I have no sympathy for these organisations. When you create web applications that are designed for one web browser then you're going to get burned. Maybe they will eventually learn that Microsoft lost the API war, but I doubt it:
Oh great, another Ubuntu release where nothing happens and nothing has changed apart from copying more Mac 'features'. The rest of the world then laughs at people pretending that something has happened and at Canonical's feeble attempts to rake in some revenue after all these years.
Re: Facebook Is Down
on
Facebook Is Down
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Beyond that, Wikipedia and a solitary Economist article are not exactly causes for much cheer or evidence that usage has increased to any significant degree.
So, I would say the Linux community has plenty to thank Canonical for.
A less than one percent usage increase that no one can verify and where Mac OS X has probably increased at it and Windows's expense? Wow.
It _is_ insecure. There are plenty of vulnerabilities being found and reported
Wow, really? Which part of 'this isn't a remote exploit' did you not understand, because that's what he was getting across. If you use and give out shell access then it's going to be something you'll want to update. There's no big deal about that. It happens, or does the fact that this is required occasionally on a Linux system mean that the sky has suddenly fallen in?
Also, usually, many operations are reserved to the root user, and the root user can do everything which means that more programs than necessary run as root, and root has more power than necessary. These are not the properties of secure systems; it's not even close to state of the art security.
Yer, that's why they're reserved for the root user and thanks for telling us that the root user has unlimited powers. I would never have guessed that, nor that there is a way around. Quite incredible. The majority of services run under their own username and environment and that has been standard practice for some time. Unlike Windows which tries to run a great deal as 'System' and thinks it is safe........ A user above administrator. What a stupid idea.
If you do compare them, you will find that, at the very least, Microsoft has improved the security picture on Windows a great deal. In some cases, such as running with reduced privileges by default and only elevating privileges for programs that need it...
Oh, what a suprise. A shill. What systems do you think forced Microsoft into doing all these things, and did them first?
Ubuntu has done amazing work getting Linux more visible and better established, that alone is worth a significant amount.
How and where? Linux desktop usage or applications support has not increased one iota in the last six years, so I'm curious as to where this standard excuse for Ubuntu comes from. The difficulty people have is that Ubuntu's place in the free desktop world simply cannot be measured beyond free CDs and simple marketing blurb.
(horrors, actually using the hosts file for its intended purpose instead of using it to break DNS resolution for host names you don't like?)
Using a hosts file because you can't easily remember IP addresses is another error strewn step that currently isn't necessary. Add a DNS system on top of that and you've got a real can of worms. Yay. Let's make network troubleshooting even harder and more error prone.If you alter your hosts file in any way then you are potentially breaking DNS later regardless. It's a horrible thing to suggest and isn't a solution.
Sigh........ Don't you just hate it when people become nit-picking Nazis all of a sudden because they think they're disproving or proving something?
Except NAT doesn't do that. PAT does that.
Any competent network engineer knows what he was talking about, since PAT is a subset of NAT and it is hair splitting because they perform the same translation function. That's why, you know, we use the terms DNAT and SNAT. That doesn't negate any of his concerns. It's a non-sensical thing to reply with because you think you're proving him wrong on something. Alas, you're not.
Except NAT doesn't do that. A firewall does that.
A firewall does not do that - although it does strictly speaking because NAT is generally a part of any firewall, but it doesn't mean what you think it means - that NAT isn't involved. It's called Network Address Translation for a reason, because it translates your public address to a private one, keeping along the lines of privacy concerns. A 'firewall', as a generic term, does not do that without NAT.
You should not be doing any job involving networking with your current level of knowledge.
Hmmmmm. Maybe you should begin your network engineering career by reading the Wikipedia articles you're linking to?
God knows who the mods are today voting this load of claptrap up.
The biggest problem with IP address availability is web sites that use SSL annoyingly needing a single IP address per site. However, in the not too distant future it will become more feasible to use SNI (virtual hosting for SSL sites basically) as web browsers out there start having more support for it and people stop using IE6, certainly on XP, and the IPv4 address problem will ease.
Apart from that I see no reason to panic right now.
Yer. I got tired of Lucas tinkering with things that didn't need tinkering with (just leave Boba Fett's damn voice alone) and we've got more of these 'new' scenes just to squeeze out the last trinket of change. He even managed to get Steven Speilberg totally embarrassed of the recent Indiana Jones film.
Just stop George. We know you'd probably like to remake Empire Strikes Back because you didn't direct it, and it's, you know, good, but don't. It's beyond sad and embarrassing now. The world will simply end up thinking that you contributed nothing good to the successes you've had.
I don't think a desire for rewrites was it -- the old-VB -> VB.NET conversion tool that comes with Visual Studio has exceeded my expectations whenever I've needed to update an old VB project.
Goodness me. If you think that code converter was, or is, good enough to convert any sizeable project out there then I have to question your motives really. The thing was a sad joke.
I disagree with you here, or maybe we just have different ideas of what RAD is; I don't think throwing together a quick-and-dirty app with, say, modern Visual Studio and VB.NET is measurably harder than doing the same thing with VB6. If anything, out of the box controls have made it even easier -- VB didn't even have a datagrid at all until, what, version 6
There are many programming tasks that just do not need the kind of object-oriented overhead that.Net and C# requires. The latter is a matter of component support with nothing to do with VB itself. A DataGrid appeared in VB5, well, a decent one anyway and there ended up being two or three. If you didn't use VB, well, you had to pretty much write your own so it wasn't like there was alternatives.
Illumos has got no chance. The last I checked Oracle still required non-CDDL code and drivers, and it certainly required a full Solaris for bootstrapping. On top of that they've got to mainatin Solaris kernel and userspace code as well as doing the job of a distributor. That task is absolutely insane. I'm not sure what backers would want to take that on because the only value is in real Solaris compatibility. Without that it's just another Unix-like operating system amongst many.
Some Open Solaris fans tried to claim things were more open than I perceived them to be. But this development underscores the correctness of my choice.
They were never open. Sun came up with OpenSolaris because they were losing out big time to Linux suppliers and it was a feeble attempt to make Solaris look 'open source' when they were selling it without Sun giving up any control at all.
Frankly, I applaud Oracle for finally being open with everybody rather than continuing Sun's sham. Now it and SPARC can be Ellison's play-things that he can use to go up against IBM, Power and AIX, which is now a different story.
Microsoft killed old-school VB/VBA development and forced a generation of terrible developers to move, however relucantly, towards object oriented programming by accident.
Nope, it definitely wasn't an accident so I wasn't implying that. The purposefully did it. Quite why they did it I cannot fathom because it's just hurt and fragmented their developer base that grew to an extremely critical mass during the nineties. Maybe the MSDN guys got greedy and thought they could make money from getting people to rewrite everything, I don't know.
I know people sniped at VB, but the fact is that probably billions of lines of code are sitting around written in it and it's the only rapid development platform Microsoft and Windows has. Throwing that away was not a smart move.
Yer, leopards spots and all that. Basically, what he's trying to do is to get whatever is left of Sun making some money so that it doesn't drag Oracle itself down. Grabbing a slice of Android and the mobile market without having even entered into it seems like a decent idea. Sun never made enough money from Java. I'm not justifying what they're doing but needs must at the moment. The Sun takeover is taking its tole and it had more to do with Ellison's ego over going up against IBM than anything else.
While this is slightly different, creating dynamic language environments on top of.Net, language neutrality in.Net has always been a myth. It's why there is only one language for.Net in C# and how VB.Net has become totally pointless because it's merely a syntactically different but identical.Net language. After attempts at those languages failed, such as those by ActiveState, we then got reasonably API compatible Ruby and Python environments being developed on top of.Net. Unfortunately, people already had API compatible versions of Ruby and Python - the official ones - and as a result no one has seen fit to run anything under a.Net Ruby or Python environment en masse. Environments like JRuby just clouded the landscape still further. All Microsoft really wants to do is try and get a critical mass of developers deploying to their versions of Ruby and Python probably for embrace and extend, and there is no sign that this is happening. They're trying to keep on with PHP because it's still the dominant web scripting language that they need for Azure to look semi-credible, but this is likely to meet a similar fate for the same reasons.
The one environment that Microsoft should have created on top of.Net they simply didn't do. They should have created a rapid application development environment on top of.Net, free of the strict confines of C# and object oriented development, that aimed to be at least API compatible with classical VB so people merely had to recompile - as they had always been able to do. Alas, all that Microsoft did was force developers to throw lots of lines of existing code down the drain if they wanted to upgrade or either stay on the platforms they were on permanently or convert their applications to web based ones, which many did.
Microsoft don't appear to have learned a thing after ten years of.Net.
...I still (still!) have a bad taste in my mouth from that horrible trainwreck of a 4.0 release, and how Aaron Seigo and other KDE devs defended the release strategy. And still do to this day!
Because it was correct. It was no different to any other.0 release for any other piece of open source software. Unfortunately, distributors simply have no idea what to put into their distributions other than to compile the latest release and then bitch and moan about it. That's probably why desktop Linux has failed really. They even started compiling up PulseAudio and thought it was a good idea to throw that in which was a far worse decision than including KDE 4.0. Jesus, not even communication with spacecraft has as much latency as PA. Alas, that's why I run OS X with a decent sound subsystem and CoreAudio. I have no desire to do the distributors' jobs for them and compile in a kernel with Open Sound System support.
Big software projects like google-chrome still aren't flocking to QT and KDE.
It's their loss frankly. They're trying to create a cross-platform app in Chrome that is effectively rewritten for each platform. The net effect of that will be what happened to Firefox's ports - the Windows port was the best, followed by OS X and then Linux stuck on as an afterthought. Take a look at Eclipse and SWT as well - Windows port first, everything second. They then have a recreate all the cross-platform glue that Qt already has.
It's a fairly nice desktop environment, but it's obvious that the focus (for the desktop user experience at least) has always been eye-candy first and stability later. I understand they needed the lay down the framework initially, but shouldn't that framework have at least been somewhat stable before worrying about all the translucent crap and literal bells and whistles?
Release early release often. Jesus, how do you think something gets stabilised in the open source world unless it is released? People and distributors then make a decision to use it or not. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Really. You're also going to have to quanitify 'stability'.
And this "SC" crap? Who possibly thought that was needed, or was even remotely a good idea?
....I encourage newbies to avoid it so they can make a clean break from Windows to Gnome.
Windows to Gnome?! I think users are wise enough to know how much less they can do with Gnome versus Windows when they try it, and the application base around Gnome that was built largely with venture capital money and a large following wind, while other desktops just made life easy for developers, is simply crumbling away. It's a shell rather than a desktop really. Users want features, functionality and applications to get things done, and pretending that you don't have them because it makes things 'simple' is the most braindead thing you can do in software.
All the 'Enterprise Desktop' vendors we were told about over the past decade have had ample time, money and resources to turn Gnome (their confidently proclaimed 'default' desktop) into something credible versus desktops like Windows and OS X. I think the penny should have dropped by now that they've failed completely. Windows moved ahead graphically and aesthetically with Vista and 7, OS X has done the same and KDE is the only open source desktop that has even remotely managed to keep up.
I think you need to leave the DistroWatch hype behind mate. Canonical have yet to make any money whatsoever yet, yet alone having enough to bid for a company several times its size and value.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't say any such thing, but then reading is beyond most around here................
I have no sympathy for these organisations. When you create web applications that are designed for one web browser then you're going to get burned. Maybe they will eventually learn that Microsoft lost the API war, but I doubt it:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
Oh great, another Ubuntu release where nothing happens and nothing has changed apart from copying more Mac 'features'. The rest of the world then laughs at people pretending that something has happened and at Canonical's feeble attempts to rake in some revenue after all these years.
That's why Facebook has privacy settings.
Beyond that, Wikipedia and a solitary Economist article are not exactly causes for much cheer or evidence that usage has increased to any significant degree.
A less than one percent usage increase that no one can verify and where Mac OS X has probably increased at it and Windows's expense? Wow.
Wow, really? Which part of 'this isn't a remote exploit' did you not understand, because that's what he was getting across. If you use and give out shell access then it's going to be something you'll want to update. There's no big deal about that. It happens, or does the fact that this is required occasionally on a Linux system mean that the sky has suddenly fallen in?
Yer, that's why they're reserved for the root user and thanks for telling us that the root user has unlimited powers. I would never have guessed that, nor that there is a way around. Quite incredible. The majority of services run under their own username and environment and that has been standard practice for some time. Unlike Windows which tries to run a great deal as 'System' and thinks it is safe........ A user above administrator. What a stupid idea.
Oh, what a suprise. A shill. What systems do you think forced Microsoft into doing all these things, and did them first?
I'm sure you are...........
Who the hell modded this insightful?
How and where? Linux desktop usage or applications support has not increased one iota in the last six years, so I'm curious as to where this standard excuse for Ubuntu comes from. The difficulty people have is that Ubuntu's place in the free desktop world simply cannot be measured beyond free CDs and simple marketing blurb.
Using a hosts file because you can't easily remember IP addresses is another error strewn step that currently isn't necessary. Add a DNS system on top of that and you've got a real can of worms. Yay. Let's make network troubleshooting even harder and more error prone.If you alter your hosts file in any way then you are potentially breaking DNS later regardless. It's a horrible thing to suggest and isn't a solution.
Having it installed does not mean that it's being used. There is a difference.
Any competent network engineer knows what he was talking about, since PAT is a subset of NAT and it is hair splitting because they perform the same translation function. That's why, you know, we use the terms DNAT and SNAT. That doesn't negate any of his concerns. It's a non-sensical thing to reply with because you think you're proving him wrong on something. Alas, you're not.
A firewall does not do that - although it does strictly speaking because NAT is generally a part of any firewall, but it doesn't mean what you think it means - that NAT isn't involved. It's called Network Address Translation for a reason, because it translates your public address to a private one, keeping along the lines of privacy concerns. A 'firewall', as a generic term, does not do that without NAT.
Hmmmmm. Maybe you should begin your network engineering career by reading the Wikipedia articles you're linking to?
God knows who the mods are today voting this load of claptrap up.
The biggest problem with IP address availability is web sites that use SSL annoyingly needing a single IP address per site. However, in the not too distant future it will become more feasible to use SNI (virtual hosting for SSL sites basically) as web browsers out there start having more support for it and people stop using IE6, certainly on XP, and the IPv4 address problem will ease.
Apart from that I see no reason to panic right now.
Yer. I got tired of Lucas tinkering with things that didn't need tinkering with (just leave Boba Fett's damn voice alone) and we've got more of these 'new' scenes just to squeeze out the last trinket of change. He even managed to get Steven Speilberg totally embarrassed of the recent Indiana Jones film.
Just stop George. We know you'd probably like to remake Empire Strikes Back because you didn't direct it, and it's, you know, good, but don't. It's beyond sad and embarrassing now. The world will simply end up thinking that you contributed nothing good to the successes you've had.
Well, if they need anything from Oracle then they're a bit stuck.
Goodness me. If you think that code converter was, or is, good enough to convert any sizeable project out there then I have to question your motives really. The thing was a sad joke.
There are many programming tasks that just do not need the kind of object-oriented overhead that .Net and C# requires. The latter is a matter of component support with nothing to do with VB itself. A DataGrid appeared in VB5, well, a decent one anyway and there ended up being two or three. If you didn't use VB, well, you had to pretty much write your own so it wasn't like there was alternatives.
Illumos has got no chance. The last I checked Oracle still required non-CDDL code and drivers, and it certainly required a full Solaris for bootstrapping. On top of that they've got to mainatin Solaris kernel and userspace code as well as doing the job of a distributor. That task is absolutely insane. I'm not sure what backers would want to take that on because the only value is in real Solaris compatibility. Without that it's just another Unix-like operating system amongst many.
They were never open. Sun came up with OpenSolaris because they were losing out big time to Linux suppliers and it was a feeble attempt to make Solaris look 'open source' when they were selling it without Sun giving up any control at all.
Frankly, I applaud Oracle for finally being open with everybody rather than continuing Sun's sham. Now it and SPARC can be Ellison's play-things that he can use to go up against IBM, Power and AIX, which is now a different story.
Nope, it definitely wasn't an accident so I wasn't implying that. The purposefully did it. Quite why they did it I cannot fathom because it's just hurt and fragmented their developer base that grew to an extremely critical mass during the nineties. Maybe the MSDN guys got greedy and thought they could make money from getting people to rewrite everything, I don't know.
I know people sniped at VB, but the fact is that probably billions of lines of code are sitting around written in it and it's the only rapid development platform Microsoft and Windows has. Throwing that away was not a smart move.
Yer, leopards spots and all that. Basically, what he's trying to do is to get whatever is left of Sun making some money so that it doesn't drag Oracle itself down. Grabbing a slice of Android and the mobile market without having even entered into it seems like a decent idea. Sun never made enough money from Java. I'm not justifying what they're doing but needs must at the moment. The Sun takeover is taking its tole and it had more to do with Ellison's ego over going up against IBM than anything else.
While this is slightly different, creating dynamic language environments on top of .Net, language neutrality in .Net has always been a myth. It's why there is only one language for .Net in C# and how VB.Net has become totally pointless because it's merely a syntactically different but identical .Net language. After attempts at those languages failed, such as those by ActiveState, we then got reasonably API compatible Ruby and Python environments being developed on top of .Net. Unfortunately, people already had API compatible versions of Ruby and Python - the official ones - and as a result no one has seen fit to run anything under a .Net Ruby or Python environment en masse. Environments like JRuby just clouded the landscape still further. All Microsoft really wants to do is try and get a critical mass of developers deploying to their versions of Ruby and Python probably for embrace and extend, and there is no sign that this is happening. They're trying to keep on with PHP because it's still the dominant web scripting language that they need for Azure to look semi-credible, but this is likely to meet a similar fate for the same reasons.
.Net they simply didn't do. They should have created a rapid application development environment on top of .Net, free of the strict confines of C# and object oriented development, that aimed to be at least API compatible with classical VB so people merely had to recompile - as they had always been able to do. Alas, all that Microsoft did was force developers to throw lots of lines of existing code down the drain if they wanted to upgrade or either stay on the platforms they were on permanently or convert their applications to web based ones, which many did.
.Net.
The one environment that Microsoft should have created on top of
Microsoft don't appear to have learned a thing after ten years of
Thanks to the beta called Vista. ;-)
It's just a pity that the distributors don't get crap for what they include in their distributions, including PulseAudio.
5.0?! Where do you get this from?
Because it was correct. It was no different to any other .0 release for any other piece of open source software. Unfortunately, distributors simply have no idea what to put into their distributions other than to compile the latest release and then bitch and moan about it. That's probably why desktop Linux has failed really. They even started compiling up PulseAudio and thought it was a good idea to throw that in which was a far worse decision than including KDE 4.0. Jesus, not even communication with spacecraft has as much latency as PA. Alas, that's why I run OS X with a decent sound subsystem and CoreAudio. I have no desire to do the distributors' jobs for them and compile in a kernel with Open Sound System support.
It's their loss frankly. They're trying to create a cross-platform app in Chrome that is effectively rewritten for each platform. The net effect of that will be what happened to Firefox's ports - the Windows port was the best, followed by OS X and then Linux stuck on as an afterthought. Take a look at Eclipse and SWT as well - Windows port first, everything second. They then have a recreate all the cross-platform glue that Qt already has.
Release early release often. Jesus, how do you think something gets stabilised in the open source world unless it is released? People and distributors then make a decision to use it or not. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Really. You're also going to have to quanitify 'stability'.
Probably because it's more than just a desktop?
Windows to Gnome?! I think users are wise enough to know how much less they can do with Gnome versus Windows when they try it, and the application base around Gnome that was built largely with venture capital money and a large following wind, while other desktops just made life easy for developers, is simply crumbling away. It's a shell rather than a desktop really. Users want features, functionality and applications to get things done, and pretending that you don't have them because it makes things 'simple' is the most braindead thing you can do in software.
All the 'Enterprise Desktop' vendors we were told about over the past decade have had ample time, money and resources to turn Gnome (their confidently proclaimed 'default' desktop) into something credible versus desktops like Windows and OS X. I think the penny should have dropped by now that they've failed completely. Windows moved ahead graphically and aesthetically with Vista and 7, OS X has done the same and KDE is the only open source desktop that has even remotely managed to keep up.
I think you need to leave the DistroWatch hype behind mate. Canonical have yet to make any money whatsoever yet, yet alone having enough to bid for a company several times its size and value.
Limewire has been around for years and they've only now just got around to trying to close the thing down?