This could be demonstrated just as well on sites that they own / control. For instance, with a single domain name, 100 pastebin clones, 100 wikis could be set up and configured differently (i.e. subdomains).
Some of them could have active SPAM policing, captchas, etc.. others could behave as though they had a lazy / dead admin. Others could just mysteriously vanish (i.e. domain expired, no longer hosted, etc).
The results are the same, either way. I wonder why they bothered going for external sites to begin with? All they needed was a cheap p4 and some scripts to automate mediawiki installs.
I agree, how the hell does that discourage critical thinking? Yet, we have Slashdot, with editors who consider experimentation to be farting in a room while noting the delta of who notices and leaves.
Can someone, please tell me how this is a compromise? Of all states, Texas is now discouraging students from taking knowledge on a spoon.
Or as Benjamin Franklin said, "Some people are penny-wise, but pound foolish." You try to save pennies and waste pounds/dollars instead.
The same can be true in programming, but usually the scenario describes development itself, i.e. premature optimization. If your team is experienced, the only reason for this would be people trying to do big things in small spaces.
I think it comes down to what you need, what you want and what you need to spec for your software to actually run.
If your willing to spend quite a bit of money on some really talented people, what you need as far as hardware (at least memory) can be reduced significantly.
What you want is to roll a successful project in xx months and bring it to market, so raising the hardware bar seems sensible.
Then we come down to what you can actually spec, as far as requirements for your clients who want to use your software. Microsoft ended up lowering the bar for Vista in order to appease Intel and HP.. look what happened.
If your market is pure enterprise, go ahead and tell the programmers that 4GB/Newer dual core CPU is the minimum spec for your stuff. If your market is desktop users.. may be a bad idea.
I don't think there's a general rule or 'almost always' when contemplating this kind of thing.
A FLOSS(ed) resume helps avoid them. Work on the free/open source programs that you like, then point your employers at commit diffs (as well as your responses to idiotic questions on the respective mailing lists showing that your tolerant and work well with others).
8/10 times, in my experience.. an employer is just as happy to browse my Mercurial repositories as they are to give me a test. Sometimes, though.. they make the test a little harder after viewing my repos:)
When you run into 'head hunters' , they're always going to test you.. as they need to fill a cell in some spread sheet with your results. The same goes for 'Managers' who have never written a real program in their life.
Cater to the head hunters, avoid the clueless managers... or, catch up on your BOFH, get the job and take over theirs.
Microsoft's OS and applications also have the highest percentage of market share, hence if anyone seeking to compromise operating systems, it would be far more lucrative for them to do so with MS operating systems. Do you really believe that if Linux or OS X had 90% market share, they wouldn't be compromised?
That all depends on how well trained the employees of companies who use or administrate computers happen to be.
No matter the OS, someone opened a bad e-mail. Any employee working from home could have done that.
In this case, its probably more productive to put the application storing the information under a microscope rather than the underlying OS, at least to a degree.
My point still stands. The Ubuntu devs could have focused their efforts on Debian. Their distro today still is binary compatible with Debian.
Actually, they have focused their attention on Debian. You would have to examine Ubuntu and Debian source packages to really see just how much effort Ubuntu is putting into Debian.
In every distro there is a list of stuff that nobody wants to do. For instance, getting 'bashisms' out of init and other shell scripts so that a fully POSIX compatible shell (such as dash) can parse them correctly. Ubuntu tackled a lot of that list.
If you look at the Ubuntu source packages, you will see a ton of patches in debian/ , Ubuntu has structured their patches so that Debian can cherry pick from their improvements easily. Debian has and will continue to do this. For instance, if Debian just wants the patch that takes bashisms out of a given script, they can just take that and leave the rest.
Similarly, Debian security updates and other things are easily cherry picked by Ubuntu. Managing patches like this is very time consuming, Ubuntu could have said 'screw that' but they didn't.
Its a rather interesting symbiosis. While the projects are going in separate directions, devs from both camps continue to ensure that improvements remain isolated and rather portable.
My desktop is a mix of Ubuntu and Debian packages, for instance. Most things I use begin with Debian source packages, then I grab the Ubuntu source packages and get the patches that I want... then make my own thing. Granted, this isn't typical use but it illustrates the benefits of a larger cooperative effort.
