So... about that Heartbleed
-
@boomzilla said:
@HardwareGeek said:
It will go away when our government becomes
rationalirrevocably insolvent.FTFY
I'd say we're there. I mean, we're like the down-on-his-luck gambler who is past the point where he has lost big, is flat-broke and owes the unhappy Mafia bookie $170k by Monday.
However, we're still at the point where we think if we can just pull one last, clever, long-shot heist we'll have enough money to pay back the bookie--with interest--and pursue our dream of opening a restaurant with a quirky-yet-endearing gimmick. All while winning back the girl of our dreams and getting to spend some time with the wise-and-quick-witted-yet-unappreciated-by-a-prejudiced-society minorities who comprise our co-conspirators.
And we're not yet at the point where the Coast Guard fishes our bloated, bullet-riddled corpse out of the river.
-
First, "Heartbleed" is a silly name for the bug.
Second, how the hell is FOSS in general still above the water? I mean, the whole idea of QA in FOSS code is "we have hundreds of devs looking at a code, so even if someone screws up, it will be pointed out". And it turns out that you can introduce the most basic security vulnerability into a critical piece of software half the Internet uses, and nobody spots it for 2 years. Now think about less critical software.
And if you understand how the bug works, it's even more hilarious (in a "hahaha oh God kill me" way). Seriously. It's a classic buffer overrun. Even a Head First book on C++ would probably warn you about it. And yet, somebody put it in, and for 2 years nobody has even bothered to check what happens if the declared and actual string length mismatches?
Let me repeat. <font size="6">For 2 years, nobody checked what happens if actual and declared length mismatches.</font>. That's front page material if I've ever seen one.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
Second, how the hell is FOSS in general still above the water?
Oh, that's an easy one to answer. Not all of FOSS is as bad as that particular piece of it. “Lots of potential reviewers” isn't the only reason for FOSS, no matter what some people think.
-
@dkf said:
Not all of FOSS is as bad as that particular piece of it.
Hilariously, prior to HeartBeeps I would have named OpenSSL as one of the few successful open sores projects.
So what do you think are good projects? Like, ones that are comparable to commercial offerings?
@dkf said:
“Lots of potential reviewers” isn't the only reason for FOSS, no matter what some people think.
What's the other reason?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So.. you're just making up the arguments you want to have in your head and then posting the results here? How's that working out for you?
So.. you're just claiming that you have said something, I point out that you didn't, and now I'm the one having arguments in my head?
@morbiuswilters said:@derari said:
So.. when a company makes the economic decision to not support some weird platforms, it's a good thing, and when a FOSS community makes the economic decision to not support some weird standards, it's purified evil?I don't think SChannel has the same amount of deprecated code, because they probably never made the effort to support that many older platforms.
And that's supposed to be a point in OpenSSL's favour? Shit, even the OpenBSD people realize that's dumb.
And stop whining about not caring about their users. If you consider how many potential users actually need FIPS, and which value they could provide instead for the remaining users, it is a good decision for the users.@morbiuswilters said:
Now, see, I don't think I've ever seen a commercial product that only works in vim.
Yeah, that was a copy&paste mistake. Replace vim with Java or something.@morbiuswilters said:
So your coup de grace against commercial software is that it gives you dozens of competing choices?
Well, you said that's a bad thing.
@morbiuswilters said:
Well, for one, I never said SChannel was bug-free; there you go again, having the argument you want to have in your head.
I wasn't talking about any bug, but about severe bugs. Maybe you should take Reading Comprehension 101. You just claimed that SChannel is superior but so far, nobody has effectively proven that, you've just fabricated
statements I did not make and then tried vainly to argue against them.The to major arguments against OpenSSL are 1) the bug, which surely has its equivalent in SChannel and 2) the amounts of dead code. But you do realize that dead code, by definition, is nothing that makes a software worse for the end user?
-
@derari said:
So.. when a company makes the economic decision to not support some weird platforms, it's a good thing, and when a FOSS community makes the economic decision to not support some weird standards, it's purified evil?
So in your mind, supporting a long-dead hardware platform is the same as supporting a current, required-in-many-fields government standard? Oooookay.
@derari said:
@morbiuswilters said:
So your coup de grace against commercial software is that it gives you dozens of competing choices?
Well, you said that's a bad thing.So in your mind, 50 crappy window managers is the same as a diverse market of competing solutions that people actually need? Honestly, you are the reason FOSS is a failure, and you don't even realize it. Sad, really.
@derari said:
You just claimed that SChannel is superior but so far, nobody has effectively proven that..
I posted a link to the severe bugs for OpenSSL. But, yeah, keep fuckin' that chicken. Honestly, I hope you keep being an irrational FOSS zealot because it marks you just as well as wearing a shirt that says "I'm an incompetent amateur who should never be trusted with any project of importance." If you started using good software you might get a job somewhere that does real work and fuck something important up. So, thank you.
@derari said:
But you do realize that dead code, by definition, is nothing that makes a software worse for the end user?
Quoted for Sheer Fucking Insanity.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dkf said:
Probably because you've never tried to use it except as an embedded part of another product; OpenSSL is one of the nastiest pieces of software I've ever had the misfortune to use, even without the whole security hole business. It was always a case of “hold your nose and move on, swiftly” and I never felt the need to… no, felt the need to never look deeper as I thought it would be a horrendous mess inside. I was right.Not all of FOSS is as bad as that particular piece of it.
