MS is being nicer here than there is any good reason to be. Slashdots and other webshits will not thank them, any more than they have thanked MS for giving away their solution to this problem for free and developing it in the open, with community engagement.
It is fine to be skeptical. It is silly to be intractably so. I don't see any way for MS to earn your trust, and I'm not sure why they should care; it seems unlikely that they can.
The problem with absolutes is that they seem like strong stances, but actually they are brittle and weak. No one has any incentive to cooperate with such people, and so you become irrelevant in their calculations.
Microsoft invests in git. Slashdots look for the hidden catch. Failing to find one, they invent some. This might be seen as helping Microsoft in their evil designs, except that all of the ideas are so dumb that they couldn't be regarded as useful even by the inventors of the Zune.
Microsoft gives git the capability to deal with huge codebases, which had been a noted weakness of that system. Slashdots whine that the initialism of the name they gave it conflicts with some obscure GNOME project. According to them, this was some 4-D chess move to injure the GNOME project, which self-administers footbullets using automatic weapons.
Microsoft throws money at Github so it can remain viable. Slashdots fulminate about the implications. Banner ads? In your repo? It's more likely than you think.
I didn't invent it. There's an old story among the Marines about John Paul Jones. When he delivered his famous line, "I have not yet begun to fight!", a Marine was heard to say: "There's always some clothpate as doesn't get the word."
Roger Cheswick has made a career for decades in explaining the problems with the castle-wall theory of computer defense. apparently he did so in vain, for there's always some clothpate who doesn't get the word.
There is one respect in which Austin is going wireless: Verizon is offering citywide wireless coverage for Austin. However, this wireless access is neither fast nor free; the proposed price is $80 a month, and the speed is 300-500 kbits/sec down, 50 kbps/sec up. Therefore, this is yet another case of an individual business offering a sort of wireless access, but they claim to cover an entire city, and they charge.
Once a warrior gentle of birth,
Then a person of civic worth,
Now a fellow to move our mirth.
Warrior, person, and fellow -- no more:
We must knight our dogs to get any lower.
Brave Knights Kennelers then shall be,
Noble Knights of the Golden Flea,
Knights of the Order of St. Steboy,
Knights of St. Gorge and Sir Knights Jawy.
God speed the day when this knighting fad
Shall go to the dogs and the dogs go mad.
I suppose it is possible that the response is thousands of pages long, but I can see no reason why SCO would stipulate only that it was over 60 pages. I have seen no previous motion to restrict supplements to 60 pages, and such a number would be ludicrously small for even a small lawsuit.
I therefore doubt that the supplement is much over 60 pages long.
It means that a party's attorney is not licensed to practice law in the state in which the suit is filed, but is so licensed in another state, and the party would like this attorney to help represent them. I believe at least one attorney for each party must be licensed in that state, but others need not be.
You weren't responding to my post; you were responding to that Anonymous Coward's crap. I was filtering at 3 and didn't see his remark, and my browser made it look as if your message was in reply to one of mine.
Sorry about that. I guess it's my turn to be the incompetent IT boob.;)
If you read the article, you'd notice several occasions on which the admins were not functioning as subject matter experts. Any admin who gives up on recovering business-critical data before thinking to use a simple undelete program is not a subject matter expert, he's an incompetent boob, and overdue for termination.
If you actually understand all of the things you just listed, you're one of the few. Most sysadmins don't. And if you present your opposition in terms of these issues, I for one would support you to the hilt. I know that developers often ignore security concerns; I've slapped down more than one of them for doing so. Don't assume that all developers are ignorant of these issues. Some of us have been sysadmins before, and a few of us have even been competent sysadmins.
On the one hand, I can understand the frustration of developers who have been arbitrarily undercut by surly, inefficient sysadmins. I've been there. A lot. On the other hand, the author of the article mentions at least one case in which he probably deserved to lose: software licensing. I'm glad you can deal with an InstallShield, bud, but that doesn't equate to knowing the terms of a license or how it will affect the company. And the fact that you don't acknowledge this issue suggests that you shouldn't be allowed to make such judgment calls.
