1) Microsoft has had numerous cannonicalization issues in the past
2) Microsoft has a Trusted Computing focus now, the ostensible purpose of which is to make their products more secure
3) Given 1) and 2), Microsoft should have concentrated extra testing in the specific area in which this bug occurs.
Point 3 is derived from a principle called learning from one's mistakes. If you repeatedly screw up something, and want to stop screwing it up, you look at what you screwed up and work extra hard to prevent that.
Kindly pay attention if you're going to comment. The post answers this "point" fairly simply. Yes, software has flaws. However, if you've encountered a flaw in the software you produce in the past, it makes sense to note that fact and pay special attention to it.
Microsoft has had issues with cannonicalization in the past, several times. Given that history, it speaks poorly of their development practices that they've once again produced a product with the same flaw as before.
By way of analogy, lets say you have an issue with the widget you make - when left near open flame, it explodes. Now, being that your product is generally used in fireplaces, this is something of a problem. After several incidents where this problem crops up, you finally manage to provide a doodad for your widget that prevents the explosion issue. Good. Now, you've created and are marketing your spiffy new super-mega-ultra-widget. In preparing to release the product, might it not make sense to make sure that it doesn't explode when left near open flame?
You know, even "5 line patch" says to me "We got bitten in the ass by a bug we've been bitten in the ass by numerous times in the past, and our core web framework is affected."
It's not the first time they've had a cannonicalization issue. It greatly diminishes my confidence in their product, if only because this indicates they didn't think to focus testing on an area which has presented security issues for them in the past.
Yes, the fix is small; the point would be, however you feel religiously about.NET and the company that produces it, that the flaw should never have been there. They should have worked to cover their flank in a previously sensitive area. That they havent indicates that their new focus on Trustworthy Computing is largely meaningless.
Jeez, someone, click on the fuckin link in the post with his name. He's not a Unix co-creator. He worked a lot on Plan 9, and wrote a bitmap windowing system for Unix. But he's not a Unix co-creator. The creators of Unix are Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, Mr. Pike, you aren't a Unix co-creator. Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson are the co-creators of Unix. If my very quick Google research serves, you joined Bell Labs in 1980 and worked a lot on Plan 9 and the first Bitmap window system for Unix.
Go take a look at the initialization subsystem of any modern Unix (or Linux). Go take a look at how you start X. It's startling how much of Unix is driven by Borne (or Korn or C) shell scripts. Perl's ok, I guess, but it's very definitely not the glue that holds Unix together.
Who gives a shit what Ballmer thinks? Of course he's gonna talk shit about his competition, of course he's gonna say that the Microsoft way is the only way. It's his job.
Meanwhile, Apple has a decent lead in the online music market, their hardware is selling rather well, and their stuff works. Who cares what he has to say, as long as its empty crap talk? When he's presenting a concrete business product, let me know. Otherwise, you're just flamebaiting.
I read the press release, and they made reference to integrating the products into the Open Source Architecture, but they don't actually come out and say, "we're gonna make it [insert favorite license here]."
Also, is there any reference documentation for the Open Source Architecture? I'd love it, cause as it stands, sometimes open sources like a disorganized mess.
That's not interesting, that's cliche. People have been saying that for years. Let's be honest: virtual machines are where business code is going, and business code (enterprise applications, server side stuff, etc) is the primary focus of Java these days..NET is a clear indication that this trend is a real one, and that that's where the industry is heading.
No, I don't think you should write ls or grep in Java. However, I'd say that you also shouldn't be writing an invoice processing system in C or C ++.
I think the package system in (Free)BSD is great. It's real simple (pkg_{add|delete|info} [filename]), and has never given me any problems. As for your kernel, my PPro200 (single processor) machine takes about 20 min to compile my 4.0 current kernel, so I suspect you're doing something wrong.
The guy was a suspect, and was released after a more accurate test showed him not to match the DNA from the criminal. These kinds of problems actually happen with fingerprints too, as for purposes of searching the databases they only use something like 29 features of the fingerprints for matching by computer, then use humans to make exact matches.