Hilariously, prior to HeartBeeps I would have named OpenSSL as one of the few successful open sores projects.The bolded text (emphasis mine, but your words) indicates that you're excessively biased. (Be aware that some commercial code is worse. I've seen some, and I'm glad I signed the NDA and a separate declaration that I know nothing about the product in question.)@morbiuswilters said:
So what do you think are good projects? Like, ones that are comparable to commercial offerings?
Python, while not something I actually like, is definitely a successful piece of open source software. It's got vast numbers of users (scientists and engineers across lots of disciplines) and lots of them are very happy with it indeed. If you want to compare with commercial products, try IDL which has far fewer users and is much less pleasant to use, yet which ought to be at least conceptually in a similar space. R also seems to attract a lot of users, and it started out in direct opposition to a commercial product (SPSS? I forget exactly which one.) There are few genuinely successful pure commercial programming languages.@morbiuswilters said:What's the other reason?
Control and ownership? Lots of people feel that if they're building a business on something, they want to be sure they're not going to have some vendor pull the rug out from under their feet. With a commercial vendor, there's always that risk; you can't be sure that you won't get shafted. OSS doesn't stop the current vendor-group from pulling out, but it does at least give people a guaranteed route to pick up the pieces.
-
@DaveK said:
@blakeyrat said:
FOSS programming tools usually break on Windows if you install them in the correct location, because "Program Files" has a space in the name.
What, like this well-known shitty FOSS tool?
@blakeyrat said:
I find this both shocking and amusing because the OS these tools were built on allows spaces in folder names. So either these tools are completely busted on their native OS (most likely), or the "port" to Windows somehow introduced a devastating regression they haven't fixed in years.
You're a complete fucking cargo-cult coder Blakey. If a FOSS tool receives a path with a space in it as an argv entry and passes it to fopen(), nothing goes wrong. Of course, shitty user scripts that don't quote the args they pass to tools correctly exist, just like shitty .bat files that don't quote their args correctly also exist, but that's not the fault of the tools. You are spouting some half-remembered mish-mash of unrelated facts and pointing the finger in the wrong direction when it's really just a PEBKAC/GIGO issue. You're probably also thinking of the CreateProcess guess-where-the-spaces-go dance as a good thing, rather than the stupid attempt to second-guess the user's intentions that leads to shit like the "C:\Program.exe" vulnerability that it actually is.
In short, your complaint reflects only your incompetence, and not the supposed flaw with FOSS that you imagine it to show.
And you're a complete fucking moron. blakey was referring to software developed on Linux, where, for whatever reason, spaces in directory/file names are seen as An Abomination Before The Eyes OF God. Then that software gets ported to Windows, and instead of following Windows' convention for where programs should be installed (you know, the convention that has been around for nearly TWO DECADES), the lazy fucks doing the port just slap it in the root of the C:\ drive. Then they release it to the web and anybody who is foolish enough to try to install it properly ends up being fucked over.
The problem here is not Windows, it's the dumbfuck FOSStard developers who don't TEST THEIR STUPID SHIT. If you're gonna make a port, make one that fucking works properly. And stop blaming users for badly written code. If your program has problems with spaces in paths in the year twenty fucking fourteen, it means you're a fucking piss-poor developer and you should hang yourself immediately, if not sooner.
@derari said:
.... the bug, which surely has its equivalent in SChannel...
SChannel has a bug as serious as Heartbleed because some random guy on the Internet, with no access to the SChannel source, said so. And then you wonder why people call you FOSStards. (Which is actually unfair, because genuinely retarded people cannot change the way they are, whereas FOSS zealots choose to behave as if they're retarded.)
-
@dkf said:
Probably because you've never tried to use it except as an embedded part of another product; OpenSSL is one of the nastiest pieces of software I've ever had the misfortune to use, even without the whole security hole business.
Huh? The API was a bit of a pain, but it's not terribly surprising for a crypto library.
@dkf said:
The bolded text (emphasis mine, but your words) indicates that you're excessively biased.
You mean like how I use "M$" everywhere? People, get a grip.
@dkf said:
(Be aware that some commercial code is worse. I've seen some, and I'm glad I signed the NDA and a separate declaration that I know nothing about the product in question.)
What is with you people? It's like chicks in an abusive relationship. "FOSS isn't so bad to me. My friend's proprietary software tried to kill her. I know that deep down FOSS loves me.."
@dkf said:
Python, while not something I actually like, is definitely a successful piece of open source software. It's got vast numbers of users (scientists and engineers across lots of disciplines) and lots of them are very happy with it indeed. If you want to compare with commercial products, try IDL which has far fewer users and is much less pleasant to use, yet which ought to be at least conceptually in a similar space. R also seems to attract a lot of users, and it started out in direct opposition to a commercial product (SPSS? I forget exactly which one.) There are few genuinely successful pure commercial programming languages.
Eh, so-so. There are okay open sores languages. Python is fine for some things, but like most FOSS languages it's kind of a mess when it comes to development tools and GUI libraries. I mean, for most business software, I'd much prefer to use C#.
