Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Best selling computer? (Score 1) 193

It's because Apple keeps messing with the operating system on iPhones that it doesn't really qualify (and nor does it come with a keyboard)

The C64 had the same BASIC and KERNAL ROMs for the entire production run, meaning that each revision of the hardware was equally 100% compatible with any other C64.

You can't really say that for most computer lines. Take the Atari 8-bit line, the Apple II series, or the Commodore Amigas..... All different revisions of essentially the same computer in different memory, kernel, and language configurations. Oftentimes the different cases prevented certain expansions from working correctly, but not the C64.

Sure there was the C64 breadbin and C64C cases, and yes there were motherboard revisions of the circuitry including some sound and CPU chip revisions which were different yet otherwise 100% compatible... but other than that the Commodore 64 was a consistant platform for it's entire decade-long production run. Perhaps because of that, it held it's own defacto standard to which all demo coders could pitch towards in the demo scene. They weren't shit-fighting over using different hardware chips or memory expansions as the Amiga demoscene had to put up with. Most demos (with some notable exceptions) all used the stock hardware with a 1541 disk drive.... and that was it, and those were the rules that everyone understood (and still understands)

For that reason the demoscene on the C64 has stayed more or less constant too, and hasn't died like the other demo scenes.

Comment Cheaper to get hacked than do security maintenance (Score 5, Interesting) 56

Wasn't Slashdot only a number of articles ago talking about how much cheaper it is to get hacked than to deploy proper security and maintenance?

We've known this for ages....and I learnt about it the hard way years ago as a webmaster.

In my junior sysadmin pre-ITIL cowboy days, I was tasked with managing a web server, and it turned out that PHP needed an immediate update.
Without further ado, to avoid the risk of getting hacked, I went and updated PHP to the next version up.
Turns out that doing so broke a number of customer webpages - which were reliant on some old broken and unmaintained code. The website owners then complained and whined to our company that we threatened their businesses. (Fortunately they only made peanuts to our bottom-line, so luckily we didn't care that much)

Lesson was simple: it is much easier to maintain old versions that keep things working AND DO NOTHING than to do any proactive security maintenance. This works in a number of ways.

Firstly, when you eventually get hacked IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. It is the fault of some hacker and things will be seen that way. Blame gets shifted away from the admins anyhow.

Secondly, doing nothing is CHEAPER. It involves less risk, less change, and less responsibility. In a world where shareholders, finance and management dictate the aims of IT - you may as well fire the sysadmins because it's risky if they do any maintenance, meaning that since they're not going to do anything you may as well fire them. Just get contractors to build things to work once, then leave the systems on the internet indefinitely until they either end up getting hacked to the point of failure, or the hardware breaks down. Then rebuild the system from scratch with more contractors when that time eventuates.

That's how security patching works in the real world. In other words, it doesn't.

The thing is, it's ALL ABOUT SHIFTING BLAME in the world of IT, and IT is a risk, and it is expensive.
That's why there is so much outsourcing combined with support contracts so company managers can point the finger at vendors when things go to hell and then walk away with legal indemnification and still keep their job and their pensions while saying that they kept costs down when things eventually go to pot.

So in this Yahoo case, someone finally has to guts to call Yahoo out on it.

Comment Patching is less risky than getting hacked (Score 3, Insightful) 183

We've known this for ages....and I learnt about it the hard way years ago as a webmaster.

I was tasked with managing a web server, and it turned out that PHP needed an immediate update.
Without further ado, to avoid the risk of getting hacked, I went and updated PHP to the next version up.
Turns out that doing so broke a number of customer webpages - who were reliant on some old broken and unmaintained code, who then complained and whined to our company that we threatened their businesses.

Lesson was simple: it is much easier to maintain old versions that keep things working AND DO NOTHING than to do any proactive security maintenance. This works in a number of ways.

Firstly, when you eventually get hacked IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. It is the fault of some hacker and things will be seen that way. Blame gets shifted away from the admins anyhow.

Secondly, doing nothing is CHEAPER. It involves less risk, less change, and less responsibility. In a world where shareholders, finance and management dictate the aims of IT - you may as well fire the sysadmins because it's risky if they do any maintenance, meaning that since they're not going to do anything you may as well fire them. Just get contractors to build things to work once, then leave the systems on the internet indefinitely until they either end up getting hacked to the point of failure, or the hardware breaks down. Then rebuild the system from scratch with more contractors when that time eventuates.

That's how security patching works in the real world. In other words, it doesn't.

The thing is, it's ALL ABOUT SHIFTING BLAME in the world of IT, and IT is a risk, and it is expensive. That's why there is so much outsourcing combined with support contracts so company managers can point the finger at vendors when things go to hell and then walk away with legal indemnification and still keep their job when things eventually go to pot.

Comment Re:A real Windows (Score 2) 177

Mod parent up.

There's no way they're going to sell Windows Phones as "phones". They'd have to market them as some other kind of desirable all-in-one device.
They just need to sit on the tech, and wait until people are fed up with the n-th iteration of the iPhone, exploding Samsung Galaxy battery pack... then hit the market afresh.... but don't call it a phone.

Maybe call it a puck-computer that gives you the full x64-compatible Windows desktop experience in a phone form factor with a massive battery powerful enough to last a day or two on one charge and connectivity options for HDMI displays, and mandatory bluetooth.

It also has a touch screen and can make phone calls. Just don't call it a phone.

Comment Re:Good Heavens! (Score 1) 94

Recently? Oh.... just installing it on paranoid schizophrenic's computers who call me ask asking for help because the "sole inventor of Linux and the Xbox" has hacked her router, computer, and any phone she buys in the store.

Comment Dinosaur cactus jump (Score 1) 55

Also recently noticed that there's another easter-egg in chrome thanks to a lot of downtime.

The Dinosaur that appears when there's no internet connectivity is a game. Click on him and he'll run from left to right to jump over cactii (and pterodactyls)
A bit of an easy game, and it gets a bit repetitive, but there you go....

Comment Re:How can you tell? (Score 3, Insightful) 129

Its better politically to blame "overseas hackers" than admit they screwed up.

but even that is a crappy excuse.

There's no reason at all for the rest of the internet outside of Australia to even have access to the Census website.
They could have at least geo-blocked any IP address originating from outside Australia.
Such a simple solution to that problem, that *not* doing it makes them look incompetent.

Comment Not hacked. Just bad capacity planning (Score 4, Insightful) 129

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

Now they are saying it's not been attacked from overseas.

How hard would it have been to "do a Netflix" and block IP addresses based on location anyway? - That would at least stem the amount of foreign intelligence services from trying to hack the website which contains information on Australian citizens.

I read that they tested the system to 150% capacity, where 100% capacity was estimated to be 1 million forms processed per hour.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

That estimate was a gross underestimation of the numbers of sessions needed to handle an estimated 16 million households - all of whom most likely would have logged in during a 4-6 hour period in the evening. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to calculate that the system didn't have the capacity to deal with this spike in traffic.

The capacity should have been somewhere in a ball park of 5-10 million forms processed per hour, or more.
Couldn't have been cheap to have load balancers maxxed out trying to maintain that many accelerated SSL sessions.... but there you go.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...