Yes, we developers are a sanguine lot, continually making risky improvements with blithe optimism that they will work and actually improve things. And on occasion we are disastrously wrong -- that's what test systems are for. However, that's no justification for making it impossible to do our jobs.
After all, it's not as if most sysadmins are competent to pass judgment on our proposed changes. How many times have you heard an admin claim that he went into his line of work because programming was too hard? The odds are that his problem was with thinking things through and designing them carefully. In fact, most sysadmins do not appear to appreciate the basic concepts of scalable design, code reuse, or even revision control. And this is who wants to vet my software changes? No wonder they take all year -- they're too stupid to understand them.
If you do employ an admin who can do all of these thigns correctly, hold onto him, whatever he costs. Treat him kindly. Make his life as easy as possible. He is a rare specimen.
IP localization is an interesting problem. At one time, MIDS (later Matrix.Net, later Matrix NetSystems, current status unknown) had a nice page which would provide you with a mapped traceroute. However, it doesn't appear to be available anymore. If anyone knows of a functionally equivalent service being offered by a competitor, that would be useful to know.
No, the original poster has a point, one which you have chosen to distort. The point is that people are likelier to care about links on pages they've chosen than they are on default pages. I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly plausible, which is better than I can say for your reasoning. The original poster made a testable assertion; there's nothing testable or interesting in your post.
Slashdot Mirror
But beware the danger of moon rocks!
MS is being nicer here than there is any good reason to be. Slashdots and other webshits will not thank them, any more than they have thanked MS for giving away their solution to this problem for free and developing it in the open, with community engagement.
It is fine to be skeptical. It is silly to be intractably so. I don't see any way for MS to earn your trust, and I'm not sure why they should care; it seems unlikely that they can.
The problem with absolutes is that they seem like strong stances, but actually they are brittle and weak. No one has any incentive to cooperate with such people, and so you become irrelevant in their calculations.
Microsoft invests in git. Slashdots look for the hidden catch. Failing to find one, they invent some. This might be seen as helping Microsoft in their evil designs, except that all of the ideas are so dumb that they couldn't be regarded as useful even by the inventors of the Zune.
Microsoft gives git the capability to deal with huge codebases, which had been a noted weakness of that system. Slashdots whine that the initialism of the name they gave it conflicts with some obscure GNOME project. According to them, this was some 4-D chess move to injure the GNOME project, which self-administers footbullets using automatic weapons.
Microsoft throws money at Github so it can remain viable. Slashdots fulminate about the implications. Banner ads? In your repo? It's more likely than you think.
Yes, and if you were paying attention, you'd see the analogy to computer systems.
The users are the biggest weakness.
Train them or die.
I didn't invent it. There's an old story among the Marines about John Paul Jones. When he delivered his famous line, "I have not yet begun to fight!", a Marine was heard to say: "There's always some clothpate as doesn't get the word."
Roger Cheswick has made a career for decades in explaining the problems with the castle-wall theory of computer defense. apparently he did so in vain, for there's always some clothpate who doesn't get the word.
There is one respect in which Austin is going wireless: Verizon is offering citywide wireless coverage for Austin. However, this wireless access is neither fast nor free; the proposed price is $80 a month, and the speed is 300-500 kbits/sec down, 50 kbps/sec up. Therefore, this is yet another case of an individual business offering a sort of wireless access, but they claim to cover an entire city, and they charge.
Once a warrior gentle of birth,
Then a person of civic worth,
Now a fellow to move our mirth.
Warrior, person, and fellow -- no more:
We must knight our dogs to get any lower.
Brave Knights Kennelers then shall be,
Noble Knights of the Golden Flea,
Knights of the Order of St. Steboy,
Knights of St. Gorge and Sir Knights Jawy.
God speed the day when this knighting fad
Shall go to the dogs and the dogs go mad.
