OpenSSH trojaned...hmmmm
-
... and is dereived from commercially developed sources. Sing it brother!!!! It would be a total joke to claim OSS code suffers worse from "code spew" than commercial applications. Apache, sendmail, expat, quake, etc..., all suffer from the same problem of moronic programmers who actually believe this crap about "self documenting" code. An overwhelming amount of code I see is mostly just "code spew". Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: moronic programmers :omg: You really are one sandwich short of a picnic basket dude! You are calling the people who wrote sendmail, quake and apache moronic? If you're such a bloody genius prove it? Otherwise go back to your small little world. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Sendmail sucks? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Very much so. Even Unix people agree it is a total hack job. QMail RULEZ!!!! :) Apache sucks? Much of it does. It is functionally great, but that isn't the whole story. It is a total nightmare to configure. But that is more of a legacy issue. The code generally does suck royally. But that tends to be very common for OSS and non-OSS. (What I have started calling "Code Spew") Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: Code Spew I hope you haven't patented that term. I'd love to use it if I ever bribe my way into becoming a proj manager :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff
-
peterchen wrote: ME! ME! LET ME JOIN!!! You're proud you bash open source? :confused: You must be a pretty negative/depressed person. peterchen wrote: I love to bash open source for lack of a serious business model And it seems, misinformed too. There is no business in open-source so they don't need a model. peterchen wrote: their abuse of the word "free". If it has managed to escape your notice they actually define pretty well what they mean by "free". Go to gnu.org and read. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
You're proud you bash open source? Actually, yes. GNU is a total joke and it is shocking at masses of sheep who copyleft their software with little or NO understanding of what it means. If you REALLY want open source, then the either public domain it or use the non-adware version of the BSD license. Artistic is also ok for people who would like to maintain a clearing house of modifications. Only then can you claim true free software. GNU isn't free, it is a political statement. Remember, even FSF goes to great pains stating that GNU is NOT about cost but about freedom of use. Then they list pages of legal restrictions. What a joke. Softpanorama: (slightly skeptical) Open Source Software Educational Society[^] Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: On the desktop never. What proof do you have to support your belief? Ummm, there's the "free" factor coupled with the fact that KDE is beautiful AND functional. You can no longer say that Linux on the desktop is hard to use, even for novices (such as myself). What's holding Linux back on the desktop right now (in my opinion) is the schism betweeen Gnome and KDE and the resultant lack of interoperability. Brian Azzopardi wrote: What open source apps did you try Lets see, first was Glade on RH 6.2. I was trying to set up a C++ language binding for it and I couldn't do it. You might say I'm lame, but I'd argue that the last thing on my mind when using an MS IDE would be getting it running. I just start it up and use it. I thought that would be the same on Linux. Then there's OpenOffice which I have on my PC right now in fact. I already ranted about it on CP some months ago. And actually I never mentioned the fact that it somehow installed itself as my default app for opening .doc files. I don't remember ever having asked it to do that. I also tried AbiWord. It sucks too but that's forgivable because the Abi folks never claimed it was a "drop in" replacement for Word. Then there was the Gnome desktop itself. Ok, I haven't tried Gnome2 but Gnome was very slow and unstable last time I used Linux. They'll improve no doubt, but last I tried them they sucked. ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff
First you argue that all the open source apps sucked and then you write Senkwe Chanda wrote: KDE is beautiful AND functional Please make up your mind. If open-source sucked so much why don't you pick an app and improve it. After all, they've given you the code right? I however agree with you that developing a GUI app on Windows is much easier than the pain it is on Linux. I never tried any of the office suites on Linux. What's the point? I just use MS Office. Senkwe Chanda wrote: You can no longer say that Linux on the desktop is hard to use I never said that. What I will say though is that it is percieved to be difficult. And lets face it: if the average joe gets Windows on his PC what real incentive is there for him to change over to Linux? Apache? Windows is great for non-technical people. And its getting better too (Win2k is pretty stable for example ) bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
peterchen wrote: ME! ME! LET ME JOIN!!! You're proud you bash open source? :confused: You must be a pretty negative/depressed person. peterchen wrote: I love to bash open source for lack of a serious business model And it seems, misinformed too. There is no business in open-source so they don't need a model. peterchen wrote: their abuse of the word "free". If it has managed to escape your notice they actually define pretty well what they mean by "free". Go to gnu.org and read. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You must be a pretty negative/depressed person. Pretty much not. I don't do/take this very serious, but I enjoy it. Brian Azzopardi wrote: There is no business in open-source I fully agree with you, but there are some people that don't - clickety-goog[^] free: I know the "free speech" thing, but still "free software" for me just sounds like free beer. However the classic "free as in free speech" GPL is either viral or a cult worship rule. And yes, I know of the LGPL. much better, but still not as widespread as I'd wish to see it.