@dkf said:
Control and ownership? Lots of people feel that if they're building a business on something, they want to be sure they're not going to have some vendor pull the rug out from under their feet. With a commercial vendor, there's always that risk; you can't be sure that you won't get shafted. OSS doesn't stop the current vendor-group from pulling out, but it does at least give people a guaranteed route to pick up the pieces.
You know, this is the same thinking that drives people who keep a few tons of MREs in a bunker in the woods. At least for those people, they're actually worried about dying. Intentionally choosing inferior software because you're afraid good software might disappear on you really doesn't make sense.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
Then they release it to the web and anybody who is foolish enough to try to install it properly ends up being fucked over.
Also, it's not common for Linux software to be released with an installer. Usually the original developers just provide it in source form and then the 500 different distros (that's not even an exaggeration..), compile several different versions for different targeted platforms, package it in one of the 50 different packaging systems for FOSS and then deploy it. So they're really not used to having to release installable software. (Yeah, yeah, some projects will provide .rpms and/or .debs for direct download, but it's still not the norm.. And it's really not a great idea on Linux.)
@The_Assimilator said:
The problem here is not Windows, it's the dumbfuck FOSStard developers who don't TEST THEIR STUPID SHIT. If you're gonna make a port, make one that fucking works properly. And stop blaming users for badly written code. If your program has problems with spaces in paths in the year twenty fucking fourteen, it means you're a fucking piss-poor developer and you should hang yourself immediately, if not sooner.
Wow, by comparison you make me look like some FOSS-loving peace-hippie. I don't know whether to be frightened, aroused, envious, aroused or proud. (Or aroused.)
@The_Assimilator said:
(Which is actually unfair, because genuinely retarded people cannot change the way they are, whereas FOSS zealots choose to behave as if they're retarded.)
Perhaps, but biotech is a fast-growing field. Maybe in twenty years they'll find there is a gene for slavishly defending open source software.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@The_Assimilator said:
(Which is actually unfair, because genuinely retarded people cannot change the way they are, whereas FOSS zealots choose to behave as if they're retarded.)
Perhaps, but biotech is a fast-growing field. Maybe in twenty years they'll find there is a gene for slavishly defending open source software.
We're here, we're Free, get over it, fossaphobes.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@The_Assimilator said:
The problem here is not Windows, it's the dumbfuck FOSStard developers who don't TEST THEIR STUPID SHIT. If you're gonna make a port, make one that fucking works properly. And stop blaming users for badly written code. If your program has problems with spaces in paths in the year twenty fucking fourteen, it means you're a fucking piss-poor developer and you should hang yourself immediately, if not sooner.
Wow, by comparison you make me look like some FOSS-loving peace-hippie. I don't know whether to be frightened, aroused, envious, aroused or proud. (Or aroused.)
Aren't you always aroused?
But seriously, it is not acceptable in 2014 to screw up paths. Path manipulation is a programming fundamental, and every half-decent programming language has path manipulation functions that handle spaces properly. (If you are not using one of those languages, write your own fucking function that does the same. It's not rocket surgery.) If you are not using those functions, it means you either don't know about them (implying you aren't qualified to be writing software in that language), or you're choosing not to use them (implying you're a moron). Either way, there. is. no. excuse.
@morbiuswilters said:
@The_Assimilator said:
(Which is actually unfair, because genuinely retarded people cannot change the way they are, whereas FOSS zealots choose to behave as if they're retarded.)
Perhaps, but biotech is a fast-growing field. Maybe in twenty years they'll find there is a gene for slavishly defending open source software.
Then I'll know which gene to patent first, so I can make them pay me for their defects!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@fire2k said:
The truth is that OpenBSD (which maintains many of the core libraries and software systems the Internet runs on, and thanks to their lenient licensing, is in fucking everything), has ridiculously little funding in comparison to what you put up as the alternative - commercial, closed-source software.
Which is why I don't blame the OpenBSD developers, I blame FOSS and people who promote FOSS as superior to commercial development. The OpenBSD guys are probably all sharp guys, but the entire goal of FOSS works against it: to build high-quality, usable software with mostly-volunteer resources, little money and no incentive to actually make anything usable.
In fact, it seems to me there is a distinct disincentive to make things usable, because if you put effort into making a good GUI, people will still ravage you over it (see M$.) But if you just churn out a CLI-based interface in the year 2014, when people criticize you can just say "Hey, it's a more efficient way to work and you just don't get it."
Well, it's worth remembering that the Internet is full of assholes. You could send free bread to somebody and if your communication was twitter handles he'll complain about the type of bread, tweet that you are sucker to everybody you know and then make sexual remarks about your mother. So feedback should largely be ignored in this day and age, as much as that pains me to admit or follow.
What would interest me is how this would all turn out if they had development tools on par of Microsoft or even Apple? Where would OSS be if somewhere along the line they decided that good debuggers, well maintained testing- and compiler tools were a must? Would that have changed some things or are these problems systematic?
@morbiuswilters said:
@fire2k said:
It's hardly fair that insecurity and hacking are billion-dollar industries, fighting some volunteers IBM pays to somehow keep the infrastructure of things they themselves make billions off barely afloat.
Of course. And I think companies like IBM deserve a lot of blame here. In the late 90s IBM realized they could make more profit by using inferior, "free" products and throwing a few shekels at the projects, rather than maintaining their own code. It does mean IBM's customers get stuck with crap software, but they were already used to that; FOSS is just the terminal end stage of being a loyal IBM customer. Plus, from IBM's perspective it's a PR win.
