For those wondering how to pronounce "Viiv", the article states that it rhymes with "five".
I can see that name causing much confusion. Imagine a granny at an electronics boutique asking how much one of these "Veevee" systems costs. The salespeople may very well not understand what she's asking about.
Today has been declared Talliwhacker Tuesday! Everyone who is capable of obtaining and maintaining an erection shall stroke it to the point of ejaculation.
Alas, I cannot participate, as I suffer from severe impotency.
The Google search they performed has nothing to do with indicating the quantity of sales. They don't even claim that it does! They use the search more to show how quickly the new term "Cyber Monday" has spread.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the sales data is based on non-Google research.
I found that using KDE vastly increased my productivity.
I used to use Enlightenment and a mix of Mozilla, XFMail, OpenOffice, and a variety of other random programs. But then I took a week and learned how to effectively use KDE. It's very well integrated, and that level of integration pays off. Once you learn how one application works, the others become quite intuitive.
I also found it to be far more responsive, too. Konqueror flies like a bullet, and KMail is quite swift. The best part is that KDE keeps getting better. Every new release brings substantial improvements. And those are improvements and innovations upon what is already extremely usable! The great keep getting better, it would seem.
If they didn't test it on a carpeted surface (which is an obvious place where it may often be used), then perhaps some heads should roll. The power engineer in charge of testing should most likely be disciplined, for instance.
If you have an Xbox 360, read the label of power supply. Post who manufactures it, and where it was manufactured. Perhaps there are other consumer devices that use power supplies from the same manufacturer that we should check for overheating.
I don't use Microsoft software at all, but I also like to see some degree of honesty when discussing them.
First of all, they existed long before getting involved with IBM. I'm not sure if you realized that or not.
Second of all, they didn't "manipulate" IBM. IBM was the premiere computer company at the time. They knew what they were purchasing from Microsoft.
Using your faulty logic, it would be quite easy to suggest that Google is manipulating everyone by being "nice". But that's just putting too much thought into it. They just do what will result in the largest financial returns. If being "nice" is what will benefit them the most, then that is what they do.
It's that sort of an attitude which leads to the problems that I encountered with Fedora Core. You consider my claims "crap", even though I ran into corrupt packages when trying to install Fedora. A real problem arose, yet you do not want to accept it.
I wish I had written down the names of the packages that were corrupt. However, I was so livid at the time that I didn't bother to, and instead used Ubuntu (which worked perfectly, I may add). The Ubuntu developers, maintainers and user community is far nicer and more helpful, I may add. They don't have the ego problem that is prevalent in the Fedora community.
How exactly are you going to "play dirty" with Microsoft?
And will your "playing dirty" result in better open source software? I doubt it. That's why it is probably best for the community to just continue producing superior products, and eventually people will migrate the to the best (and likely open source) products.
It has nothing to do with validating the input from the user. The problem is with the database altering data that may be completely valid, thus potentially invalidating it!
Note that people have run into similar problems with numerous different releases of FC. There are serious quality problems with Fedora, like it or not.
I thought it might be that particular CD writer, too, so I used a different system to burn the second set of CDs. I even used a different brand of CD-Rs, just to be safe. Considering that I have used those same burners for burning numerous other distributions to disk, always without problem, I would tend to blame Fedora for the problems.
I considered filing a bug report, but then I decided not to. If they're going to put out a distribution with corrupt RPMs, I'm not going to waste my time with them at all, be it as a user or helping them fix bugs. I used Ubuntu instead, and did not have any problems.
So, had you read my post, you would have seen I downloaded them again. I did that on a completely different computer than I used for the first set of downloads and CD burns. The second set of downloads were from a different mirror, and hard drive they were stored to the second time around was different, and the CD writer used to burn them was different. I even went out of my way to select a different brand of CDs, thinking that might be the problem. The downloaded images checksummed too, it should be noted.
Also, I used my original system to download and burn the Ubuntu disc which I have since used. And it worked perfectly fine. No corrupt packages!
The truth of the matter is that, like it or not, the Fedora images contained corrupt packages. And when it comes down to it, that's very unprofessional. Such a distribution is just not suitable for serious work.
Unlike you, I listen to my clients. If they suggest something, and it sounds reasonable (such as using Fedora to replace an existing Debian installation), then I will consider it.
I had been expecting FC4 to work. Of course, when I ran into those problems my reaction was to not use it, just because the quality was so lacking. Had you read my post, you would have seen that we found these problems while testing the viability of Fedora Core. Indeed, Fedora made it nowhere near their production systems.
As for your last comment, this isn't a matter of me being unfamiliar with Fedora. The problem was the corrupted packages on the installation CDs. That's a problem with the distribution itself, not a problem with how it is used. It's flawed because the data was corrupt.
Perhaps you've had good experiences with Fedora Core. I have not, and that is why I question what that site says.
One client had an existing Debian setup on fairly common PC hardware. They wanted to transition to FC4, after hearing about how great it was. So I attempted to install it on one of their experimental servers. The installer started bitching about corrupt packages. I assumed at first that I had gotten bad images, so I downloaded the images from another mirror onto another computer (in order to use a different CD writer), verified the checksums, and burned them again. So I try again, and off it goes, bitching about corrupt packages once more.
At that point I had to tell my client about the problems with Fedora Core 4. We agreed to give Ubuntu 5.04 a try, and it worked fine. We have since transitioned all their servers to Ubuntu, and they have been working fine for a while now. Hence it was not a problem with the hardware, but apparently a problem with the Fedora images.
At the very least I expected the CD images to contain usable packages. It truly made me doubt the quality of the entire Fedora project when I ran into those troubles. As such, I don't think I'll ever be able to recommend its use to clients, unfortunately. I'm considering giving FC5 a try once it's released, but I'm not sure if it'd be worth it, considering that Ubuntu and Debian have always worked far better for me.
The point is that the release hasn't been made.
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
The point is, regardless of what the webpage says, that the release has not been made. That fact has been confirmed by one of the most regal GCC developers.
Re:Do they really take security seriously?
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
The problem is obviously not with the Hardened PHP project contributing their work. The problem is that the developers of PHP appear to be unable to include basic security functionality into PHP themselves, and thus must resort to having 3rd party developers do the work they should be able to (but apparently cannot) do.
Do they really take security seriously?
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
It strikes me as odd to suggest that they take security seriously, yet it will take them to version 6 to get something that is remotely becoming secure. Not only that, but it sounds like they've had to take such security enhancements from the Hardened-PHP project, rather than implementing it on their own.
Re:Great, now what about hosting companies
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you want cutting edge, then you'll most likely need to run your own server.
Serious hosting companies just can't risk running software that hasn't been widely tested. While there may be benefits from running the new versions of PHP, for instance, it could be a disaster if a security flaw leads to their servers being compromised. An incident like that could financially destroy a small- or medium-sized hosting company. At least the older versions of PHP have undergone more testing than the newer releases.
A lot of people who criticize MySQL have directly used MySQL. What we've found is that for lighter tasks (such as many webpages), SQLite often works quite well. And once/if you need a database system that's more capable, it's best just to move to PostgreSQL.
The recent Oracle/InnoDB and MySQL AB/SCO debacles have also made many potential MySQL users weary. There are many users who are now questioning how viable MySQL will be in the near future, both from a technical standpoint with regards to the InnoDB purchase by Oracle, and from a legal standpoint concerning their dealings with SCO. SQLite and PostgreSQL do not suffer from such unknowns.
Backgrounds of the PHP developers.
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
What are the backgrounds of the main PHP developers? Do any of them have any serious credentials, or even background in language design at a graduate level, for instance?
One thing I find about PHP is that, rightly or wrongly, we always hear about how it's quite lacking as a language. Could that be because it is designed by people who have very little experience designing modern programming languages?
Slashdot Mirror
Is this more just an effort to create a standardized DRM platform?
Indeed, the financial benefits for both TiVo and Intel could be significant, especially if the entertainment industry gets on board.
For those wondering how to pronounce "Viiv", the article states that it rhymes with "five".
I can see that name causing much confusion. Imagine a granny at an electronics boutique asking how much one of these "Veevee" systems costs. The salespeople may very well not understand what she's asking about.
What about the rumours that Intel-based Mac Minis, possibly available as early as January, will offer similar capabilities?
Today has been declared Talliwhacker Tuesday! Everyone who is capable of obtaining and maintaining an erection shall stroke it to the point of ejaculation.
Alas, I cannot participate, as I suffer from severe impotency.
Oh fuck! I just missed Cyber Monday!
The Google search they performed has nothing to do with indicating the quantity of sales. They don't even claim that it does! They use the search more to show how quickly the new term "Cyber Monday" has spread.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the sales data is based on non-Google research.
I found that using KDE vastly increased my productivity.
I used to use Enlightenment and a mix of Mozilla, XFMail, OpenOffice, and a variety of other random programs. But then I took a week and learned how to effectively use KDE. It's very well integrated, and that level of integration pays off. Once you learn how one application works, the others become quite intuitive.
I also found it to be far more responsive, too. Konqueror flies like a bullet, and KMail is quite swift. The best part is that KDE keeps getting better. Every new release brings substantial improvements. And those are improvements and innovations upon what is already extremely usable! The great keep getting better, it would seem.
If they didn't test it on a carpeted surface (which is an obvious place where it may often be used), then perhaps some heads should roll. The power engineer in charge of testing should most likely be disciplined, for instance.
If you have an Xbox 360, read the label of power supply. Post who manufactures it, and where it was manufactured. Perhaps there are other consumer devices that use power supplies from the same manufacturer that we should check for overheating.
I don't use Microsoft software at all, but I also like to see some degree of honesty when discussing them.
First of all, they existed long before getting involved with IBM. I'm not sure if you realized that or not.
Second of all, they didn't "manipulate" IBM. IBM was the premiere computer company at the time. They knew what they were purchasing from Microsoft.
Using your faulty logic, it would be quite easy to suggest that Google is manipulating everyone by being "nice". But that's just putting too much thought into it. They just do what will result in the largest financial returns. If being "nice" is what will benefit them the most, then that is what they do.
It's that sort of an attitude which leads to the problems that I encountered with Fedora Core. You consider my claims "crap", even though I ran into corrupt packages when trying to install Fedora. A real problem arose, yet you do not want to accept it.
I wish I had written down the names of the packages that were corrupt. However, I was so livid at the time that I didn't bother to, and instead used Ubuntu (which worked perfectly, I may add). The Ubuntu developers, maintainers and user community is far nicer and more helpful, I may add. They don't have the ego problem that is prevalent in the Fedora community.
How exactly are you going to "play dirty" with Microsoft?
And will your "playing dirty" result in better open source software? I doubt it. That's why it is probably best for the community to just continue producing superior products, and eventually people will migrate the to the best (and likely open source) products.
The term is "oligopolies", not "ogliopolies".
Ouch. I'm sorry that you had to develop with Java.
It has nothing to do with validating the input from the user. The problem is with the database altering data that may be completely valid, thus potentially invalidating it!
I'm not the only one who has run into problems with corrupt Fedora Core packages on the installation CDs:
e _frm/thread/6f2c0e2a969d5929/l l/browse_frm/thread/b359bb48f7c60017/e _frm/thread/c53d572d41d7a1bd/
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.redhat/brows
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.redhat.insta
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.redhat/brows
Note that people have run into similar problems with numerous different releases of FC. There are serious quality problems with Fedora, like it or not.
I thought it might be that particular CD writer, too, so I used a different system to burn the second set of CDs. I even used a different brand of CD-Rs, just to be safe. Considering that I have used those same burners for burning numerous other distributions to disk, always without problem, I would tend to blame Fedora for the problems.
I considered filing a bug report, but then I decided not to. If they're going to put out a distribution with corrupt RPMs, I'm not going to waste my time with them at all, be it as a user or helping them fix bugs. I used Ubuntu instead, and did not have any problems.
That's what I thought, too.
So, had you read my post, you would have seen I downloaded them again. I did that on a completely different computer than I used for the first set of downloads and CD burns. The second set of downloads were from a different mirror, and hard drive they were stored to the second time around was different, and the CD writer used to burn them was different. I even went out of my way to select a different brand of CDs, thinking that might be the problem. The downloaded images checksummed too, it should be noted.
Also, I used my original system to download and burn the Ubuntu disc which I have since used. And it worked perfectly fine. No corrupt packages!
The truth of the matter is that, like it or not, the Fedora images contained corrupt packages. And when it comes down to it, that's very unprofessional. Such a distribution is just not suitable for serious work.
Unlike you, I listen to my clients. If they suggest something, and it sounds reasonable (such as using Fedora to replace an existing Debian installation), then I will consider it.
I had been expecting FC4 to work. Of course, when I ran into those problems my reaction was to not use it, just because the quality was so lacking. Had you read my post, you would have seen that we found these problems while testing the viability of Fedora Core. Indeed, Fedora made it nowhere near their production systems.
As for your last comment, this isn't a matter of me being unfamiliar with Fedora. The problem was the corrupted packages on the installation CDs. That's a problem with the distribution itself, not a problem with how it is used. It's flawed because the data was corrupt.
Perhaps you've had good experiences with Fedora Core. I have not, and that is why I question what that site says.
One client had an existing Debian setup on fairly common PC hardware. They wanted to transition to FC4, after hearing about how great it was. So I attempted to install it on one of their experimental servers. The installer started bitching about corrupt packages. I assumed at first that I had gotten bad images, so I downloaded the images from another mirror onto another computer (in order to use a different CD writer), verified the checksums, and burned them again. So I try again, and off it goes, bitching about corrupt packages once more.
At that point I had to tell my client about the problems with Fedora Core 4. We agreed to give Ubuntu 5.04 a try, and it worked fine. We have since transitioned all their servers to Ubuntu, and they have been working fine for a while now. Hence it was not a problem with the hardware, but apparently a problem with the Fedora images.
At the very least I expected the CD images to contain usable packages. It truly made me doubt the quality of the entire Fedora project when I ran into those troubles. As such, I don't think I'll ever be able to recommend its use to clients, unfortunately. I'm considering giving FC5 a try once it's released, but I'm not sure if it'd be worth it, considering that Ubuntu and Debian have always worked far better for me.
The point is, regardless of what the webpage says, that the release has not been made. That fact has been confirmed by one of the most regal GCC developers.
The problem is obviously not with the Hardened PHP project contributing their work. The problem is that the developers of PHP appear to be unable to include basic security functionality into PHP themselves, and thus must resort to having 3rd party developers do the work they should be able to (but apparently cannot) do.
It strikes me as odd to suggest that they take security seriously, yet it will take them to version 6 to get something that is remotely becoming secure. Not only that, but it sounds like they've had to take such security enhancements from the Hardened-PHP project, rather than implementing it on their own.
If you want cutting edge, then you'll most likely need to run your own server.
Serious hosting companies just can't risk running software that hasn't been widely tested. While there may be benefits from running the new versions of PHP, for instance, it could be a disaster if a security flaw leads to their servers being compromised. An incident like that could financially destroy a small- or medium-sized hosting company. At least the older versions of PHP have undergone more testing than the newer releases.
A lot of people who criticize MySQL have directly used MySQL. What we've found is that for lighter tasks (such as many webpages), SQLite often works quite well. And once/if you need a database system that's more capable, it's best just to move to PostgreSQL.
The recent Oracle/InnoDB and MySQL AB/SCO debacles have also made many potential MySQL users weary. There are many users who are now questioning how viable MySQL will be in the near future, both from a technical standpoint with regards to the InnoDB purchase by Oracle, and from a legal standpoint concerning their dealings with SCO. SQLite and PostgreSQL do not suffer from such unknowns.
What are the backgrounds of the main PHP developers? Do any of them have any serious credentials, or even background in language design at a graduate level, for instance?
One thing I find about PHP is that, rightly or wrongly, we always hear about how it's quite lacking as a language. Could that be because it is designed by people who have very little experience designing modern programming languages?