Why don't they just un-integrate the browser from the OS, disable the admin user, stick to their security model, etc., etc., etc..
The list could go on and on and on...
Statistics have even less to do with truth than science.
Statistics and science are two different things.
Current definitions of 'intelligence' are crude at their best, misleading most of the time.
There didn't appear to be any kind of study, and it looks mostly like historical speculation.
If scientific study revealed a link between ethnic origin and some disease, and I was a member of that ethnic group, I'd really want to know, 'politically correct' bullshit be damned.
I worked at a university and if its any insight, how it works is that if you don't spend your entire budget, you get that much less the next year. In most governmental budgets, you're not allowed to keep leftover money into the next year. That's why they go on spending sprees at the end of their fiscal year. Why so many governmental budgets aren't allowed to save money would be an interesting question. It appears to be a near-universal way to do budgets in government.
Given an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of typewriters, an infinite number of bananas, and an infinite amount of time, all of Microsoft's OSS FUD can eventually be reproduced...
Hopefully Ubuntu will help motivate the Debian group. I installed Debian on a thinkpad, and just getting X to work was a royal pain. Although its a great learning experience to get things working, at times its consternating. Trying to go to a 2.6 kernel was close to impossible. Again, a great learning experience, but frustrating.
That said, its also something of a concern that packages get updated often enough to satisfy security concerns. Some do and some don't. It seems debian is better suited to headless, limited-scope servers as opposed to desktop functionality. That's not a bad thing, of course.
"Faster transistors could facilitate faster computers, more flexible and secure wireless communications systems, and more effective electronic combat systems. "
Faster computers, maybe. But, more flexible and secure wireless communication -> NOPE; that's up to software. More effective electronic combat systems -> NOPE; also up to software. Unless you count doom.
China once turned inward and lost their clear military and technological lead in the world. Now, the US has turned isolationist in the 'post 911'/Bush II regime, and its going to experience the same thing. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
A lack of enforcement has already clouded the meaning of TLDs at this point such that new ones won't really add any clarity to the situation. So they may as well add new ones. It'll start to look like a USENET news group list. Maybe that's not all bad.
People and organiztaions will continue to register to the TLDs that are best known, and domain names will always be confusing to the garden variety web surfer.
Does it bother anyone that he may have to pay damages that can't be clearly calculated, but rather are guessed at? Most business don't cost employee's time in project proposals, since those costs are considered 'soft'. Yet, when it comes to court damages, suddenly those costs are 'hard'.
Quite true. Microsoft is better at selling software than it is at making software. Way better.
Perhaps the other reason that the company that makes the worst software products can make it big is that when PC software screws up, the losses are 'soft' as well. When, for example, the design of a car results in a failure, the losses are hard enough that juries have no problem understanding and identifying what the consequences of poor design are. Your windows server crashes, and the losses may be big in financial terms, but people don't stagger out of the building covered in soot and burns.
In any event, filing preemptive patents will probably result in tehcnology migrating away from the US. The 'iphoto' patent look preemptive in that it seems intended to prevent others from making competing products.
In the "Unix.vs. MS Windows" part, all I saw was a re-hashing of common miscomceptions, and little substantive on interesting info, and some revealing logic stumbles.
"Windows is supposed to be an easy-to-use platform, while Unix is supposed to be cryptic and hard-to-use." - good grief. An ad-hoc conclusion like this pretty much points to a lack of actual logical analysis.
"Microsoft's success, as reflected in their incredible market share, amplifies their security problems". So, giving an email client the ability to infect a system has nothing to do with it? The article seems to gloss over MS's efforts to graft its applications into its OS as part of the problem. By this logic, killing turkeys causes winter.
"A potentially relevant issue is the phenomenal amount of resentment against Microsoft and Microsoft products that is seen in many circles." So, Microsoft's security issues are because people hate them. Get my violin.
"'Security' is hard to formalize, hard to design (and design for), hard to implement, hard to verify, hard to configure, and hard to use. It is particularly hard to use on a platform such as Windows, which is evolving, security-wise, along with its representative user-base." ! He seems to be saying that windows security is evolving and its users are also 'security-evolving', and as as a result, windows security is getting worse. Well, wait a minute. Maybe he's right on that one...