If this was their proprietary code that had bugs this awful, they'd rightly be savaged for it. Instead, they get to surreptitiously pin the blame on someone else, while still getting the play the role of gracious hero by putting out some press release peppered with phrases like "community" and "in this together". Then IBM contributes back a tiny fraction of the money they would have spent building their own product and the Slashtrolls eat it up. Meanwhile, FOSS plays the role of fall-guy, hatchetman and journeyman for a cynical multi-billion dollar corporation. Is this what you planned, Stallman?
It is, actually. The problem is the overlap between OSS as a development and OSS as an ideology.
If OSS is a development model then the only success would be good software. If you would want to argue for that, I'd go the way of citing the influence open-source has on the rest of closed-source development (i.e. "where the money is"). Concessions big companies have to general development, like Visual Studio Express, Netbeans & Glassfish, Maya LT, Autodesk Student, CryEngine Free & UDK, are all the result of bit companies battling the rising influence of software solutions not their own in their spheres. Another reason IBM is also investing in eclipse (or used to) is because it fucks with the other distributors of Java IDEs, like Oracle, who in turn have to maintain their own free solution. OSS is company chess, and every piece they kill is gifted to the public, for free.
If OSS is an ideology however, then every piece of open sourced code is good and important, and the means to some end-goal. I'm not really a believer, but Stallman's
Communist Manifestowritings have circulated our circles for decades, so everybody should at least be aware of the general idea.@morbiuswilters said:
@fire2k said:
bug reports
Or as I like to call them "Automated emails I get seven years later telling me my bug was closed without being fixed because they re-wrote the entire thing in Go and if it still happens I should open a new bug." Then I'm like "When the hell did I file a bug on GIMP?" and I get to spend a couple hours reminiscing about my teenage years, my first taste of beer and the smell of the road on hot summer night.
Man, if only. I still have open bugs in Fedora 7."A saner way of bugtracking" is also on the list of things I thought the 21th century would bring at some point.
@morbiuswilters said:
Here's the debate I would like to have: should M$ fund open sores projects like OpenSSL so they will continue to serve as lightning rods for script kiddies, lazy hackers and the U.S. Government? Personally, I can see it as a worthwhile investment.
You are ignoring a central reality here: You are hit bit the stray lightning as well, because we've successfully created a situation where this stuff is everywhere. Wanna use goverment healthcare? Guess what their servers run. Want to shop? Whoops.
It's easy to now pretend that Microsoft had some kind of masterplan all along, and they fact that they get out of most of these lightning storm nowadays smelling like roses (several exploits of their software products nonwithstanding) is due to the fact that on many fronts, they got their shit together. Their browser however, is, and probably will remain broken, unintuitive and the reason why everybody is using also broken things like Firefox in the first place. And they created this situation, by missing nearly every lasting supplement or substitution market for their operating system in existence, like the Internet, Smartphones, Tablets, Search Engines, Navigation, and so on. They'll be fine, obviously, and drowning in money (I'm not one of those insane people pretending the rise of "insert product I like here" will kill Ms. They sold record numbers of Windows 8)
-
@fire2k said:
What would interest me is how this would all turn out if they had development tools on par of Microsoft or even Apple?
Apple's IDE didn't stop them from shipping "goto fail;". The problem is a people problem: it's not that the tools don't exist, it's that a bunch of morons are using 1986 VIM to edit their fucking code, because they think it's "more efficient" or they are insufferable hipsters. ("1986 was a good year for VIM. Now excuse me, I need to buy more mustache wax.")
@fire2k said:
What would interest me is how this would all turn out if they had development tools on par of Microsoft or even Apple? Where would OSS be if somewhere along the line they decided that good debuggers, well maintained testing- and compiler tools were a must? Would that have changed some things or are these problems systematic?
Again: FOSS people genuinely believe they already ship great development tools. It's their number one delusion, that it's easier to develop software for an open source OS than a closed source OS. These people are either extremely ignorant, or literally crazy.
@fire2k said:
Their browser however, is, and probably will remain broken, unintuitive and the reason why everybody is using also broken things like Firefox in the first place.
IE has been fixed for years now.
Also saying it is unintuitive is hilarious to me, since Chrome and Firefox's interfaces are just a ripoff of the UI changes originally made in IE7.
@fire2k said:
And they created this situation, by missing nearly every lasting supplement or substitution market for their operating system in existence, like the Internet,
Your post is a weird combination of criticizing the Slashdot viewpoint and embracing it. What competing company do you think "got" the Internet before Microsoft did? I was an Apple user, and I can tell you they were way behind Microsoft (they were hucking that eWorld bullshit and TCP/IP was a separate download not shipped with the OS.) Linux barely even existed at that time-- did it even have a GUI yet? Is the argument here that BeOS, or OS/2, or Amiga Workbench somehow was more on-the-ball than Windows while embracing the Internet?
That Microsoft "missed the Internet" is a standard piece of Slashdot traditional wisdom (which differs from normal traditional wisdom in that it's completely bullshit.) I've never been able to squeeze from a Slashdotter what exactly they mean by that, or what they think Microsoft should have done differently.