That said, even if he had been convicted, this one case in 37 millions doesn't even begin to compare in magnitude to the number of people who have been wrongly convicted by eyewitnesses and the like.
One thing that has been little discussed is the nature of the actual decision by the judge. Searches of private property by employers aside, the decision was made in the context of a lawsuit by the company against one of it's unions. The specific intent of the search was to find people who were responsible for organizing a sick out at the airline (the union in court denied that there was an organized sickout, just that a large number of employees happened to call in sick on a given day).
The bill of rights gives protection to speech, but the protections given are generally interpreted in a limited sense. There are the obvious examples of limitations, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater, libel/slander, criminal collusion, etc. Generally, political and religious speech are very protected, but advertising speech, say, is much less so.
I am not very familiar with the legal precidents regarding the freedoms (or lack thereof) which employees have when discussing their employers or their employment outside of the workplace. It would not suprise me, however, if the rights of the employee are far less broad than the average person might imagine. It should be remembered that legal prescident is very important in the interpretation of things like this, as it as much as our law and our constitution, governs the ruling of judges in these matters.
If there's a lawyer in the audience, with any understanding of how these things work, I think a post about this (perhaps even a whole story) would be very educational and useful to the community at large.
not much info about the chip
on
K8 Details
·
· Score: 1
is it going to be 32 or 64 bit? And will be 18-micron?
I think humans are infinitely scaleable. I think we are naturally technological creatures, and I think the instruments we create are part of the natural cycle of human life. We don't typically think about it this way, but every tool we use is a technological implement of some type, from the fork to the PC. And not merely is our technological advance limited to physical implements. A significant part of human progress is refining intellectual tools, such as logic, languages, and conceptual structures. Such intangible advances have made the "real" ones possible. It's the nature of human being to progress outward towards greater intellectual and "spiritual" capacity (smell a Hegelian here?). I think we've always been inseparable from our technological instruments, and it's only a matter of time before the mechanical devices we create become physically (eventually, intellectually) integrated into ourselves.
I've actually done several installations of win2k, with several versions of the OS (from NT5.0 B1 to Win2k RC1). It's slow. However, it's impressive for a two reasons: 1) It does everything. Well, too. It detected old, wierd hardware, as well as newer hardware, and installed it correctly. It asks you very few questions, and yet doesn't do everything wrong. 2) It does upgrades. I've always had problems getting upgrades of MS OSes to work right; the resulting systems end up mangled, or at best, mysteriously unstable (over and above baseline MS instability). Win2k RC1 did flawless upgrades of 95 and NT4 for me. Some applications won't work right, but they are coded to check for NT4 or 95/8. Plus, on fresh installs, the irritating inability to make formatted partitions over 4 GB during install is gone. As for ease of installation compared to Linux (say RH or SuSE), sure it's easier. No user intervention is required, so what's easier than doing nothing? Linux installs are currently oriented towards people who understand things about how a computer works, things which basic Windows users don't know cause they don't ususally need to, like how to partition drives, etc. That stuff isn't tough, but average compuphobic/computer illiterate users will get freaked out.
I think the last paragraph is a giveaway - "Even without this kind of posturing, some resellers say they find the notion of a religious operating system to be offensive. To quote one anonymous reseller, 'Yup. Linux is officially a religion now. What's next, crucifixion of NT users?'" The fabricated anonymous quote is a classic device is yellow journalism. Bet they created the page and all. Much cleverer than I'd have given them credit for.
And the poem itself has a nice thick veneer of christianity. The monsters Beowulf goes kicking the crap out of (and ultimately gets beaten down by) are the God-damned descendents of Cain. A shining example of an early Chrisitan hero.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, let's review:
1) Microsoft has had numerous cannonicalization issues in the past
2) Microsoft has a Trusted Computing focus now, the ostensible purpose of which is to make their products more secure
3) Given 1) and 2), Microsoft should have concentrated extra testing in the specific area in which this bug occurs.
