledged) layers back to "userland" (non i/o priviledged), back to kernel (process isolation) and to another process. What this means: A block of data (of, say, 50K) needs 4 process/privilege transitions. 2000 blocks per second to saturate the link -- that is 8000 context switches per second.
So what? Everything is a trade off; I'd take a perf hit for reliability, especially for something I don't necessarly care about.. which is does it take 5 minutes or 6 to copy a file to my server.
But then, processors *are* cheap these days.
Yup. MS got what it has been pushing for; commodization of hardware. Hardware is now cheap, and the main value is in the software.
Maybe you should, you know, keep up. Network and sound drivers are both now userland. Network purposefully yields to the sound driver when its playing sound so you don't get choppy sound. There's a bug where it yields too much. And only if you're copying files on a LAN, IIRC. It was missed because they didn't do testing on a gbit network card.
This has been known almost since Vista's release... where have you been?
More to the point, how is the article titled "MS junks, replaces Vista kernel" when ou have a .0.0.1 increment?
I have to disagree here. We need to set a baseline that all Americans can be expected to know / perform. Some parents wouldn't even force their kids to learn basic math and reading, instead focusing on art. Its not a good idea.
I'm all for having the parents pay for their kids schooling, but to say we shouldn't strive to get a certain level of capability from ALL schools is absurd.
I'm not aware of any Software Engineering licenses, and I'm inclined to say calling yourself a "Software Engineer" carries a certain connotation that it doesn't really deserve.
And would you believe the same of someone that DOES have a degree in Software Engineering? What about employers that post positions as Software Engineer? If there's no license, and both employee and employer are using the term to describe what they want, what is the problem?
While it would be pompous to say there's no "engineering" in Software Engineering, I feel it's equally pompous to call yourself a engineer professionally unless you hold both personal and legal liability for the quality of your work. If your code screws up and you, personally, don't end up in court...
I'm not aware of any EE's (say, building computer chips) that end up personally in court and held liable. I'm not aware of anyone even being sued for a faulty chip design... the F00F Intel bug comes to mind...
So... where are you getting your POV?
I guess the US government doesn't spell it out exactly. The Labor board puts it as a subcategory of computer specialist. I, however, can call myself a Software Engineer, and do to those that ask what I do (although technically my degree was in Computer Science). But my title has typically vaired with my employer, its whatever they deem the position to be. Currently, I don't really have a defined title.