And not finding much. In the article, the author states: "...a closed-source approach to a problem can have some benefits. Some of these benefits include having a more focused direction for the team, given the fact that there is (usually) just one manager and team leader, firmer schedules and deadlines, tighter management, profit incentives, salaries and bonus motivations. While this can also be true for open source projects, the "design by committee" that goes on with community projects often results in a more bloated and less focused product that tries to be all things to all people. Also, sometimes a simple lack of funds on the part of the developer can hamper the development."
Closed source projects suffer every bit as much from 'design by committee' as do closed source projects. In fact, ALL large engineering endeavors are prey to this, regardless if they are open or not. So, this assertion doesn't offer anything of substance to differentiate between open and closed settings.
However, here's something that does offer something of significant and relavent meaning: because closed source often occurs in a large corporate environment, the 'committee' is all too often made up of people with little or no critical thinking abilities. That's because people rise through the ranks of corporate management by being good at politics, not critical thought. In an open source setting, when there are 'design by committee' situations, the 'committee' is more likely to be made up of people well-versed in critical thought, as well as a good number of real-life end users. This rare in the closed source setting.
Thus, the alleged benefits listed above for closed source projects are for the most part not accurate. I've seen it happen frequently that a closed source product just doesn't do what it needs to, and evidence of 'design by management' seen in an inconsistant grouping of functionality compared to software comming from an open source setting.
The last sentence is curious in that it is pure FUD. Perhaps revealing is a better word.
Almost without exception, IT 'professionals' I encounter who know only one operating system, like windows or macos, are noticeably poorer at basic technical comprehension and troubleshooting. Ask them to figure out a technical problem they haven't seen before, and they are more confused than people who, early in their technical education, learned multiple operating systems. Anyone else notice this?
Frankly, I've seen it so often that it becomes apparent that any educational institution that proports to teach information technology and tries to squelch all but one operating system (windows, mac, *nix, whatever), doesn't encourage its students to learn to adapt to new environments and think for themselves. And the 'real world' is all about adapting to new settings as well as new technologies.
It must have been java-powered water. It ran too slow to actually function as advertised, and didn't actually combine with anything like it was supposed to, so it had no solvent properties.
I don't know what other people's experiences are with 'java-powered' products, but every complex application I've seen rolled out has problems far bigger than the problems solved. Worse, JAVA has yet to live up to its original claims. 1) Write once run anywhere. I've yet to see this true of any complex app. It's problably been done, though. I just haven't seen it done. 2) Compatibility problems. I install one version of the run-time environment for a must-have client app, and the rest break. It can be fixed, but it should never have happened in the first place. 3) For reasons unclear, large java apps seem to suffer from some kind of fragmented UI design illness. Functions that logically belong together end up in totally different places. Its not true for all, but seems to be more frequent amongst complex java products than similar non-java apps. This, admittedly, is probably due to the fact that I usually am using network analysis and managment tools. 4) Massive speed inconsistencies. Onde PC will run a client just fine, and different PC will barely run it at all. It can be fixed, but I've got better things to do with my time than fix Sun's problems.
All in all, what often happens is that I end up using non-java powered solutions, just because they work. I could spend the extra time to fix all the java issues, but it just never seems worth the time and effort.
Anyone know where to find stats on websites broken into? IIS.vs. Apache? After all just saying IIS has been broken into more often is fine, but its better to point to some kind of source.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that the dynamic of attraction and relationships could be explained with the work 'geek' alone.
Why don't they just un-integrate the browser from the OS, disable the admin user, stick to their security model, etc., etc., etc..
The list could go on and on and on...
Science has nothing to do with truth.
Statistics have even less to do with truth than science.
Statistics and science are two different things.
Current definitions of 'intelligence' are crude at their best, misleading most of the time.
There didn't appear to be any kind of study, and it looks mostly like historical speculation.
