Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Wot? (Score 1) 121

Since you don't actually know me, you can be forgiven for your complete ignorance into the irony of your assertions.

I started off my career as a computer technician but self taught myself to become the professional software developer that I am today.

Believe it or not it, it was in no small part thanks to Slashdot and by my doing research on technologies mentioned in articles featured here.

So while some people like to sit and moan as AC on Slashdot, I use it as one of many sources to keep a pulse on what is happening in my industry. If I read about something I haven't heard of before, I research it to at least understand the problem it's trying to solve and to be able to keep it in mind for the future in case I encounter a problem for which it may be an appropriate solution.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, or fed a troll, but the comment I replied to was either genuinely trolling or otherwise deserves to be called out on its apathetic nature.

As a side note, I do not generally work on web front ends and haven't really worked with Angular, I just know of it as it's immensely popular.

Comment Re:Wot? (Score 0) 121

A mistype of the word "Angular"?

Any half competent person in front end web development knows what it is, if you're not in that segment of the software development industry, then it is likely that it is of absolutely no interest to you, in which case feel free to move onto the next story.

If you're interested in making yourself more generally knowledgeable and finding out more about Angular, Google it, assuming you know what Google is.

Comment I've unchecked it during NVidia driver installatio (Score 3, Insightful) 129

When it first came out I tried it and after discovering it's a complete waste of resources, I uninstalled it. For years now I have deliberately unchecked it during installation of NVidia drivers. I also turn off the system tray icon. I feel that drivers must just do their job quietly in the background without ever bothering me. For those twice a year occasions when I need to tweak something, it's a 1.5 seconds away in a start menu search. I definitely prefer NVidia's low key control panel on my home machine over the flashy horrific mess that AMD puts on my work laptop.

Comment Re: Do they really ignore them? (Score 1) 125

You're not wrong, the way that the UI works and how users use it is a big issue. SSL only provides a way for you to absolutely determine you're talking to a particular party, or that a party who you already trust has supposedly vetted that the party you are talking to, is the party you think it is. And I agree the issue with the green bar is that it just means that things "seem legit", but unless users understand how to inspect certificates for themselves, it's not actually much use. As we can't realistically expect all users to be better informed, it would instead be better to improve the UI.

However, what I was really addressing was this:

For example, a warning about a self signed cert on a website that I wouldn't mind using over plain text: that still more secure than plain old http, so I click off the warning.

I have bolded the part that is factually wrong, unless they are actually checking self-signed certificate thumbprints, the unverified certificate is no more secure (or at best, only negligibly more) than plain text HTTP.

Comment Re: Do they really ignore them? (Score 2) 125

Oh, so you're manually inspecting the self signed certificate every time you visit your website? If not, then how do you know nobody is intercepting your communication, making your self signed certificate as useless as having no encryption at all. What you should do is add your known self signed certificate to your local certificate store, which means that the warnings will stop, unless there is an actual attack or change in configuration which you absolutely do want to be warned about.

Comment Re: Nice, but... (Score 0) 98

Is accusing me of being a shill your way of covering up the fact that people like you just hate (even modern) Microsoft on sheer principal regardless of the particular topic? You have no doubt convinced yourself your opinion is completely rational and justified, but you sound like someone with a college level of maturity who regardless of what they are presented, refuses to objectively re-examine the situation and, God forbid, revise their opinion, instead you prefer to point fingers and falsely accuse others without any facts of their motives aside from the fact their opinion is different to yours.

You are likely referring to the C++ telemetry injection into compiled output, which I agree is indefensible, but that is a different matter to the telemetry present in the .NET Core 1.0 compiler, which they were in fact completely open about if you read their initial announcement on their blog. I have not made up my mind about Windows 10 telemetry, but I was very grateful for the free upgrade on my Windows 7 machine at home which was feeling very old in comparison to my Windows 8.1 machine at work, which aside from the annoying Start Screen, was a definite improvement over Windows 7.

I'm clearly a bit of a Microsoft fan, but that's because as a C# developer I use, appreciate, and realise value from their products daily. I find using Linux/BSD quite frustrating by comparison, but I don't go around bashing them, I recognise and respect the value that Linux/BSD adds to society, so why can't people like you do the same in regards to positive initiatives by organisations like Microsoft? Like for example when they released .NET Core 1.0, certainly very useful software, made available on non-Microsoft platforms, made available at no charge, and even has the source code freely available? But in your opinion, that is all worthless because of some optional telemetry which I feel is there to actually serve the interest of the users.

I am not so bold to try proclaim that Microsoft is especially "great" overall, that they aren't still bad in some aspects, or even better than some alternatives, but the fact is that I, along with millions of other people, find Microsoft's products very useful on a daily basis.

Take it like a man Boo, acknowledge that no matter what Microsoft does, people like you will just always look for any reason to hate them. People like you seem to rely on selectively choosing the pieces of articles which validate their opinion, then selectively quote those pieces out of context, proclaiming how it's just further "evidence" of how X is bad.

Comment Re: Nice, but... (Score 1) 98

That's your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it.

My subjective opinion is that in this case it does more good than harm. No personally identifiable information (aside from IP address, which might or might not be stored) is sent to Microsoft, but the community is likely going to benefit in that Microsoft will focus on features that actually get used rather than something which lands up never getting used.

Each to their own though, just ensure your comments are fair and informed.