@fire2k said:
Smartphones, Tablets,
Microsoft was shipping smartphones and tablets long before Apple even knew what the words meant. You could argue that what Microsoft missed were touchscreen smartphones and modifying their tablet OS to be more usable by a touchscreen. But the former, everybody missed. (Even Android took a few years to catch up to the touchscreen thing.) And the latter, Microsoft was relying on software developers to do.
@fire2k said:
Search Engines, Navigation,
Internet search engines, maybe. Even then they're far more successful at competing with Google than any other software company has ever been.
Navigation? What is that? You mean GPS?
-
@fire2k said:
Their browser however, is, and probably will remain broken, unintuitive and the reason why everybody is using also broken things like Firefox in the first place.
Internet Explorer is a fine and fast browser today though. I still prefer Chrome, I'm pretty sure it's still faster. But IE isn't the horrible nightmare it was years ago. MS caught up.
-
On my box, Chrome stabilizes at 1920 fish before the FPS drops. IE11 stabilizes at 2550. IE is also smoother, while Chrome will dip down to 45 FPS periodically before recovering (due to garbage collection perhaps?), IE's framerate is rock solid even with 600 more fish.
Now, given, it's a benchmark created by Microsoft specifically to test IE. But those numbers spell, "IE is faster" in my book. My book is the Book of Blakeyrat, all my wisdom is contained within it, but you can not obtain a copy for it is a million pages long and I can't afford that printing bill.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Fish.
So, on my (admittedly slow) work laptop, running both side-by-side with neither window having the focus, I get 17 FPS on Chrome with 1000 fish and 7 FPS on IE with 1000 fish. I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.On my box, Chrome stabilizes at 1920 fish before the FPS drops. IE11 stabilizes at 2550. IE is also smoother, while Chrome will dip down to 45 FPS periodically before recovering (due to garbage collection perhaps?), IE's framerate is rock solid even with 600 more fish.
Now, given, it's a benchmark created by Microsoft specifically to test IE. But those numbers spell, "IE is faster" in my book. My book is the Book of Blakeyrat, all my wisdom is contained within it, but you can not obtain a copy for it is a million pages long and I can't afford that printing bill.
-
Wow, Chrome 34 has some weird issue on my system (Vista, Radeon 3000 series onboard video). It craps out to 4fps with 10 fish. IE9 goes below 60 with 100 fish, and Firefox, can make 700 fish before dipping below 60.
Mind you, that's IE9, not IE11.
-
@joe.edwards said:
So, on my (admittedly slow) work laptop, running both side-by-side with neither window having the focus, I get 17 FPS on Chrome with 1000 fish and 7 FPS on IE with 1000 fish. I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.
If you run them side-by-side, nothing. I guess you're kind of testing the OS's multitasking ability? Sort of?
-
@dhromed said:
Wow, Chrome 34 has some weird issue on my system (Vista, Radeon 3000 series onboard video). It craps out to 4fps with 10 fish. IE9 goes below 60 with 100 fish, and Firefox, can make 700 fish before dipping below 60.
Mind you, that's IE9, not IE11.
Had the same problem with Chrome 34 (forgot to note minor revision), barely handled 10fps with 10 fish on GTX 760. Updated manually and now both work at 60fps up to 2000 fish and all layers.
-
-
@dhromed said:
Have they been caned for freshness?@Maciejasjmj said:
up to 2000 fish
Now you have 2000 fish.
Congratulations.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@dhromed said:
Have they been caned for freshness?@Maciejasjmj said:
up to 2000 fish
Now you have 2000 fish.
Congratulations.
I didn't know you were into that sort of thing
-
@Ben L. said:
@HardwareGeek said:
@dhromed said:
Have they been caned for freshness?@Maciejasjmj said:
up to 2000 fish
Now you have 2000 fish.
Congratulations.
I didn't know you were into that sort of thingSteam punk?
-
@The_Assimilator said:
But seriously, it is not acceptable in 2014 to screw up paths. Path manipulation is a programming fundamental, and every half-decent programming language has path manipulation functions that handle spaces properly. (If you are not using one of those languages, write your own fucking function that does the same. It's not rocket surgery.) If you are not using those functions, it means you either don't know about them (implying you aren't qualified to be writing software in that language), or you're choosing not to use them (implying you're a moron). Either way, there. is. no. excuse.
Hilariously, it's actually really hard to do paths right on Linux because they decided it was more important to allow users to put control characters into filenames than to make working with paths fool-proof.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Fish.
Chrome on Linux I get a stable 8 FPS with 10 fish. It's probably because it relies on hardware acceleration or something..
Edit: Firefox on Linux it says 60 FPS with 10 fish, but it's even jerkier than Chrome. It looks like maybe 1 FPS. I tried 100 fish and it still said 60 FPS and actually looked like 0.5 FPS, so I assume accurately determining framerate on Firefox on Linux doesn't work. I had to kill the window after about 30 seconds because it was causing my Linux desktop to freeze up. If I had let it go, it probably would have crashed the system.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Hilariously, it's actually really hard to do paths right on Linux because they decided it was more important to allow users to put control characters into filenames than to make working with paths fool-proof.
Have you ever tried to use paths with non-alphanumeric characters in Windows batch files? Because that's even more of a pain. (Why batch files and not jscript/vbscript? Because batch files at least don't get blocked by random anti-virus programs).