Point 3 is derived from a principle called learning from one's mistakes. If you repeatedly screw up something, and want to stop screwing it up, you look at what you screwed up and work extra hard to prevent that.
Kindly pay attention if you're going to comment. The post answers this "point" fairly simply. Yes, software has flaws. However, if you've encountered a flaw in the software you produce in the past, it makes sense to note that fact and pay special attention to it.
Microsoft has had issues with cannonicalization in the past, several times. Given that history, it speaks poorly of their development practices that they've once again produced a product with the same flaw as before.
By way of analogy, lets say you have an issue with the widget you make - when left near open flame, it explodes. Now, being that your product is generally used in fireplaces, this is something of a problem. After several incidents where this problem crops up, you finally manage to provide a doodad for your widget that prevents the explosion issue. Good. Now, you've created and are marketing your spiffy new super-mega-ultra-widget. In preparing to release the product, might it not make sense to make sure that it doesn't explode when left near open flame?
You know, even "5 line patch" says to me "We got bitten in the ass by a bug we've been bitten in the ass by numerous times in the past, and our core web framework is affected."
.NET and the company that produces it, that the flaw should never have been there. They should have worked to cover their flank in a previously sensitive area. That they havent indicates that their new focus on Trustworthy Computing is largely meaningless.
It's not the first time they've had a cannonicalization issue. It greatly diminishes my confidence in their product, if only because this indicates they didn't think to focus testing on an area which has presented security issues for them in the past.
Yes, the fix is small; the point would be, however you feel religiously about
Jeez, someone, click on the fuckin link in the post with his name. He's not a Unix co-creator. He worked a lot on Plan 9, and wrote a bitmap windowing system for Unix. But he's not a Unix co-creator. The creators of Unix are Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, Mr. Pike, you aren't a Unix co-creator. Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson are the co-creators of Unix. If my very quick Google research serves, you joined Bell Labs in 1980 and worked a lot on Plan 9 and the first Bitmap window system for Unix.
So why is Roblimo wrong?
Pardon my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson created Unix (Unics), on disused hardware at Bell Labs.
Am I incorrect in this belief? Someone, kindly, clarify the matter.
Go take a look at the initialization subsystem of any modern Unix (or Linux). Go take a look at how you start X. It's startling how much of Unix is driven by Borne (or Korn or C) shell scripts. Perl's ok, I guess, but it's very definitely not the glue that holds Unix together.
That's impressive. Of course, since it's total system wattage, it'd be nice to have some information about disk usage over the period of time, etc.
I like, though, that the 130nm Athlon 64 is still better than the 90nm P4. It might just be time to buy another desktop.
Who gives a shit what Ballmer thinks? Of course he's gonna talk shit about his competition, of course he's gonna say that the Microsoft way is the only way. It's his job.
Meanwhile, Apple has a decent lead in the online music market, their hardware is selling rather well, and their stuff works. Who cares what he has to say, as long as its empty crap talk? When he's presenting a concrete business product, let me know. Otherwise, you're just flamebaiting.
I read the press release, and they made reference to integrating the products into the Open Source Architecture, but they don't actually come out and say, "we're gonna make it [insert favorite license here]."
Also, is there any reference documentation for the Open Source Architecture? I'd love it, cause as it stands, sometimes open sources like a disorganized mess.
That's not interesting, that's cliche. People have been saying that for years. Let's be honest: virtual machines are where business code is going, and business code (enterprise applications, server side stuff, etc) is the primary focus of Java these days. .NET is a clear indication that this trend is a real one, and that that's where the industry is heading.
No, I don't think you should write ls or grep in Java. However, I'd say that you also shouldn't be writing an invoice processing system in C or C ++.
I think the package system in (Free)BSD is great. It's real simple (pkg_{add|delete|info} [filename]), and has never given me any problems. As for your kernel, my PPro200 (single processor) machine takes about 20 min to compile my 4.0 current kernel, so I suspect you're doing something wrong.
of the failures they mention, how many are hardware related issues.
