I am on a team to build a SCADA system. Doing it right depends on two things:
1) Defining all your status bits to have zero be fail safe.
2) Clearing all the status bits from the reporting system when communications go down.
For example, if you are doing train control, you define train on this track to be zero, no train to be one. If you communications go down, all the tracks reported by that field processor show up as having trains on them, so don't send another train through that track.
Don't get your hopes up. In the recent Wired article about software development, it was pointed out that some of the Indian companies are SEI level 4 and 5 shops.
So if tougher standards are required, more work could go to India. The required activities to get to SEI level 3 are mostly management, so programmers by themselves cannot bring the level of software development beyond that.
I think the original poster was referring to someone who only raises problems in front of a group. I once worked in a place where this one guy would always be buddy-buddy and everything is ok with his boss when it was one on one. As soon as there was an audience, he would air all the problems. It appeared as though his intention was to undermine his boss.
Doing the opposite is more helpful. Air differences and problems one on one if possible and be agreeable at the big team meeting. Ideally, your input will have been incorporated into what the boss is announcing in the meeting.
Having a peer review after publication is not my understanding of how peer review works.
For a scientific paper, one submits it to a highly repected journal. The editors choose folks in the same field to review the paper. If they say the paper has flaws or is uninteresting, it doesn't get published.
If they publish it, and other folks build upon the ideas and cite the paper in their published, peer-reviewed papers, it is recognized as being a valuable contribution to science.
This is my understanding of how scientists.
Publishing it as a book without peer review and then hoping it will be recognized later by the scientific community shows an unwillingness to risk not being published. We cannot tell if it would have been published by a scientific journal subject to peer review.
Some may wish to wade through the ideas of hundreds of "cranks" to find the occasional genius with groundbreaking ideas. I do not. I let the scientific community to weigh in on this.
I believe the term comes from the art world. There, texture means marks made with a pencil or brush in a drawing or paintnig to give the illusion of texture.
You might also ask why do they call it 3D when in reality it is a two dimensional image giving the illusion of 3D.
I admire the Repulicans. Somehow they have it set up so that their candidate can run as a moderate. But the conservatives know that Bush will be giving them a lot of what they want once in office.
If the Democrats could do this, we could have someone with the politics of Ted Kennedy run and win as a moderate and start implementing a liberal agenda.
My hat's off to the Conservatives. They really know what they are doing. Of course, if you are a moderate Repulican, you are basically screwed. Who are you going to vote for?
If you are a Republican that wants small government and a balanced budget, you are basically screwed.
IMHO there is a delicate balance between security and getting the job done.
In many organizations, the developers are under the gun to meet project deadlines. You are more likely to get in trouble for not meeting a deadline than for running X as root.
Similarly, the system administrators are rated by how smoothly things run. Taking a chance by allowing developers to run things as root does not do them any good. Sadly, from a developer's perspective, system administrators are rarely rewarded by their managment for helping developers sort out all the permissions issues. If this is done, then one can figure how to set up the non-root account to get the work done without creating security problems.
It doesn't help that developers are often considered "knowing enough to be dangerous." So system administration managers sometimes set the tone of "lock down the developers so they can't get away with anything." One place I worked had the development servers locked down so tight, it was said you could only test in production.
Through my career, I have seen a lot of development move from the Unix platform to the Windows platform, partly for this reason: 1) The Unix System Administration department doesn't care about windows boxes, so they don't bother to control them. 2) The Development department knows that they can set up a bunch of windows boxes, give themselves administrator access. 3) The development project proceeds quickly in terms of accomplishing the project goals. The development manager is not rated on how few security holes he sets up in the process. 4) The managers learn: "Wow, if we bypass the Unix System Admins, we get projects done so much faster."
It is unfair to blank admins for security holes created by developers. It is unfair to give an agressive deadline to the developement department and then ask them to work with a system administration department that has no incentive to help you meet your project deadline.
How many trips to Mars (bringing fuel) would it take before you get your fuel factory going? How much does all the metal for the fuel factory weigh? It is easier to put mining and manufacturing on Mars in a Science Fiction novel than it is to achieve it in reality.