I remember that buzz. It was focused around a media that would consistently out-last the player. It is true to a degree.
Most cassettes (even high quality) lose their audio luster way before the player. Good turn tables last a long time, however replacement needles can sometimes be scarce, belts break.. motors burn up.
If handled with just a little care, most CDs will out last any CD player.
I have some about as old. A few of them developed small (pin point sized) 'pits' in them however these are not noticed during play, even though high quality headphones.
I can't be 100% sure that those pits were not there when I originally bought the CDs. I noticed them when showing some to a collector who was interested in buying them. Actually, it was the collector who noticed them.
I got that impression too. Have you ever tried calling Microsoft support? By the time you actually get a qualified person to answer your question, you could have received 2 - 3 responses on a OSS project's forum or mailing list.
Another interesting thing that I saw the study fail to mention, there are many OSS projects that clearly state on their web site "This is not yet production quality, use at your own risk".. yet anyone selling something new would not dare to issue such a warning.
I really feel like the study is rampant FUD that hopes to be viral so that the authors can place themselves in some sort of authoritative role.
I'm actually a little shocked that Network World even ran the story.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking one in the 'name of science' ends, for me, at the prospect of dropping the soap. I guess I'm just not very dedicated :)
This could be demonstrated just as well on sites that they own / control. For instance, with a single domain name, 100 pastebin clones, 100 wikis could be set up and configured differently (i.e. subdomains).
Some of them could have active SPAM policing, captchas, etc .. others could behave as though they had a lazy / dead admin. Others could just mysteriously vanish (i.e. domain expired, no longer hosted, etc).
The results are the same, either way. I wonder why they bothered going for external sites to begin with? All they needed was a cheap p4 and some scripts to automate mediawiki installs.
Why didn't they just stay in the sandbox?
I agree, how the hell does that discourage critical thinking? Yet, we have Slashdot, with editors who consider experimentation to be farting in a room while noting the delta of who notices and leaves.
Can someone, please tell me how this is a compromise? Of all states, Texas is now discouraging students from taking knowledge on a spoon.
Maybe I missed something.
Sorry, no one else killed their karma with this one, so I felt compelled to do so:
There was only one IP involved in the edits, apparently it was 127.0.0.1 ..
Typical Management Response:
"You bet I could!, I'm not such a bad programmer myself!"
The same can be true in programming, but usually the scenario describes development itself, i.e. premature optimization. If your team is experienced, the only reason for this would be people trying to do big things in small spaces.
I think it comes down to what you need, what you want and what you need to spec for your software to actually run.
If your willing to spend quite a bit of money on some really talented people, what you need as far as hardware (at least memory) can be reduced significantly.
What you want is to roll a successful project in xx months and bring it to market, so raising the hardware bar seems sensible.
Then we come down to what you can actually spec, as far as requirements for your clients who want to use your software. Microsoft ended up lowering the bar for Vista in order to appease Intel and HP .. look what happened.
If your market is pure enterprise, go ahead and tell the programmers that 4GB/Newer dual core CPU is the minimum spec for your stuff. If your market is desktop users .. may be a bad idea.
I don't think there's a general rule or 'almost always' when contemplating this kind of thing.
Elvis has left the building
Elvis has left the building
And the other Elvis has left the building
There, fixed that for you.
Cheers!
Strat
Well, sort of .. but where do I find MAX_ELVIS ?
Elvis has left the building
Well, if your a programmer .. you can only conclude that Elvis is re-entrant and thread safe.
He left, re-entered and again left the building while leaving behind a small local mess to clean up.
If only it were (just *) local ....
A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?
Its one thing to permit far fetched litigation. Its another thing to supply all lawyers needed for free.
I think the RIAA realized .. if we're going to enforce copyright ... enlisting public defenders is probably __not__ going to help. So they quit pushing.
This is as reassuring as it is funny.
A FLOSS(ed) resume helps avoid them. Work on the free/open source programs that you like, then point your employers at commit diffs (as well as your responses to idiotic questions on the respective mailing lists showing that your tolerant and work well with others).
