Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Not a hard and fast rule... (Score 1) 263

This, 100 times over. I have never seen a bigger productivity drop than when an organization adopts agile. The only place I can see it work at all is with pure GUI work which, not surprisingly, is where the greatest adherents are. It is also the most fickle of the design areas as it is customer facing and generally the customers themselves are the biggest obstacle in giving crap requirements in this area in the first place.

Customer feedback just isn't very important when you're writing a set of transactional services with auditing and correctness requirements.

Comment Re:Remembering what Microsoft did (Score 1) 136

In fact, one of the anti-monopoly cases was decided in favor of DRDOS finally decades after the injury that MS not only illegally bundles DOS with Win95, but purposefully sabotaged other DOSes if they found Win95 running on top of them. Little good it did DRDOS or IBM PC DOS, both which were arguably better than MS DOS.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 1) 320

Cross pollination is something that will likely happen in nature as well, and has been happening. In fact, it's using natural selection modified by human intervention.

GMO (Monsanto's efforts) are absolutely not anything like this process. Injecting man-made or cross species genes into plants is nothing like the above statement.

That said, I will note it is possible that some genetic material will go cross species thanks to certain viruses and bacteria, but that is quite limited in scope and range of potential subjects.

Comment Re:Did we learn nothing from Snowden? (Score 1) 111

Even further, treat anything you post or put online as though it's public and everyone knows that it's you who posted it

This, 1000 times over. Even this alias is known to be this me, by at least someone, somewhere, mainly because it's not anonymized by TOR nor HTTPS, and even then, there's no guarantee it's not another me, because who knows how many people have access to any given account? Sharing is the only true way to be anonymous anymore, because then it becomes particularly difficult to prove which person out of a pool of potentials actually posted any particular thing, and was it really one of the pool in the first place? Ah, the delicious potentials of pseudo anonymity hiding behind 1 or more layers of potential anonymity.

Comment Re:the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 2) 338

And none of those sites carried breaking news or the AP wire... Or had sports scores (ditto)...showed streaming video

First off, why doesn't the AP have its own site? Sport scores could easily be done via the main sports sites (NFL, MLB, FIFA, etc). There's plenty of sites doing streaming video: Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu do it varying ways, with embedded ads, but the web sites themselves don't need ads nor have them, other than self promoting, which is why you went there in the first place.

Then we get to where the content producers failed, wholesale, and we got the current morass of crap. Newspapers ignored the web, where in the early days they could have simply setup a paid tier and attached it to their subscription at a non-premium and reaped the rewards. Now they need advertising because they completely toasted the paid model. The RIAA did the same thing. They could have easily setup an iTunes like storefront for all their members' content non DRM'd since it already was on CDs, and killed Napster in its tracks. They failed and lost the ball. Same for the MPAA or book and magazine publishers. In each case, each failing was due to dismissing the new market and clinging to the old business model, missing the boat, and having their market obliterated by a much easier model for consumers. That model is now a free ad-supported model that pretty much removed all possibility of paid tiers thanks to these folks own short-sightedness.

Comment Re:That's just the way... (Score 1) 41

Theoretically, the egg laying critters are easier - you have an appropriately sized egg with the right mix of nutrients (a problem for dinosaurs, since we will have to guess besides the egg size problem) and all you do is replace the DNA, provided you have enough source material. I remember reading something about this quite a while ago, probably when the original Jurassic Park movie came out and they discussed the likelihood of being able to do what was in the movie.

Given where we are today, it seems likely that bringing extinct creatures back will start happening sooner than later, provided the world economy and stability do not deteriorate too much. I'd give it no more than 20 years before the first attempts happen.

Comment Re:Remembering what Microsoft did (Score 3, Informative) 136

Don't forget about running Windows 95 on DRDos (if OS = DRDOS, randomly throw warning/error) or Office95 on OS/2 (ask for memory at 2GB boundary, OS/2 only had 512MB windows VM). Those are 2 of the notable instances where MS purposefully made their own software flaky or broken for no reason other than to kill the competitor. I'm sure there are others.

Comment Re:What makes someone a Troll? (Score 1) 151

What do you mean 'even the iPhone'?

Apple with their desktop OS were very very late in having anything but a joke of a multitasking system. They had to buy in an OS from outside the company to get real preemptive multitasking.

And windows is still time-slicing in 16ms slices last I checked. Even with access to OS/2's actual preemptive codebase, they still couldn't code a preemptive OS. Tell me, when you're in Outlook and click a large attachment hosted on an Exchange server, does the entire GUI still become unresponsive? As for Apple, they brought back their founder and his entire technology tree he developed after being ousted. Probably one of the best and smartest things they ever did.

Comment Re:GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 307

Freedom is a nice thing, and the GPL gives it to you, provided you don't prevent others from enjoying the same freedom you get from the GPL.

The GPL (v3) does not give you freedom. You cannot take GPL v3 code and use it to build something, and keep your code private. You cannot have trade secrets with GPL3. You cannot even use GPLv2 software with GPLv3. There's a reason less than 12% of GPL licensed software is GPLv3. No rational person wants that legal virus.

True freedom is provided under MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses, for example, where you can do anything with the code. Lesser freedoms are given by LGPL code, which can legally be used in many situations.

Comment Re:Be suspicous of every update, period (Score 3, Interesting) 216

If this continues, I wouldn't do real work on [windows] ever again.

So this time didn't do it for you? There has to be another time? Given Win7+'s mod to auto install fixes deemed by MS to be critical, I think that time was at least years ago. Even IBM jumped ship.

Comment Re:Clarification? (Score 1) 106

Linux does have user land drivers, so yes, it does allow running without elevated permissions. But, this answer comes with caveats, as obviously not all drivers can run in user land. However, drivers are but a small set of the exposure in windows. In my case I was creating an orange book compatible set of web services, and windows was one designated platform. Considering the requirements were met I guess that project was a success. However, I wound up working against the OS at almost every level to get there because the security architecture is flawed from the bottom up. Had we done the project with the OS 1 revision earlier it would have been almost like the linux implementation in approach, because you could still manipulate security tokens by spawning processes and substituting an authenticated user token. In 2008R2, all of those APIs were no-op, with no explanation nor documentation for many months until people like me had finished digging through the crap MS gave us. Speaking of, the MSDN site is another large pile of almost wholly useless crap at this point. I have come to the conclusion it only exists to show people how much more useful other sites such as SO are, which speaks for itself.

Comment Re:Clarification? (Score 1) 106

That's less trivial than you imply, and requires an extra hop or three. Then again, you likely won't be elevating processes 1000 times a second so from a performance standpoint you should be ok. And it still would be simpler if you could just execute an elevated authenticated process when you needed to from a low-privilege process. Instead you have to devise something to side-step the security infrastructure.

A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard. -- Prof. Steiner