We've gotten to the point where about half our robots we send to Mars perform their limited science laboratory tasks. At a half a billion dollars a mission, how many of these trips would it take to build your fuel factory?
We should all start saving our pennies for the permanent Mars base!
So if your company provides web access via a proxy server, and you don't configure your email client (e.g. Outlook) to use the proxy server, then the email client only connects to the mail server.
Re:Good, there needs to be some more competition
on
The Return of S3
·
· Score: 1
I think that what you advise is in line with the original poster's comments about customers being beta testers.
The/. crowd keeps hoping Java will go away. They don't want to learn it.
But it doesn't go away.
I have noticed that there are several technologies that are held in high regard outside of the Linux/Free Software that are despised within it.
One is Object Oriented programming. By extension, C++, Java, and UML also fit into this category. I wonder how many folks who bash these things have ever actually bothered to learn them? It is easier to say that XYZ is "bloated and ugly" than to say "I never learned these things so I can't say how useful they are." I also see a lot of "Anyone that does not agree with me is a stupid, clueless, MCSE."
Name calling is a sign of weak arguments.
The article is about Java running on the server, behind the scenes. It doesn't "look" like anything.
I believe server side java is the most common usage of Java. Portability is less of an issue because you control the server environment. You can support non-Unix users and still use Unix/Linux for your server.
One place where I worked, they had a bunch of Java stored procedures doing things you could have done in PL/SQL. They later re-wrote them because the performance is so much worse.
There are, however, things it might make sense to do in a Java Stored Procedure. Publishing a message using JMS from a trigger is an example. I am not sure if Oracle has created utility packages so you could do it from PL/SQL. But having a Java stored procedure in this case would allow you to use the same message class that is used by the subscribers to the message.
I don't think this will bog down non-Java users of MySQL.
Years ago, when I was using DB2, I noticed that they had external stored procedures that could be written in nearly any language. C, Java, COBOL, you name it.
I think you are right. Even if it doesn't come on the CDs, I think Microsoft has been making it available as web pages for a while now.
I have not programmed C++ against Windows APIs and COM interfaces in a few years, so I am not up to date.
When you do it everyday, you learn how to sift through the available documentation. When you are just coming to Windows programming, it can be daunting to find the documentation.
But I remember getting into a groove where you generally could find the documentation quickly.
I was kind of bummed when I spent two years learning web development the Microsoft way only to have.NET come out and have all the job ads ask for it instead of the older VB/ASP.
I skipped learning C# or.NET (by the time I got the experience, there would be.NET-PLUS) and I hope that doesn't lead to un-employment some day.
To get back to my original statement, you could pay an MSDN subscription to keep ketting updated versions of the documentation on CD or DVD. But maybe you can get the same updated information free on the web.
That way you can get the latested object methods for the latest ADO or what have you.
Some MS products and APIs have good documentation. Some MS products and APIs have bad documentation.
The thing you are trying to do is to use a primarily visual program (VSS) in a scripted, batch mode way. It can be frustrating -- kind of like trying to build large Windows C++ programs using make instead of the IDE. It is a cultural divide.
I and others have found the programmer documentation to be really good.
In contrast, when using open source libraryies (GTK/GNOME), I often look something up and see "Would someone please write this?"
Of course, to get the Windows programming documentation, you have to pay the MSDN subscription. If you, or your employer don't shell out money for the documentation, it might as well not exist.
The US has not outlawed opposing political views so far.
For that matter, Al Queda kill people (including Muslims) with opposing political views (in Saudi Arabia, for example).
The American government (in my name) backed what became Al Queda as part of the effort to bring down the Soviet Union. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was involved in the decision, defended it as the lesser of two evils. So we, and the world, are stuck with the aftermath of that decision. Show me the powerful country that never violates its own principles when getting involved in world affairs.
> now do you see why you cant go around killing people indescriminatly?
> it comes back to bite you in the ass.
This is what Al Queda is discovering now.