I suppose it is possible that the response is thousands of pages long, but I can see no reason why SCO would stipulate only that it was over 60 pages. I have seen no previous motion to restrict supplements to 60 pages, and such a number would be ludicrously small for even a small lawsuit.
I therefore doubt that the supplement is much over 60 pages long.
Sadly, that was filed privately. We may not get to see it until the upcoming hearing.
It means that a party's attorney is not licensed to practice law in the state in which the suit is filed, but is so licensed in another state, and the party would like this attorney to help represent them. I believe at least one attorney for each party must be licensed in that state, but others need not be.
Yes, you're perfectly right. I made a mistake. The person to whom you're responding did say exactly what you claimed he said. My apologies.
Oh, dear God.
;)
You weren't responding to my post; you were responding to that Anonymous Coward's crap. I was filtering at 3 and didn't see his remark, and my browser made it look as if your message was in reply to one of mine.
Sorry about that. I guess it's my turn to be the incompetent IT boob.
Yes, and you'll notice I didn't make either statement.
Most sysadmins are dumb. So are most programmers. Surely you've noticed this. IT is crammed with incompetent idiots.
To say otherwise suggests that you're one of the afflicted.
If you read the article, you'd notice several occasions on which the admins were not functioning as subject matter experts. Any admin who gives up on recovering business-critical data before thinking to use a simple undelete program is not a subject matter expert, he's an incompetent boob, and overdue for termination.
If you actually understand all of the things you just listed, you're one of the few. Most sysadmins don't. And if you present your opposition in terms of these issues, I for one would support you to the hilt. I know that developers often ignore security concerns; I've slapped down more than one of them for doing so. Don't assume that all developers are ignorant of these issues. Some of us have been sysadmins before, and a few of us have even been competent sysadmins.
On the one hand, I can understand the frustration of developers who have been arbitrarily undercut by surly, inefficient sysadmins. I've been there. A lot. On the other hand, the author of the article mentions at least one case in which he probably deserved to lose: software licensing. I'm glad you can deal with an InstallShield, bud, but that doesn't equate to knowing the terms of a license or how it will affect the company. And the fact that you don't acknowledge this issue suggests that you shouldn't be allowed to make such judgment calls.
Yes, we developers are a sanguine lot, continually making risky improvements with blithe optimism that they will work and actually improve things. And on occasion we are disastrously wrong -- that's what test systems are for. However, that's no justification for making it impossible to do our jobs.
After all, it's not as if most sysadmins are competent to pass judgment on our proposed changes. How many times have you heard an admin claim that he went into his line of work because programming was too hard? The odds are that his problem was with thinking things through and designing them carefully. In fact, most sysadmins do not appear to appreciate the basic concepts of scalable design, code reuse, or even revision control. And this is who wants to vet my software changes? No wonder they take all year -- they're too stupid to understand them.
If you do employ an admin who can do all of these thigns correctly, hold onto him, whatever he costs. Treat him kindly. Make his life as easy as possible. He is a rare specimen.
IP localization is an interesting problem. At one time, MIDS (later Matrix.Net, later Matrix NetSystems, current status unknown) had a nice page which would provide you with a mapped traceroute. However, it doesn't appear to be available anymore. If anyone knows of a functionally equivalent service being offered by a competitor, that would be useful to know.
You choked the duck on a woody? Man, I did not need to hear that.
Wasabi Systems has been doing this for quite a while too.
Zico, STFU. All you do is piss, moan, and Micro-whore. A shark could eat you and nobody on Slashdot would miss you or care.
--
No, the original poster has a point, one which you have chosen to distort. The point is that people are likelier to care about links on pages they've chosen than they are on default pages. I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly plausible, which is better than I can say for your reasoning. The original poster made a testable assertion; there's nothing testable or interesting in your post.
--
Matthew 27:5
...and he went and hanged himself.
Luke 10:37
Go and do thou likewise.
--
Actually, I thought the title was correct, but I'm not sure if it refers to the hacking of the website or the hacks who write Microsoft software. :)
--