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Hilariously, it's actually really hard to do paths right on Linux because they decided it was more important to allow users to put control characters into filenames than to make working with paths fool-proof.
Would the most secure system be a Linux where all of your data is in a hidden Truecrypt volume with control characters in the name?
-
@mott555 said:
Would the most secure system be a Linux where all of your data is in a hidden Truecrypt volume with control characters in the name?
No, that would be a system in which /dev/null is your system root.
-
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Hilariously, it's actually really hard to do paths right on Linux because they decided it was more important to allow users to put control characters into filenames than to make working with paths fool-proof.
Have you ever tried to use paths with non-alphanumeric characters in Windows batch files? Because that's even more of a pain. (Why batch files and not jscript/vbscript? Because batch files at least don't get blocked by random anti-virus programs).The last several scripts I wrote for Windows were in Powershell. I haven't written a batch script in a decade.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Hilariously, it's actually really hard to do paths right on Linux because they decided it was more important to allow users to put control characters into filenames than to make working with paths fool-proof.
Have you ever tried to use paths with non-alphanumeric characters in Windows batch files? Because that's even more of a pain. (Why batch files and not jscript/vbscript? Because batch files at least don't get blocked by random anti-virus programs).The last several scripts I wrote for Windows were in Powershell. I haven't written a batch script in a decade.
Wait, you mean you can actually use that thing? For all those years I've thought that it's just a Microsoft scheme to claim they actually have an awesome doing-everything command-line shell while giving it a syntax so arcane that nobody will ever be able to verify that.
In all seriousness, though - batch scripts are a good option if you have a mundane "move file there, then rename it, then run this program on it" kind of task and don't really want to learn anything beyond what you've had in your DOS class 30 years ago. PowerShell has a much, much higher entry barrier.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Hilariously, it's actually really hard to do paths right on Linux because they decided it was more important to allow users to put control characters into filenames than to make working with paths fool-proof.
Have you ever tried to use paths with non-alphanumeric characters in Windows batch files? Because that's even more of a pain. (Why batch files and not jscript/vbscript? Because batch files at least don't get blocked by random anti-virus programs).The last several scripts I wrote for Windows were in Powershell. I haven't written a batch script in a decade.
Wait, you mean you can actually use that thing? For all those years I've thought that it's just a Microsoft scheme to claim they actually have an awesome doing-everything command-line shell while giving it a syntax so arcane that nobody will ever be able to verify that.
In all seriousness, though - batch scripts are a good option if you have a mundane "move file there, then rename it, then run this program on it" kind of task and don't really want to learn anything beyond what you've had in your DOS class 30 years ago. PowerShell has a much, much higher entry barrier.
I dunno, I picked up PS pretty quickly. It's not like bash doesn't have a barrier to entry, too. I mean, I'm not expert in PS, but the syntax seems pretty straightforward.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@The_Assimilator said:
But seriously, it is not acceptable in 2014 to screw up paths. Path manipulation is a programming fundamental, and every half-decent programming language has path manipulation functions that handle spaces properly. (If you are not using one of those languages, write your own fucking function that does the same. It's not rocket surgery.) If you are not using those functions, it means you either don't know about them (implying you aren't qualified to be writing software in that language), or you're choosing not to use them (implying you're a moron). Either way, there. is. no. excuse.
Hilariously, it's actually really hard to do paths right on Linux because they decided it was more important to allow users to put control characters into filenames than to make working with paths fool-proof.
Oh, it's hard everywhere. Ever create a folder in Windows where the filename ends in a space?
It's totes legal in FAT32 and NTFS, and you can create one from (either) command line easily, but Explorer doesn't know what the fuck to do with it. You can't even delete it.
-
@aristurtle said:
Oh, it's hard everywhere. Ever create a folder in Windows where the filename ends in a space?
It's totes legal in FAT32 and NTFS, and you can create one from (either) command line easily, but Explorer doesn't know what the fuck to do with it. You can't even delete it.
I just tried it, and it seemed to work perfectly fine--is just stripped off the trailing whitespace. Is this one of those things that didn't work on Windows 2.0 and people are still bringing it up?
-
@aristurtle said:
Oh, it's hard everywhere. Ever create a folder in Windows where the filename ends in a space?
It's totes legal in FAT32 and NTFS, and you can create one from (either) command line easily, but Explorer doesn't know what the fuck to do with it. You can't even delete it.
Bullshit. I just tested and both cmd.exe and powershell both removed trailing spaces from the name.
-
@Salamander said:
@aristurtle said:
Oh, it's hard everywhere. Ever create a folder in Windows where the filename ends in a space?
It's totes legal in FAT32 and NTFS, and you can create one from (either) command line easily, but Explorer doesn't know what the fuck to do with it. You can't even delete it.
Bullshit. I just tested and both cmd.exe and powershell both removed trailing spaces from the name.
Draconian DRM Revealed in Windows 7 Slashdot "folk wisdom" which was entirely fabricated. Entirely.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Draconian DRM Revealed in Windows 7 Slashdot "folk wisdom" which was entirely fabricated. Entirely.
I need to see a doctor after reading that and some of the comments. I think it might have given me brain cancer.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Salamander said:
@aristurtle said:
Oh, it's hard everywhere. Ever create a folder in Windows where the filename ends in a space?
It's totes legal in FAT32 and NTFS, and you can create one from (either) command line easily, but Explorer doesn't know what the fuck to do with it. You can't even delete it.
Bullshit. I just tested and both cmd.exe and powershell both removed trailing spaces from the name.
Draconian DRM Revealed in Windows 7 Slashdot "folk wisdom" which was entirely fabricated. Entirely.
I was able to make a folder named "pancreas " using filezilla and a linux vm. It works like any other folder in windows except that my computer beeps loudly if I right click and choose rename.
-
@Ben L. said:
I was able to make a folder named "pancreas " using filezilla and a linux vm.
Huh? You mounted the volume under Linux? Seems like cheating.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
I was able to make a folder named "pancreas " using filezilla and a linux vm.
Huh? You mounted the volume under Linux? Seems like cheating.
No, I created the folder on Linux and then copied it over SFTP to Windows. So technically it is possible to create filenames that end with spaces on Windows, just not with cmd.exe.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
I was able to make a folder named "pancreas " using filezilla and a linux vm.
Huh? You mounted the volume under Linux? Seems like cheating.
No, I created the folder on Linux and then copied it over SFTP to Windows. So technically it is possible to create filenames that end with spaces on Windows, just not with cmd.exe.
My money's on "FileZilla server doing something asinine".
-
@morbiuswilters said:
My money's on "FileZilla server doing something asinine".
You can create such filenames from within Windows, you just have to use \?\ prefix and absolute paths.
-
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
My money's on "FileZilla server doing something asinine".
You can create such filenames from within Windows, you just have to use \?\ prefix and absolute paths.Ahh, there we go. Now how do I delete it?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Ahh, there we go. Now how do I delete it?
Windows 8 explorer usually succeeds. If it doesn't, use the command prompt, and don't forget the \?\ prefix.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Salamander said:
@aristurtle said:
Oh, it's hard everywhere. Ever create a folder in Windows where the filename ends in a space?
It's totes legal in FAT32 and NTFS, and you can create one from (either) command line easily, but Explorer doesn't know what the fuck to do with it. You can't even delete it.
Bullshit. I just tested and both cmd.exe and powershell both removed trailing spaces from the name.
Draconian DRM Revealed in Windows 7 Slashdot "folk wisdom" which was entirely fabricated. Entirely.
All we need to do is tell people that Kubuntu is Windows 7 and everything will be fine.
i'm not seeing how MS has done you wrong. use the app as licensed
How about I be allowed to use my own personal property as I see fit? Fucking DRM apologist.
Who's to say that Microsoft is just protecting installed DLL files, not necessarily per any vendor's request? Locking down the OS to make it more secure and all that stuff people rag on them for. Just sayin.
I don't administer linux so I don't know, but is this how Linux protects its DLL files?
Up to recently I felt like a battered wife, hating Windows but still using it.
Sometimes I forget how much I love those folks.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
My money's on "FileZilla server doing something asinine".
You can create such filenames from within Windows, you just have to use \?\ prefix and absolute paths.Ahh, there we go. Now how do I delete it?
The rd (remove dir) command accepts UNC paths as well, so more \\?\ wizardy is the answer you are looking for. :)
Interestingly UNC paths do not work with forward slashes. Wonder if you could end up in a situation with a file containing both a forward slash and a trailing space.
[...]
[...]
I'm not going to try and find out.
-
@Ragnax said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
My money's on "FileZilla server doing something asinine".
You can create such filenames from within Windows, you just have to use \?\ prefix and absolute paths.Ahh, there we go. Now how do I delete it?
The rd (remove dir) command accepts UNC paths as well, so more \\?\ wizardy is the answer you are looking for. :)
Interestingly UNC paths do not work with forward slashes. Wonder if you could end up in a situation with a file containing both a forward slash and a trailing space.
[...]
[...]
I'm not going to try and find out.Does NTFS support forward slashes in filenames, anyway?
-
@blakeyrat said:
IE has been fixed for years now. Also saying it is unintuitive is hilarious to me, since Chrome and Firefox's interfaces are just a ripoff of the UI changes originally made in IE7.
Well, the very first thing IE informs me of after starting is that it's slow and that I should turn off some add-ons. None of which I gave permission to activate, but which were drive-by activated by other software, even Microsoft-stuff like Skype.
Also for the record: I believe there are some strong shortcomings in the current simplification styles propagated and or copied by Google, Firefox and Microsoft. I'm not against the general idea or look, but the implementation almost always leads to really unusable software, and the recent "fix Windows 8"-patches Microsoft devoted a lot of manpower to should essentially prove that point. This includes IE11, which has such delightful things like Metro-Style developer tools. Also, even with the redesign: MSN is still more of a browser benchmark than it is a website, and should not be the default website. Why does that thing even still exist, and why isn't Bing the default start page?
That said the UI-changes MS made in IE7 were themselves ripped of/inspired by Firefox 1.0 and Opera. They ripped off entire feature sets (like the enhanced tabbed browsing) and available Add-Ons (like FireBug) almost verbatim. Now obviously these features were in turn also influenced by technologies Microsoft had already used in other divisions (they had tabs, for example, just not in their browser, and devtools as toolbar addons). Also Firefox was feature leader when it came to fast JavaScript until about IE9, and Chrome Desktop remains the leading innovator regarding HTML5/JS/CSS3.