You don't need to sleep to see a nightmare Anne Clark [sighist]
-
You're proud you bash open source? Actually, yes. GNU is a total joke and it is shocking at masses of sheep who copyleft their software with little or NO understanding of what it means. If you REALLY want open source, then the either public domain it or use the non-adware version of the BSD license. Artistic is also ok for people who would like to maintain a clearing house of modifications. Only then can you claim true free software. GNU isn't free, it is a political statement. Remember, even FSF goes to great pains stating that GNU is NOT about cost but about freedom of use. Then they list pages of legal restrictions. What a joke. Softpanorama: (slightly skeptical) Open Source Software Educational Society[^] Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
First you argue that all the open source apps sucked and then you write Senkwe Chanda wrote: KDE is beautiful AND functional Please make up your mind. If open-source sucked so much why don't you pick an app and improve it. After all, they've given you the code right? I however agree with you that developing a GUI app on Windows is much easier than the pain it is on Linux. I never tried any of the office suites on Linux. What's the point? I just use MS Office. Senkwe Chanda wrote: You can no longer say that Linux on the desktop is hard to use I never said that. What I will say though is that it is percieved to be difficult. And lets face it: if the average joe gets Windows on his PC what real incentive is there for him to change over to Linux? Apache? Windows is great for non-technical people. And its getting better too (Win2k is pretty stable for example ) bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: First you argue that all the open source apps sucked Gee, where did I say that? :-) ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff
-
Tim Smith wrote: moronic programmers :omg: You really are one sandwich short of a picnic basket dude! You are calling the people who wrote sendmail, quake and apache moronic? If you're such a bloody genius prove it? Otherwise go back to your small little world. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Damn straight. I have no problem telling anybody when they are wrong. There isn't any ethical or moral justification for letting someone continue with poor practices just because of their standing in other areas. Also, there is a huge difference between functional code and good code. Sendmail doesn't really apply to either of these. It is hardly functional and a support nightmare. Trust me, I am not the only person who has these views about Sendmail. Sendmail must die. QMail forever! (even qmail suffers from a fair amount of code spew). As far as Apache goes, the code is in serious need of some cleanup. EXPAT and Quake have the same problems. The code works, it works great, but it has been spewed into source files with little concern for long term support. In the case of Quake there is really not much wrong with this as long as the code developers stick around. But what if Carmack got hit by a bus? What if the other developers left? You would be left with a code base that is poorly documented filled with obscure tricks. Carmack is a great graphics programmer, but I would hate to have to support that mess he calls code. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: First you argue that all the open source apps sucked Gee, where did I say that? :-) ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff
Well, he also seems to think that just because someone is a great programmer, he can't be a total moron in other areas. John Carmack (id software/quake) is a great graphics programmer, but when it comes to properly documenting source code, he is an old school "spew" programmer. Which IMHO, is totally moronic. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
benjymous wrote: If a pissed off ms employee planted something nasty into the source of a ms product, what are the chances that anyone would ever notice? Have you ever heard of "peer code review" ? Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
yes, but they cost money........... X| Would you like to meet my teddybear ?