For the record, I am against my country developing biological weapons, but I find your arguments.
Agreed. Source files do not contain contracts. But they can contain copyright information.
I guess I mentioned reading EULAs to illustrate that it is hard to be careful about every piece of software you use. It hadn't occured to me that they might not be binding. For most EULAs, it is clear that the copyright owner does not want you to make copies of their binary software available for others to use. My personal choice is to not read them looking for a loophole around their intentions. Others may make different choices.
Many times in my career, I have looked at source code that came with a technical book. Often there is no mention about the source code or whether or not I can use it in programs (derived works) I write at work. I bought the book to learn how to use some API, but I am left wondering if there is any legal problem if I use the source.
If I get some source from the internet, I check the copyright notices and look out for phrases like "free for non-commercial use".
The nice thing about GPL or LGPL code is it is very clear what you can and can't do with it. If my employer does not agree to release the source to "my" whole program, I can't use GPL code. I have used LGPL source at work and was careful to use dynamic linking.
When I go home, I can run Linux, program for fun, and use all the GPL code I want. Some of that stuff I have done is re-redistributed LGPL, but the rest has not been re-distributed.
It sounds like some employee at CISCO/Broadcom made a mistake. The companies are paying for the mistake and perhaps the persons involved are as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have to agree about using packages. One gripe I have about building from source is
that most packages do not have "make uninstall".
With packages, you have a much better chance of removing all the files that were installed with the packages when you need to.
Why do you think they call them Rovers?
I am on a team to build a SCADA system. Doing it right depends on two things:
1) Defining all your status bits to have zero be fail safe.
2) Clearing all the status bits from the reporting system when communications go down.
For example, if you are doing train control, you define train on this track to be zero, no train to be one.
If you communications go down, all the tracks reported by that field processor show up as having trains on them, so don't send another train through that track.
For those that haven't seen the acronym before:
SCADA = Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
Don't get your hopes up. In the recent Wired article about software development, it was pointed out that some of the Indian companies are
SEI level 4 and 5 shops.
So if tougher standards are required, more work could go to India.
The required activities to get to SEI level 3 are mostly management, so programmers by themselves cannot bring the level of software development beyond that.
I think the original poster was referring to someone who only raises problems in front of a group.
I once worked in a place where this one guy would always be buddy-buddy and everything is ok with his boss when it was one on one.
As soon as there was an audience, he would air all the problems.
It appeared as though his intention was to undermine his boss.
Doing the opposite is more helpful. Air differences and problems one on one if possible and be agreeable at the big team meeting.
Ideally, your input will have been incorporated into what the boss is announcing in the meeting.
Having a peer review after publication is not my understanding of how peer review works.
For a scientific paper, one submits it to a highly repected journal. The editors choose folks in the same field to review the paper.
If they say the paper has flaws or is uninteresting, it doesn't get published.
If they publish it, and other folks build upon the ideas and cite the paper in their published, peer-reviewed papers, it is recognized as being
a valuable contribution to science.
This is my understanding of how scientists.
Publishing it as a book without peer review and then hoping it will be recognized later by the scientific community shows an unwillingness to risk not being published.
We cannot tell if it would have been published by a scientific journal subject to peer review.
Some may wish to wade through the ideas of hundreds of "cranks" to find the occasional genius with groundbreaking ideas.
I do not. I let the scientific community to weigh in on this.
To each his own.
I believe the term comes from the art world. There, texture means marks made with a pencil or brush in a drawing or paintnig to
give the illusion of texture.
You might also ask why do they call it 3D when in reality it is a two dimensional image
giving the illusion of 3D.
I admire the Repulicans. Somehow they have it set up so that their candidate can run as a moderate.
But the conservatives know that Bush will be giving them a lot of what they want once in office.
If the Democrats could do this, we could have someone with the politics of Ted Kennedy run and win as a moderate and start implementing a liberal agenda.
My hat's off to the Conservatives. They really know what they are doing.
Of course, if you are a moderate Repulican, you are basically screwed.
Who are you going to vote for?
If you are a Republican that wants small government and a balanced budget, you are basically screwed.
IMHO there is a delicate balance between security and getting the job done.
In many organizations, the developers are under the gun to meet project deadlines. You are more likely to get in trouble for not meeting a deadline than for running X as root.
Similarly, the system administrators are rated by how smoothly things run. Taking a chance by allowing developers to run things as root does not do them any good.
Sadly, from a developer's perspective, system administrators are rarely rewarded by their managment for helping developers sort out all the permissions issues.
If this is done, then one can figure how to set up the non-root account to get the work done without creating security problems.
It doesn't help that developers are often considered "knowing enough to be dangerous."
So system administration managers sometimes set the tone of "lock down the developers so they can't get away with anything."
One place I worked had the development servers locked down so tight, it was said you could only test in production.
Through my career, I have seen a lot of development move from the Unix platform to the Windows platform, partly for this reason:
1) The Unix System Administration department doesn't care about windows boxes, so they don't bother to control them.
2) The Development department knows that they can set up a bunch of windows boxes, give themselves administrator access.
3) The development project proceeds quickly in terms of accomplishing the project goals. The development manager is not rated on how few security holes he sets up in the process.
4) The managers learn: "Wow, if we bypass the Unix System Admins, we get projects done so much faster."
It is unfair to blank admins for security holes created by developers.
It is unfair to give an agressive deadline to the developement department and then ask them to work with a system administration department that has no incentive to help you meet your project deadline.
That doesn't make sense. How would future employers know about a warrant?
Is there a public record of police searches?
The rover was heard to say "I can't allow you to jeapordize the mission."
How many trips to Mars (bringing fuel) would it take before you get your fuel factory going?
How much does all the metal for the fuel factory weigh?
It is easier to put mining and manufacturing on Mars in a Science Fiction novel than it is to achieve it in reality.
We've gotten to the point where about half our robots we send to Mars perform their limited science laboratory tasks.
At a half a billion dollars a mission, how many of these trips would it take to build your fuel factory?
We should all start saving our pennies for the permanent Mars base!
Don't forget the energy to get out of Mars' potential well. Mars has a lot more gravity than the Moon.
Or were you planning on a round trip?
So if your company provides web access via a proxy server, and you don't configure your email client (e.g. Outlook) to use the proxy server, then the email client only connects to the mail server.
I think that what you advise is in line with the original poster's comments about customers being beta testers.
The /. crowd keeps hoping Java will go away. They don't want to learn it.
But it doesn't go away.
I have noticed that there are several technologies that are held in high regard outside of the Linux/Free Software that are despised within it.
One is Object Oriented programming. By extension, C++, Java, and UML also fit into this category.
I wonder how many folks who bash these things have ever actually bothered to learn them?
It is easier to say that XYZ is "bloated and ugly" than to say "I never learned these things so I can't say how useful they are."
I also see a lot of "Anyone that does not agree with me is a stupid, clueless, MCSE."
Name calling is a sign of weak arguments.
The article is about Java running on the server, behind the scenes. It doesn't "look" like anything.
I believe server side java is the most common usage of Java. Portability is less of an issue because you control the server environment.
You can support non-Unix users and still use Unix/Linux for your server.
Yes Oracle has this. IIRC so does DB2.
One place where I worked, they had a bunch of Java stored procedures doing things you could have done in PL/SQL.
They later re-wrote them because the performance is so much worse.
There are, however, things it might make sense to do in a Java Stored Procedure. Publishing a message using JMS from a trigger is an example.
I am not sure if Oracle has created utility packages so you could do it from PL/SQL.
But having a Java stored procedure in this case would allow you to use the same message class that is used by the subscribers to the message.
I don't think this will bog down non-Java users of MySQL.
Years ago, when I was using DB2, I noticed that they had external stored procedures that could be written in nearly any language. C, Java, COBOL, you name it.
I think you are right. Even if it doesn't come on the CDs, I think Microsoft has been making it available as web pages for a while now.