8/10 times, in my experience .. an employer is just as happy to browse my Mercurial repositories as they are to give me a test. Sometimes, though .. they make the test a little harder after viewing my repos :)
When you run into 'head hunters' , they're always going to test you .. as they need to fill a cell in some spread sheet with your results. The same goes for 'Managers' who have never written a real program in their life.
Cater to the head hunters, avoid the clueless managers ... or, catch up on your BOFH, get the job and take over theirs.
Microsoft's OS and applications also have the highest percentage of market share, hence if anyone seeking to compromise operating systems, it would be far more lucrative for them to do so with MS operating systems. Do you really believe that if Linux or OS X had 90% market share, they wouldn't be compromised?
That all depends on how well trained the employees of companies who use or administrate computers happen to be.
No matter the OS, someone opened a bad e-mail. Any employee working from home could have done that.
In this case, its probably more productive to put the application storing the information under a microscope rather than the underlying OS, at least to a degree.
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.
What site is this, and what has it done with Slashdot
I think the submitter meant to say:
Please limit the science to the discussion.
If you try to play something on a nano that doesn't pass DRM checks ... a circuit opens and the battery is told to explode.
"Stop illegally downloading music .. this message will self-destruct"
My point still stands. The Ubuntu devs could have focused their efforts on Debian. Their distro today still is binary compatible with Debian.
Actually, they have focused their attention on Debian. You would have to examine Ubuntu and Debian source packages to really see just how much effort Ubuntu is putting into Debian.
In every distro there is a list of stuff that nobody wants to do. For instance, getting 'bashisms' out of init and other shell scripts so that a fully POSIX compatible shell (such as dash) can parse them correctly. Ubuntu tackled a lot of that list.
If you look at the Ubuntu source packages, you will see a ton of patches in debian/ , Ubuntu has structured their patches so that Debian can cherry pick from their improvements easily. Debian has and will continue to do this. For instance, if Debian just wants the patch that takes bashisms out of a given script, they can just take that and leave the rest.
Similarly, Debian security updates and other things are easily cherry picked by Ubuntu. Managing patches like this is very time consuming, Ubuntu could have said 'screw that' but they didn't.
Its a rather interesting symbiosis. While the projects are going in separate directions, devs from both camps continue to ensure that improvements remain isolated and rather portable.
My desktop is a mix of Ubuntu and Debian packages, for instance. Most things I use begin with Debian source packages, then I grab the Ubuntu source packages and get the patches that I want ... then make my own thing. Granted, this isn't typical use but it illustrates the benefits of a larger cooperative effort.
Not to worry, all sensitive information was encoded in pig Latin.
I remember that buzz. It was focused around a media that would consistently out-last the player. It is true to a degree.
Most cassettes (even high quality) lose their audio luster way before the player. Good turn tables last a long time, however replacement needles can sometimes be scarce, belts break .. motors burn up.
If handled with just a little care, most CDs will out last any CD player.
I have some about as old. A few of them developed small (pin point sized) 'pits' in them however these are not noticed during play, even though high quality headphones.
I can't be 100% sure that those pits were not there when I originally bought the CDs. I noticed them when showing some to a collector who was interested in buying them. Actually, it was the collector who noticed them.
But I always allude to both in moderation!
All your shrubbery are belong to us!
Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to settle.
Dammit Scotty! More power to shiel ... (BOOM)
The only comforting thing about that scenario is Kirk getting blown up in mid sentence, instead of getting blown in mid sentence.
That makes sense now. Leave peer review out of research and you get vista.
I got that impression too. Have you ever tried calling Microsoft support? By the time you actually get a qualified person to answer your question, you could have received 2 - 3 responses on a OSS project's forum or mailing list.
Another interesting thing that I saw the study fail to mention, there are many OSS projects that clearly state on their web site "This is not yet production quality, use at your own risk" .. yet anyone selling something new would not dare to issue such a warning.
I really feel like the study is rampant FUD that hopes to be viral so that the authors can place themselves in some sort of authoritative role.
I'm actually a little shocked that Network World even ran the story.
Remind me to never request a printed manual from HP. Every page would be in a different box.
Now that is _truly_ dirty paging. Yikes!
By "do X rays fry memory" I mean, will they scrub chips of any data (I was not speaking about damage when I said 'fry')