If scientific study revealed a link between ethnic origin and some disease, and I was a member of that ethnic group, I'd really want to know, 'politically correct' bullshit be damned.
Now they really have to work on OSX performance. No "slow memory latency", "slow FSB", 'slower clock cycles", etc.,etc. excuses.
Maybe this'll get them to straighten out the threads calling threads calling threads calling threads mess.
Well, there's this guy who supposedly was offered a job by Apple working on ACPI & BIOS. He's a contributor to the linux kernel.
Not that I want to fan the rumor flames. And yes, if I was a firefighter, I'd be on the 'fight fire with other fires all over the place' bandwagon.
Hmm, Rather than 'embrace, extend, & engulf' an open format, make you own, pre-engulfed. Also, good PR for a company starved for it.
I worked at a university and if its any insight, how it works is that if you don't spend your entire budget, you get that much less the next year. In most governmental budgets, you're not allowed to keep leftover money into the next year. That's why they go on spending sprees at the end of their fiscal year. Why so many governmental budgets aren't allowed to save money would be an interesting question. It appears to be a near-universal way to do budgets in government.
Given an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of typewriters, an infinite number of bananas, and an infinite amount of time, all of Microsoft's OSS FUD can eventually be reproduced...
Hopefully Ubuntu will help motivate the Debian group. I installed Debian on a thinkpad, and just getting X to work was a royal pain. Although its a great learning experience to get things working, at times its consternating. Trying to go to a 2.6 kernel was close to impossible. Again, a great learning experience, but frustrating.
That said, its also something of a concern that packages get updated often enough to satisfy security concerns. Some do and some don't. It seems debian is better suited to headless, limited-scope servers as opposed to desktop functionality. That's not a bad thing, of course.
"Faster transistors could facilitate faster computers, more flexible and secure wireless communications systems, and more effective electronic combat systems. "
Faster computers, maybe.
But, more flexible and secure wireless communication -> NOPE; that's up to software.
More effective electronic combat systems -> NOPE; also up to software. Unless you count doom.
China once turned inward and lost their clear military and technological lead in the world. Now, the US has turned isolationist in the 'post 911'/Bush II regime, and its going to experience the same thing. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Apathy rising, urge to complain falling....
A lack of enforcement has already clouded the meaning of TLDs at this point such that new ones won't really add any clarity to the situation. So they may as well add new ones. It'll start to look like a USENET news group list. Maybe that's not all bad.
People and organiztaions will continue to register to the TLDs that are best known, and domain names will always be confusing to the garden variety web surfer.
Does it bother anyone that he may have to pay damages that can't be clearly calculated, but rather are guessed at? Most business don't cost employee's time in project proposals, since those costs are considered 'soft'. Yet, when it comes to court damages, suddenly those costs are 'hard'.
Quite true. Microsoft is better at selling software than it is at making software. Way better.
Perhaps the other reason that the company that makes the worst software products can make it big is that when PC software screws up, the losses are 'soft' as well. When, for example, the design of a car results in a failure, the losses are hard enough that juries have no problem understanding and identifying what the consequences of poor design are. Your windows server crashes, and the losses may be big in financial terms, but people don't stagger out of the building covered in soot and burns.
In any event, filing preemptive patents will probably result in tehcnology migrating away from the US. The 'iphoto' patent look preemptive in that it seems intended to prevent others from making competing products.
In the "Unix .vs. MS Windows" part, all I saw was a re-hashing of common miscomceptions, and little substantive on interesting info, and some revealing logic stumbles.
"Windows is supposed to be an easy-to-use platform, while Unix is supposed to be cryptic and hard-to-use." - good grief. An ad-hoc conclusion like this pretty much points to a lack of actual logical analysis.
"Microsoft's success, as reflected in their incredible market share, amplifies their security problems". So, giving an email client the ability to infect a system has nothing to do with it? The article seems to gloss over MS's efforts to graft its applications into its OS as part of the problem. By this logic, killing turkeys causes winter.
"A potentially relevant issue is the phenomenal amount of resentment against Microsoft and Microsoft products that is seen in many circles." So, Microsoft's security issues are because people hate them. Get my violin.