Comment Re: Nice, but... (Score 2) 98

You're clearly uninformed regarding the nature of the telemetry in .NET Core or you are deliberately spreading misinformation. The runtime is not including telemetry at all. And while the compiler includes telemetry, it is highly specific and limited to essentially whether or not certain compiler flags are used. Basically, in this case Microsoft just wants to know based on real numbers which way developers use very particular aspects of the compiler. The only conceivable use they could have for this information is to know where best to invest their effort, which is IMO a good thing for users of . NET Core. They were completely upfront about this in their announcement of .NET Core 1.0, it was part of the announcement and had equal weighting to the features they were promoting. They explained in clear layman's terms exactly what they were doing and how you can turn it off if you're paranoid. It's okay for someone to have legitimate concerns, but in this case you look like an ignorant person who is making a big fuss of something they clearly haven't taken the time to understand properly.

Comment Maybe an automatic traffic "shaping" appliance? (Score 2) 50

I used to work for Blizzard Europe customer support, occasionally during my time there Virgin customers in the UK would complain of terrible latency and each time it was a result of some traffic shaping appliance that Virgin was using, which was incorrectly categorizing WoW traffic as being peer-to-peer. This was over 3 years ago, but happened at least 3 times during my time there.

However, as Apple traffic is likely over HTTP(S), it seems less likely to be mistaken as "questionably illegal traffic" and is probably more likely a peering issue of sorts. Perhaps the CDN servers that Apple uses are at a different ISP and there is a routing / peering issue making it all route internationally instead.

Comment Possibly a band aid for poor code organisation (Score 2) 126

The article talks about how this makes them more effective as a team because they suffer less pain with integration and merge conflicts. This makes me think they are working with a very poorly organised code base, or as a team don't practice use of interfaces/contracts effectively. If they inherited a code base from someone else, then it may be largely unavoidable, but if it's always been their own code, then in my mind it's a bad smell.

I have been working on a project for 2 years with a team that is 7 developers which is in on time and the client just finished their final testing today with no significant bugs left outstanding. As a team, we were almost always able to each work independently on tasks due to early establishment of good patterns and architecture as well as regular design sessions for upcoming work by our two most senior team members. Each team member would typically push their SCM (Git) changes up to several times a day and merge conflicts were rare and practically always easy to solve. We even changed to better patterns 4 months into the project and due to good layout of our code, we could run the new patterns side by side with the old ones.

So how did we largely avoid stepping on each other's toes? Code was properly arranged so that areas of concern were appropriately isolated. When working on a front end use case, the only area of contention was typically registration of a module, after that all your code would be in its own independent area which no one else was working on. If it was a large use case with lots of screens, one developer spends 20 minutes stubbing out the code layout, commits, pushes to Git, then everyone else pulls and goes on their merry way. If use cases need to interact with each other, then one developer ensures the interface is correct, which may involve a 10 minute talk with a fellow developer, the interface is immediately updated and pushed into the repository and again each developer goes back along their merry way.

You may have noticed me mention that we push quickly into our repository, the article mentioned developers trying to merge a week of work and that terrifies me. If code is properly isolated, then your work can be incomplete, but not affect the existing working code, or other people's work in progress, so you should push *at least* once a day. If you need to alter an interface on your side for a colleague, but you were in the middle of something and weren't really in a position to push your code, then you: Git stash, update interface file, stub out implementation file if needed, push, then Git pop, you can carry on and so can your colleague. Additionally, our CI environment (Jenkins) is building and running tests on every commit, if someone pushes something that breaks the build the whole team is notified and it's fixed within 15 minutes.

Another comment has already mentioned that the quality of code would be higher with the team approach, but in my experience, as long as the code is reasonably efficient and more importantly, easily understandable to anyone else looking at it, improving quality beyond that in most circumstances adds little to no real value for our client. Since easy to understand code is mandatory, in the event it needs a bug fix, or in the rare case it needs to improved, perhaps for performance reasons, it's not especially hard for any developer in the team to do so.

Of course it will be different working on our code in 2 years time from now for ongoing improvements, but as we have been doing for the past two years any time we feel our process isn't working well, we will discuss it during our regular retrospectives and adjust our process to cope with the problem, could that process result in team programming like in the article? Possibly, but I highly doubt it.

Comment Re:For all of you USA haters out there: (Score 1) 378

I agree with you in principle that I would prefer a small amount of my fees act kind of act like "fraud insurance" so that I don't suffer the loss personally. But what would be nice if all organisations would make more of an effort to reduce fraud. But what happens instead is that when fraud is costing them too much, all they do is raise their customer's fees. I would really prefer not to be paying extra fees which do nothing more than go into the pockets of fraudsters.

Comment Re:For all of you USA haters out there: (Score 1) 378

Since the losses due to card fraud are almost entirely borne by the banks, I have to assume it is more cost effective to take the losses than to chip all of the cards.

And do you suppose the bank's employees pay for the fraud out their own salaries? Of course not! The cost of fraud is paid by their honest customer's banking fees. Even if you as a customer get refunded by the bank, when a fraudulent transaction occurs on your account, the money has to come from somewhere.

Once one realizes this, then they realize that the banks have no incentive to pay for improved security, hence, the only reason that US banks haven't improved their security is because they would rather raise customer's bank fees instead of making the effort to try elliminate the problem.

Comment Re:Predestination is an incredibly unsatisfying mo (Score 1) 254

Excellent food or thought, this does somewhat redeem the plot in my opinion.

I'm not sure if the original story did something to draw the readers attention to this analogy with the existence of the universe, but I don't recall that happening in the movie, had the screenplay writers done so, I may have been feeling more thoughtful afterwards, rather than mostly frustrated.

Donnie Darko for example was weird and arguably paradoxical, but the way it was done left me feeling very thoughtful at the end, which I appreciate, even after a few watches.

Slashdot Top Deals

I attribute my success to intelligence, guts, determination, honesty, ambition, and having enough money to buy people with those qualities.