Lets say I want to update my FW because I don't want the NSA to exploit it. How do I know I'm downloading it from Netgear (or any other major home router vendor) rather than a NSA hijacked page? None of them do https.
Open source without collaboration is pointless. A code dump by itself often is not enough encourage collaboration. If there's a lot of bad blood between you and would be contributors then you might as well just keep it to yourself. It really is best not to ignore social component even if the licence doesn't mention it.
Positive: The device won't cut off your hands.
Negative: The device will cut off your head.
Maybe it's not so bad?
Positive: It won't cut off your head.
Negative: It will cut off your hands.
Still no?
Positive: It won't cut off your head, your kids are entertained and happy because...
Negative: For about 20% of uses shocks the shit outta you.
Still not enough? Ok
Positive: This device is great, doesn't chop off your head or hands and it doesn't shock you.
Negative: After about 3 months of heavy usage a small bit of plastic will break rendering the device inoperable. However it's easy to fix and you're a do-it-yourself guy. $1 at a local hardware store and it's good as new and will last you for many years to come.
Perhaps it's best to look at all the facts rather than just the positive ones.
There are a number of developers for whom we were unable to determine a corporate affiliation; those are grouped under “unknown” in the table below. With few exceptions, all of the people in this category have contributed ten or fewer changes to the kernel over the past three years, yet the large number of these developers causes their total contribution to be quite high.
The category “none,” instead, represents developers who are known to be doing this work on their own, with no financial contribution happening from any company.
"Unknown" means they don't know if the author's work is sponsored.
I grew up on DOS and can probably still fit more TSRs between 0xA0000–0xFFFFF than most. I grew out of it because, despite being very familiar with it, it just wasn't that great. I've been through many transitions over the years and the one to systemd was one of the most enjoyable. I have more control and I don't have to figure it out for every distribution like I do with those god awful shell scripts that need pages of distribution specific "boiler plating" in a vain attempt to make them robust.
I'm running a modern, full featured, OS on my decade old hardware. What's even more remarkable is that I have binaries from 2004 (coming up on a decade) that run just fine too. If I looked around I'm sure I could find older binaries that still work despite being built so long ago. I am considering switching to a lighter weight desktop environment, however. I won't trouble you by using the L word, but it seems to work fine for me without all that loud ticking.
The fact is that as long as they have an effective "tailored access" program they aren't fixing security. If the NSA can exploit a bug so can China. They're full of shit.
Most open source is NOT free (as in monetary cost). It's almost good enough so you modify it (at the cost of development time). The expense of maintaining that modification encourages sending your modifications back upstream. The difference is that it's cheaper to pay your own developers to do it than it is to ask some proprietary vendor to modify their stuff for you. Cheaper wins.
It would help if he actually measured something worthwhile. In the 20+ years I've been coding, I've never once picked a compiler on the basis of how long it takes to spit out a binary. There are just so many other more interesting features and characteristics to consider.
Click bait is a real problem. Use adblock and only whitelist sites that have standards. I might be the.01% that doesn't matter but at least I can fucking sleep at night.
We dodged that bullet but now we're heading to a world where facebook.com plus a small few other sites are the internet.
If that were true, there would be no point in search. Yes there are a few that are very popular, but their relative popularity doesn't come at the expense of the very long tail.
I think for this to work he has to say something like "We won't move on and merge new features until X bugs have been fixed." In other words if you want the merge window to reopen for features, fix some bugs. X has to be high enough that a good many developers have to work at it. Kinda like making sure you hit your target heart-rate before getting off the treadmill.
It's really appalling how GNOME first NIH'ed Unity, and then the Wayland guys came and NIH'ed Mir, and then the git guys came and NIH'ed bzr, and then the github guys and came and NIH'ed launchpad. But the systemd guys are still the worst, NIH'ing Upstart! Such suckers!
Let's stand together against NIH'ing Canonical technology!
NIH is only a problem if you "invent" something inferior to what's already there. And really, NIH is an intellectual weak argument that someone uses when they lack the stones to make an argument based on metrics that are actually meaningful. Lennart is actually very clear on the technical reasons why he chose to create systemd even if Mark wants to remain ignorant of them.
Also, we'll know that Mark as actually done his homework when he learns the proper capitalization of systemd. Come on Mark, at least read the fucking cover page and FAQ.
RC1's significance is that marks the end of the merge window. It means that large chunk of features have made it in which is interesting. It also marks the start of the testing phase, which we want a lot of participation in. There are a lot of reasons why RC1 is interesting and noteworthy.
My thoughts on other RCs? While they're an important part of the process, they aren't interesting enough to warrant much discussion. Which is why you won't see articles on them.
On the other hand, it would be fun to create and promote articles about the other RCs simply because we now know they're good clickbait for angry nerds in search of something to rage about. Thanks for the tip!