"'Security' is hard to formalize, hard to design (and design for), hard to implement, hard to verify, hard to configure, and hard to use. It is particularly hard to use on a platform such as Windows, which is evolving, security-wise, along with its representative user-base." ! He seems to be saying that windows security is evolving and its users are also 'security-evolving', and as as a result, windows security is getting worse. Well, wait a minute. Maybe he's right on that one...
And not finding much. In the article, the author states: "...a closed-source approach to a problem can have some benefits. Some of these benefits include having a more focused direction for the team, given the fact that there is (usually) just one manager and team leader, firmer schedules and deadlines, tighter management, profit incentives, salaries and bonus motivations. While this can also be true for open source projects, the "design by committee" that goes on with community projects often results in a more bloated and less focused product that tries to be all things to all people. Also, sometimes a simple lack of funds on the part of the developer can hamper the development."
Closed source projects suffer every bit as much from 'design by committee' as do closed source projects. In fact, ALL large engineering endeavors are prey to this, regardless if they are open or not. So, this assertion doesn't offer anything of substance to differentiate between open and closed settings.
However, here's something that does offer something of significant and relavent meaning: because closed source often occurs in a large corporate environment, the 'committee' is all too often made up of people with little or no critical thinking abilities. That's because people rise through the ranks of corporate management by being good at politics, not critical thought. In an open source setting, when there are 'design by committee' situations, the 'committee' is more likely to be made up of people well-versed in critical thought, as well as a good number of real-life end users. This rare in the closed source setting.
Thus, the alleged benefits listed above for closed source projects are for the most part not accurate. I've seen it happen frequently that a closed source product just doesn't do what it needs to, and evidence of 'design by management' seen in an inconsistant grouping of functionality compared to software comming from an open source setting.
The last sentence is curious in that it is pure FUD. Perhaps revealing is a better word.
Almost without exception, IT 'professionals' I encounter who know only one operating system, like windows or macos, are noticeably poorer at basic technical comprehension and troubleshooting. Ask them to figure out a technical problem they haven't seen before, and they are more confused than people who, early in their technical education, learned multiple operating systems. Anyone else notice this?
Frankly, I've seen it so often that it becomes apparent that any educational institution that proports to teach information technology and tries to squelch all but one operating system (windows, mac, *nix, whatever), doesn't encourage its students to learn to adapt to new environments and think for themselves. And the 'real world' is all about adapting to new settings as well as new technologies.
It must have been java-powered water. It ran too slow to actually function as advertised, and didn't actually combine with anything like it was supposed to, so it had no solvent properties.
I don't know what other people's experiences are with 'java-powered' products, but every complex application I've seen rolled out has problems far bigger than the problems solved. Worse, JAVA has yet to live up to its original claims.
1) Write once run anywhere. I've yet to see this true of any complex app. It's problably been done, though. I just haven't seen it done.
2) Compatibility problems. I install one version of the run-time environment for a must-have client app, and the rest break. It can be fixed, but it should never have happened in the first place.
3) For reasons unclear, large java apps seem to suffer from some kind of fragmented UI design illness. Functions that logically belong together end up in totally different places. Its not true for all, but seems to be more frequent amongst complex java products than similar non-java apps. This, admittedly, is probably due to the fact that I usually am using network analysis and managment tools.
4) Massive speed inconsistencies. Onde PC will run a client just fine, and different PC will barely run it at all. It can be fixed, but I've got better things to do with my time than fix Sun's problems.
All in all, what often happens is that I end up using non-java powered solutions, just because they work. I could spend the extra time to fix all the java issues, but it just never seems worth the time and effort.
A catwomanbot with chainsaw hands - something for everyone.
Mmmmmm - Catwomanbot - Mmmmmm
That would depend on on how cute it was...
When do they come out with a robot emulating some really interesting and usefull real-life function, like being in heat?
Anyone know where to find stats on websites broken into? IIS .vs. Apache? After all just saying IIS has been broken into more often is fine, but its better to point to some kind of source.