-
Well, he also seems to think that just because someone is a great programmer, he can't be a total moron in other areas. John Carmack (id software/quake) is a great graphics programmer, but when it comes to properly documenting source code, he is an old school "spew" programmer. Which IMHO, is totally moronic. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: Well, he also seems to think that just because someone is a great programmer, he can't be a total moron in other areas. Carmack is a great programmer. That's why I don't give a rat's ass that he's an old school "spew" programmer. And I don't think Carmack is a moron. For example, he might not be gifted musically but that does not mean he doesn't have a high IQ. Anyway, do u think he gives a f**k what people think regarding his coding style. He knows he's good. And we know it too. Do you think that becuase, for example, Picasso was a bastard to his family means that I do not admire his work. Although I'm sorry for how he treated his family, I will still admire his work. Call me elitist, but great work should not be hampered by the mundane considerations of small people. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: except for Mozilla which is ugly but doesn't suck ... and is dereived from commercially developed sources. :cool:
You don't need to sleep to see a nightmare Anne Clark [sighist]
peterchen wrote: ... and is dereived from commercially developed sources. No, Mozilla started out as Netscape, but when the developers looked at the code, they realized that it was a worthless cause, and scrapped it. If you would look at Mozilla's website, you would see that the Netscape code was mothballed and the product started from scratch.
-
Sendmail before version 8 had a bunch of security probs. But it's the most widely used MTA in the world. If it sucked that bad it wouldnt be used would it? Tim Smith wrote: It is a total nightmare to configure Do you really think so? Have you ever tried configuring it yourself? Or just becuase it does not have a nice MMC page it confuses your pretty little head? It's a simple, well documented text file. And if thats too hard for you there is a GUI control panel so it's really, really easy for those who can't be bothered to use their brain cells (if any). bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Sendmail before version 8 had a bunch of security probs. But it's the most widely used MTA in the world. If it sucked that bad it wouldnt be used would it? What about applying this argument to Win9x, or, better yet, to version 3.1? :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
- It's for protection
- Protection from what? Zee Germans? -
peterchen wrote: ... and is dereived from commercially developed sources. No, Mozilla started out as Netscape, but when the developers looked at the code, they realized that it was a worthless cause, and scrapped it. If you would look at Mozilla's website, you would see that the Netscape code was mothballed and the product started from scratch.
As far as I understand is they scrapped most or even all of the old netscape code on the way, but never really went through the "format d: / create a new project" phase. It might be argued if this makes a difference, but IMO yes.
You don't need to sleep to see a nightmare Anne Clark [sighist]
-
Well, he also seems to think that just because someone is a great programmer, he can't be a total moron in other areas. John Carmack (id software/quake) is a great graphics programmer, but when it comes to properly documenting source code, he is an old school "spew" programmer. Which IMHO, is totally moronic. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: John Carmack (id software/quake) is a great graphics programmer, but when it comes to properly documenting source code, he is an old school "spew" programmer. Which IMHO, is totally moronic. Interestingly, i pretty much learned C by reading the Doom source... probably not something i should be bringing up in job interviews then, eh? ;P
---
Shog9 If I could sleep forever, I could forget about everything...
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: On the desktop never. What proof do you have to support your belief? Ummm, there's the "free" factor coupled with the fact that KDE is beautiful AND functional. You can no longer say that Linux on the desktop is hard to use, even for novices (such as myself). What's holding Linux back on the desktop right now (in my opinion) is the schism betweeen Gnome and KDE and the resultant lack of interoperability. Brian Azzopardi wrote: What open source apps did you try Lets see, first was Glade on RH 6.2. I was trying to set up a C++ language binding for it and I couldn't do it. You might say I'm lame, but I'd argue that the last thing on my mind when using an MS IDE would be getting it running. I just start it up and use it. I thought that would be the same on Linux. Then there's OpenOffice which I have on my PC right now in fact. I already ranted about it on CP some months ago. And actually I never mentioned the fact that it somehow installed itself as my default app for opening .doc files. I don't remember ever having asked it to do that. I also tried AbiWord. It sucks too but that's forgivable because the Abi folks never claimed it was a "drop in" replacement for Word. Then there was the Gnome desktop itself. Ok, I haven't tried Gnome2 but Gnome was very slow and unstable last time I used Linux. They'll improve no doubt, but last I tried them they sucked. ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff
Senkwe Chanda wrote: You can no longer say that Linux on the desktop is hard to use, even for novices Ja, ja, ja, ja! You're so funny. That was a great joke. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff