Like any fanatic, you are utterly convinced _you_ have the truth and nobody that disagrees with you can be right. Pathetic. You are dead wrong though, no surprise.
It is a poor craftsman that blames his tools. And that is what is going on here.
The demented belief in finding just the one true tool that will make everything better (but never does) is as old as coding. There is no silver bullet.
You fail on multiple levels here (no surprise): - The article is only about MS bugs, not general ones - A number like 70% is meaningless. At the very least a full classification as to ease-of-finding, ease-of-exploitation, access gained, etc. is needed instead. - I do not do "ideology", I do facts. The ideology is with you people and your current great thing is nowhere near as good as you believe - If you shift languages, you just get more bugs in other areas with bad developers, neatly removing all of your argument's basis
Seriously, you have no place in this discussion. You lack both fundamental insight and experience.
Containers work for those that are insecure in the area of system administration. That they have to maintain every individual container now and an additional layer that can be attacked escapes them.
You seem to be unaware of the scales here: A typical Linux distro will have > 1000 applications. MS does not even make that many. And no, it is not all memory safety. This is an MS issue.
The ideology here is with the Rust fanatics that completely ignore that developer quality is critical, regardless of language. While C does allow you to do a lot of dangerous things, a modern compiler will warn you and a competent developer will know how to avoid most of them. The memory problems in C are a symptom, not a root cause and that is what you people consistently get wrong.
And in addition, many alcoholics are dangerous to others, both by direct violence and by things like drunk driving. Alcohol kills and harms a lot of others that have no problem with it themselves. Opioids do not have that effect.
I agree. As to the psychological addiction part, that is probably part of the personality and cannot be solved, ever. It also works for sugar, for example. The solution is simple: Just make sure the side-effects of the addiction are still acceptable. If somebody really wants to spend all their time in an altered state, nothing can really be done about that.
An exotic example does not make a valid argument here. Incidentally, this will often be interbank agent owned software that they developed in-house and that is a trade secret. You only get the client side or the interface spec and that you may not even be able to buy.
Incidentally, Heroin of standardized, medical quality will also not "unexpectedly kill you" and if it is readily available and cheap will not "lead to extremely harmful behavior". The thing that may do both is Alcohol.
I think the reasons why it has not happened are purely ideological: There is a class of authoritarian religious fuckup that does not want people to have any fun except in prayer. They tried to ban alcohol as well and we all know how well that turned out. And, unfortunately, these people are powerful enough to prevent research globally. Well, for all I know, there are drugs like you describe tested and ready to be manufactured, but they are being kept secret because of the crusade going on.
Wong. You have read the propaganda fueling the insane "war on drugs", but you have not read any actual _medical_ texts on its _medical_ effects. Sure, lethal dose and dose that has the desired effects are not that far removed from each other. But the same is true for Paracetamol, for example. This is not a rare thing in medicine at all and all it requires to fix is standardized quality and general, legal availability (to prevent people from mixing insufficient quantities with other stuff that they normally would not use). There are pretty old and rock-solid studies by the WHO that finds Alcohol much more damaging, dangerous and more of a killer than Heroin. The whole thing is a religious war, not a rational one. There would not be more addicts if the stuff were legal and safer alternatives were under research and available at low cost. That is just a myth spread by the authoritarian religious fanatics that want to decide what people can and cannot have. These that want their addiction will have, the others will stay away. If you cannot prevent it (and there is absolutely no indication that it can be prevented or even significantly reduced), reduce the harm it does. And the cost to society of the war on drugs, in addition to the cost to many individuals, is extreme.
Wrong. That is not what I believe or what I said. Opioid addiction is a serious illness with strong side-effects. However it is generally not a lethal one and people generally stay reasonably functional when they have it. The lethal effect comes primarily from unsafe drugs from the black market, high prices leading to crime and inability to maintain reasonable standards of living, including food quality and medical care. In other words (and I am just repeating the relevant and quite old research here), most harm is caused by the utterly immoral and despicable war in drugs and would be entirely preventable. Add a modern version of the drugs (research needed) that reduces negative effects and the whole thing may not be worse than smoking or alcohol.
Sure, everyday insanity that is prevalent in software selection, but insanity nonetheless. The waste of money and the sheer dependency on a single or small number of companies is not acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
Like any fanatic, you are utterly convinced _you_ have the truth and nobody that disagrees with you can be right. Pathetic. You are dead wrong though, no surprise.
I don't think you can mitigate that fallibility. You can only try to get humans that have mostly overcome it in the desired application domain.
P.S.: No. Why do you ask? I am not even driving a car because I know I am a bad driver.
It is a poor craftsman that blames his tools. And that is what is going on here.
The demented belief in finding just the one true tool that will make everything better (but never does) is as old as coding. There is no silver bullet.