The guy was a suspect, and was released after a more accurate test showed him not to match the DNA from the
criminal. These kinds of problems actually happen with
fingerprints too, as for purposes of searching the databases
they only use something like 29 features of the fingerprints
for matching by computer, then use humans to make exact matches.
That said, even if he had been convicted, this one case
in 37 millions doesn't even begin to compare in magnitude
to the number of people who have been wrongly convicted
by eyewitnesses and the like.
One thing that has been little discussed is the nature
of the actual decision by the judge. Searches of private
property by employers aside, the decision was made in the
context of a lawsuit by the company against one of it's
unions. The specific intent of the search was to find
people who were responsible for organizing a sick out
at the airline (the union in court denied that there was
an organized sickout, just that a large number of employees
happened to call in sick on a given day).
The bill of rights gives protection to speech, but the
protections given are generally interpreted in a limited
sense. There are the obvious examples of limitations,
such as shouting fire in a crowded theater, libel/slander,
criminal collusion, etc. Generally, political and religious
speech are very protected, but advertising speech, say,
is much less so.
I am not very familiar with the legal precidents regarding
the freedoms (or lack thereof) which employees have when
discussing their employers or their employment outside of
the workplace. It would not suprise me, however, if the
rights of the employee are far less broad than the average
person might imagine. It should be remembered that legal
prescident is very important in the interpretation of
things like this, as it as much as our law and our
constitution, governs the ruling of judges in these matters.
If there's a lawyer in the audience, with any understanding
of how these things work, I think a post about this (perhaps
even a whole story) would be very educational and useful
to the community at large.
is it going to be 32 or 64 bit?
And will be 18-micron?
I think humans are infinitely scaleable. I think we are naturally technological creatures, and I think the instruments we create are part of the natural cycle of human life. We don't typically think about it this way, but every tool we use is a technological implement of some type, from the fork to the PC. And not merely is our technological advance limited to physical implements. A significant part of human progress is refining intellectual tools, such as logic, languages, and conceptual structures. Such intangible advances have made the "real" ones possible. It's the nature of human being to progress outward towards greater intellectual and "spiritual" capacity (smell a Hegelian here?). I think we've always been inseparable from our technological instruments, and it's only a matter of time before the mechanical devices we create become physically (eventually, intellectually) integrated into ourselves.
I've actually done several installations of win2k, with several versions of the OS (from NT5.0 B1 to Win2k RC1). It's slow. However, it's impressive for a two reasons: 1) It does everything. Well, too. It detected old, wierd hardware, as well as newer hardware, and installed it correctly. It asks you very few questions, and yet doesn't do everything wrong. 2) It does upgrades. I've always had problems getting upgrades of MS OSes to work right; the resulting systems end up mangled, or at best, mysteriously unstable (over and above baseline MS instability). Win2k RC1 did flawless upgrades of 95 and NT4 for me. Some applications won't work right, but they are coded to check for NT4 or 95/8. Plus, on fresh installs, the irritating inability to make formatted partitions over 4 GB during install is gone. As for ease of installation compared to Linux (say RH or SuSE), sure it's easier. No user intervention is required, so what's easier than doing nothing? Linux installs are currently oriented towards people who understand things about how a computer works, things which basic Windows users don't know cause they don't ususally need to, like how to partition drives, etc. That stuff isn't tough, but average compuphobic/computer illiterate users will get freaked out.
I think the last paragraph is a giveaway - "Even without this kind of posturing, some resellers say they find the notion of a religious operating system to be offensive. To quote one anonymous reseller, 'Yup. Linux is officially a religion now. What's next, crucifixion of NT users?'" The fabricated anonymous quote is a classic device is yellow journalism. Bet they created the page and all. Much cleverer than I'd have given them credit for.
it kinda reads like they copied it from the Critique of Pure Reason.
is it a sin to copulate with your floppy drive?
And the poem itself has a nice thick veneer of christianity. The monsters Beowulf goes kicking the crap out of (and ultimately gets beaten down by) are the God-damned descendents of Cain. A shining example of an early Chrisitan hero.
well, you do have to know what you're doing first. The thing isn't jackass proof