.NET come out and have all the job ads
.NET (by the time I got the experience, there would be .NET-PLUS)
I have not programmed C++ against Windows APIs and COM interfaces in a few years, so I am not up to date.
When you do it everyday, you learn how to sift through the available documentation.
When you are just coming to Windows programming, it can be daunting to find the documentation.
But I remember getting into a groove where you generally could find the documentation quickly.
I was kind of bummed when I spent two years learning web development the Microsoft way only
to have
ask for it instead of the older VB/ASP.
I skipped learning C# or
and I hope that doesn't lead to un-employment some day.
To get back to my original statement, you could pay an MSDN subscription to keep ketting updated versions of the documentation on CD or DVD.
But maybe you can get the same updated information free on the web.
That way you can get the latested object methods for the latest ADO or what have you.
Some MS products and APIs have good documentation.
Some MS products and APIs have bad documentation.
The thing you are trying to do is to use a primarily visual program (VSS) in a scripted, batch mode way.
It can be frustrating -- kind of like trying to build large Windows C++ programs using make instead of the IDE.
It is a cultural divide.
I and others have found the programmer documentation to be really good.
In contrast, when using open source libraryies (GTK/GNOME), I often look something up and see "Would someone please write this?"
Of course, to get the Windows programming documentation, you have to pay the MSDN subscription.
If you, or your employer don't shell out money for the documentation, it might as well not exist.
This is a YMMV area.
. . . Going Commando.
I don't know if that counts as a mature title.
Too bad you can't pay your rent in bolts.
And I remember using quarters to play Pong, Space Invaders, and Asteroids.
Seen about a dozen years ago: Physicsists seek charming and beautiful daughters.
So I just dumped my shares in RedHat.
I have been running RedHat at home for years. I have had their stock for years.
They want to only use the RedHat name with the enterprise and I am not an enterprise.
I will go find a distribution that is interested in me.
The US has not outlawed opposing political views so far.
For that matter, Al Queda kill people (including Muslims) with opposing political views (in Saudi Arabia, for example).
The American government (in my name) backed what became Al Queda as part of the effort to bring down the Soviet Union.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was involved in the decision, defended it as the lesser of two evils.
So we, and the world, are stuck with the aftermath of that decision.
Show me the powerful country that never violates its own principles when getting involved in world affairs.
> now do you see why you cant go around killing people indescriminatly?
> it comes back to bite you in the ass.
This is what Al Queda is discovering now.
For the record, I am against my country developing biological weapons, but I find your arguments.
1) Japan attacks us. We fight a war with them. We end the war earlier by using WMD.
2) Al Queda attacks us.
Unless you come up with some sort of argument that we attacked Al Queda them first, it is not the same.
If the American people as a whole do not believe we are good guys, then we have lost.
Believe me, Al Queda believe they are good guys.
Agreed. Source files do not contain contracts. But they can contain copyright information.
I guess I mentioned reading EULAs to illustrate that it is hard to be careful about every piece of software you use.
It hadn't occured to me that they might not be binding.
For most EULAs, it is clear that the copyright owner does not want you to make copies of their binary software available for others to use.
My personal choice is to not read them looking for a loophole around their intentions.
Others may make different choices.
Many times in my career, I have looked at source code that came with a technical book.
Often there is no mention about the source code or whether or not I can use it in programs (derived works) I write at work.
I bought the book to learn how to use some API, but I am left wondering if there is any legal problem if I use the source.
If I get some source from the internet, I check the copyright notices and look out for phrases like "free for non-commercial use".
The nice thing about GPL or LGPL code is it is very clear what you can and can't do with it.
If my employer does not agree to release the source to "my" whole program, I can't use GPL code.
I have used LGPL source at work and was careful
to use dynamic linking.
When I go home, I can run Linux, program for fun, and use all the GPL code I want.
Some of that stuff I have done is re-redistributed LGPL, but the rest has not been re-distributed.
It sounds like some employee at CISCO/Broadcom made a mistake. The companies are paying for the mistake and perhaps the persons involved are as well.