Slashdot Mirror
Lets say I want to update my FW because I don't want the NSA to exploit it. How do I know I'm downloading it from Netgear (or any other major home router vendor) rather than a NSA hijacked page? None of them do https.
Open source without collaboration is pointless. A code dump by itself often is not enough encourage collaboration. If there's a lot of bad blood between you and would be contributors then you might as well just keep it to yourself. It really is best not to ignore social component even if the licence doesn't mention it.
Coming from an agency who's entire public record can be summed up by the words "not entirely accurate" ...
...
...
Shit, dog, I got nothin.
Firefox Nightly has also removed the close tab and close window buttons that no one ever bothers with.
Positive: The device won't cut off your hands.
Negative: The device will cut off your head.
Maybe it's not so bad?
Positive: It won't cut off your head.
Negative: It will cut off your hands.
Still no?
Positive: It won't cut off your head, your kids are entertained and happy because...
Negative: For about 20% of uses shocks the shit outta you.
Still not enough? Ok
Positive: This device is great, doesn't chop off your head or hands and it doesn't shock you.
Negative: After about 3 months of heavy usage a small bit of plastic will break rendering the device inoperable. However it's easy to fix and you're a do-it-yourself guy. $1 at a local hardware store and it's good as new and will last you for many years to come.
Perhaps it's best to look at all the facts rather than just the positive ones.
Because only positive facts are relevant?
Citation needed.
Yes, yes. Good job Cisco. Great show! Who would have thought a pony could ride a dog like that. Best. show. ever.
Exec Heap - as in you can execute binary code from the heap. Heap memory is normally only allocated for application data rather than executable code.
Stop bothering us with your facts.
"Unknown" means they don't know if the author's work is sponsored.
Sure they do, if it involves rhythmic clicking and break-dancing.
I grew up on DOS and can probably still fit more TSRs between 0xA0000–0xFFFFF than most. I grew out of it because, despite being very familiar with it, it just wasn't that great. I've been through many transitions over the years and the one to systemd was one of the most enjoyable. I have more control and I don't have to figure it out for every distribution like I do with those god awful shell scripts that need pages of distribution specific "boiler plating" in a vain attempt to make them robust.
I'm running a modern, full featured, OS on my decade old hardware. What's even more remarkable is that I have binaries from 2004 (coming up on a decade) that run just fine too. If I looked around I'm sure I could find older binaries that still work despite being built so long ago. I am considering switching to a lighter weight desktop environment, however. I won't trouble you by using the L word, but it seems to work fine for me without all that loud ticking.
The fact is that as long as they have an effective "tailored access" program they aren't fixing security. If the NSA can exploit a bug so can China. They're full of shit.
Most open source is NOT free (as in monetary cost). It's almost good enough so you modify it (at the cost of development time). The expense of maintaining that modification encourages sending your modifications back upstream. The difference is that it's cheaper to pay your own developers to do it than it is to ask some proprietary vendor to modify their stuff for you. Cheaper wins.
It would help if he actually measured something worthwhile. In the 20+ years I've been coding, I've never once picked a compiler on the basis of how long it takes to spit out a binary. There are just so many other more interesting features and characteristics to consider.
Click bait is a real problem. Use adblock and only whitelist sites that have standards. I might be the .01% that doesn't matter but at least I can fucking sleep at night.
If that were true, there would be no point in search. Yes there are a few that are very popular, but their relative popularity doesn't come at the expense of the very long tail.
This is the part where Internet trolls mod each other up and start thinking they're relevant.
I think for this to work he has to say something like "We won't move on and merge new features until X bugs have been fixed." In other words if you want the merge window to reopen for features, fix some bugs. X has to be high enough that a good many developers have to work at it. Kinda like making sure you hit your target heart-rate before getting off the treadmill.
That sounds like a way to turn G+ into a fantastic dick sucking and rubbing contest. Good game Google, well played.
Wireshark isn't for crybabies anyway.
I love Lennart Poettering's response:
https://plus.google.com/115547683951727699051/posts/RCfN9NwZrLN
NIH is only a problem if you "invent" something inferior to what's already there. And really, NIH is an intellectual weak argument that someone uses when they lack the stones to make an argument based on metrics that are actually meaningful. Lennart is actually very clear on the technical reasons why he chose to create systemd even if Mark wants to remain ignorant of them.
Also, we'll know that Mark as actually done his homework when he learns the proper capitalization of systemd. Come on Mark, at least read the fucking cover page and FAQ.
RC1's significance is that marks the end of the merge window. It means that large chunk of features have made it in which is interesting. It also marks the start of the testing phase, which we want a lot of participation in. There are a lot of reasons why RC1 is interesting and noteworthy.
My thoughts on other RCs? While they're an important part of the process, they aren't interesting enough to warrant much discussion. Which is why you won't see articles on them.
On the other hand, it would be fun to create and promote articles about the other RCs simply because we now know they're good clickbait for angry nerds in search of something to rage about. Thanks for the tip!