You fail on multiple levels here (no surprise):
- The article is only about MS bugs, not general ones
- A number like 70% is meaningless. At the very least a full classification as to ease-of-finding, ease-of-exploitation, access gained, etc. is needed instead.
- I do not do "ideology", I do facts. The ideology is with you people and your current great thing is nowhere near as good as you believe
- If you shift languages, you just get more bugs in other areas with bad developers, neatly removing all of your argument's basis
Seriously, you have no place in this discussion. You lack both fundamental insight and experience.
Hahahaha, nice! Pretty true also.
Containers work for those that are insecure in the area of system administration. That they have to maintain every individual container now and an additional layer that can be attacked escapes them.
Those idiots. Tools will never fix bad coders.
You seem to be unaware of the scales here: A typical Linux distro will have > 1000 applications. MS does not even make that many. And no, it is not all memory safety. This is an MS issue.
The ideology here is with the Rust fanatics that completely ignore that developer quality is critical, regardless of language. While C does allow you to do a lot of dangerous things, a modern compiler will warn you and a competent developer will know how to avoid most of them. The memory problems in C are a symptom, not a root cause and that is what you people consistently get wrong.
As MS keeps their failings a trade-secret, nobody besides MS can have evidence. But their products pretty much speak for themselves.
That is more on the architecture and design side, but definitely has a huge impact on overall quality.
If you have good coders, this is pretty much a non-issue. The problem is that MS software is written by the cheapest incompetents available.
I am sure they were aware. They likely just badly misjudged the typical quality of coders.
Why they do not have that under control is puzzling. Well, not really, this is MS, after all.
And in addition, many alcoholics are dangerous to others, both by direct violence and by things like drunk driving. Alcohol kills and harms a lot of others that have no problem with it themselves. Opioids do not have that effect.
I agree. As to the psychological addiction part, that is probably part of the personality and cannot be solved, ever. It also works for sugar, for example. The solution is simple: Just make sure the side-effects of the addiction are still acceptable. If somebody really wants to spend all their time in an altered state, nothing can really be done about that.
An exotic example does not make a valid argument here. Incidentally, this will often be interbank agent owned software that they developed in-house and that is a trade secret. You only get the client side or the interface spec and that you may not even be able to buy.
Incidentally, Heroin of standardized, medical quality will also not "unexpectedly kill you" and if it is readily available and cheap will not "lead to extremely harmful behavior". The thing that may do both is Alcohol.
I think the reasons why it has not happened are purely ideological: There is a class of authoritarian religious fuckup that does not want people to have any fun except in prayer. They tried to ban alcohol as well and we all know how well that turned out. And, unfortunately, these people are powerful enough to prevent research globally. Well, for all I know, there are drugs like you describe tested and ready to be manufactured, but they are being kept secret because of the crusade going on.
Wong. You have read the propaganda fueling the insane "war on drugs", but you have not read any actual _medical_ texts on its _medical_ effects. Sure, lethal dose and dose that has the desired effects are not that far removed from each other. But the same is true for Paracetamol, for example. This is not a rare thing in medicine at all and all it requires to fix is standardized quality and general, legal availability (to prevent people from mixing insufficient quantities with other stuff that they normally would not use). There are pretty old and rock-solid studies by the WHO that finds Alcohol much more damaging, dangerous and more of a killer than Heroin. The whole thing is a religious war, not a rational one. There would not be more addicts if the stuff were legal and safer alternatives were under research and available at low cost. That is just a myth spread by the authoritarian religious fanatics that want to decide what people can and cannot have. These that want their addiction will have, the others will stay away. If you cannot prevent it (and there is absolutely no indication that it can be prevented or even significantly reduced), reduce the harm it does. And the cost to society of the war on drugs, in addition to the cost to many individuals, is extreme.
Wrong. That is not what I believe or what I said. Opioid addiction is a serious illness with strong side-effects. However it is generally not a lethal one and people generally stay reasonably functional when they have it. The lethal effect comes primarily from unsafe drugs from the black market, high prices leading to crime and inability to maintain reasonable standards of living, including food quality and medical care. In other words (and I am just repeating the relevant and quite old research here), most harm is caused by the utterly immoral and despicable war in drugs and would be entirely preventable. Add a modern version of the drugs (research needed) that reduces negative effects and the whole thing may not be worse than smoking or alcohol.
You seem to have a reading problem. What did I just write?
That is nonsense. Nonsense often repeated, but still untrue.
Sure, everyday insanity that is prevalent in software selection, but insanity nonetheless. The waste of money and the sheer dependency on a single or small number of companies is not acceptable.
Well, some things are not critical, true. But imagine what non-available web or email does to a modern economy if it last more than a day or so.