@fire2k said:
And they created this situation, by missing nearly every lasting supplement or substitution market for their operating system in existence, like the Internet,
@blakeyrat said:
Your post is a weird combination of criticizing the Slashdot viewpoint and embracing it.
So what you are saying is that my opinions aren't determined by a party line (or antagonism towards one), but rather differ from case to case? Why, thank you.
@blakeyrat said:
What competing company do you think "got" the Internet before Microsoft did? I was an Apple user, and I can tell you they were way behind Microsoft (they were hucking that eWorld bullshit and TCP/IP was a separate download not shipped with the OS.) Linux barely even existed at that time-- did it even have a GUI yet? Is the argument here that BeOS, or OS/2, or Amiga Workbench somehow was more on-the-ball than Windows while embracing the Internet? That Microsoft "missed the Internet" is a standard piece of Slashdot traditional wisdom (which differs from normal traditional wisdom in that it's completely bullshit.) I've never been able to squeeze from a Slashdotter what exactly they mean by that, or what they think Microsoft should have done differently.
Yeah, I guess I should have been more specific on that one (I kind of knew that somebody would call foul on this).
Microsoft missed the following Internet technologies as they emerged, and/or invested less to put a permanent end to their competitors (sometimes even after investing much into gaining a foothold on the market). In no particular order:
- Internet Payment Services (I only have offline sources here, but it's detailed in Joel Sporzcys Book)
- The second Browser wars aka the emerging of Firefox and then Chrome, by not investing/killing their browser team for large periods of time
- Online-Based Scripting (aka killing Javascript before it became popular/ stop investing into ActiveX)
- Online-Based Office/Google Docs (see the first link)
- Cloud-Based Storage (Dropbox entered that market first, and kind of won)
- Online Sale and Hosting of Games (Steam won against Games for Windows Live)
I'll stop here, but I could do this for a while.
@blakeyrat said:
Microsoft was shipping smartphones and tablets long before Apple even knew what the words meant. You could argue that what Microsoft missed were *touchscreen* smartphones and modifying their tablet OS to be more usable by a touchscreen. But the former, everybody missed.
Except, you know, Apple. Apple was the first to the market, despite the rollout advantage Microsoft should have had from their non-negligable success on the embedded phone/Windows CE market, that continues to rake in industry money to this day.
@blakeyrat said:
Internet search engines, maybe.
Apple also beat them to Desktop Search Engines with Sherlock around the time the XP-Engine stopped being capable of putting up with people's newfound possibilities of maintaining a music collection. They didn't fix Desktop searching on Windows until Windows 7, which is why Google used to publish a Desktop Search tool for XP and Vista.
@blakeyrat said:
Even then they're far more successful at competing with Google than any other software company has ever been.
So? They are still losing money in this venture. I get why they don't want to back away from it, and certain parts of Bing, like their API-Services are miles ahead of Google (then again Google isn't known for their APIs), but I doubt losing a lot of money is a good definition of "successful at competing" against the biggest money printing license the world has seen since Windows on 8086.
@blakeyrat said:
Navigation? What is that? You mean GPS?
No, since GPS is hardware technology, and Microsoft don't exactly do a lot of them inhouse. I'm talking of course about Bing Maps, their venture into trying to compete with Google Maps/Google Navigator. It's actually a pretty good product, but they were really late to market, and the fact that most Microsoft mobile hardware replaces it with Nokia Maps hardly helps.
-
@fire2k said:
Well, the very first thing IE informs me of after starting is that it's slow and that I should turn off some add-ons. None of which I gave permission to activate, but which were drive-by activated by other software, even Microsoft-stuff like Skype.
Then upgrade. IE11 does not do that. (And I'm pretty sure no version of IE ever said "I'm slow BTW" when starting up, that has to be a lie.)
@fire2k said:
Yeah, I guess I should have been more specific on that one (I kind of knew that somebody would call foul on this).
Good thing you posted it then, idiot.
@fire2k said:
- Internet Payment Services (I only have offline sources here, but it's detailed in Joel Sporzcys Book)
- The second Browser wars aka the emerging of Firefox and then Chrome, by not investing/killing their browser team for large periods of time
- Online-Based Scripting (aka killing Javascript before it became popular/ stop investing into ActiveX)
- Online-Based Office/Google Docs (see the first link)
- Cloud-Based Storage (Dropbox entered that market first, and kind of won)
- Online Sale and Hosting of Games (Steam won against Games for Windows Live)
Ok but see the problem with that reasoning is that all of those markets are dominated/were brought by different non-Microsoft third-parties.
So your complaint about Microsoft is that Microsoft can't compete against: AOL, Amazon/Paypal/Google Wallet, Mozilla and Chrome, Dropbox and Valve simultaneously? Well fucking duh. Who could? "Hey guyz, Microsoft is bad because they're not super-mega-ultraman capable of doing everything ever!" What a great argument.
- Online-Based Scripting (aka killing Javascript before it became popular/ stop investing into ActiveX)
Wha-huh? When did Microsoft kill JavaScript? They only stopped investing in ActiveX about 5 years after it was obvious it was a technological dead-end. Remember, even Microsoft products couldn't run ActiveX because of its reliance on Windows-specific technologies, and when Microsoft has a "cross browser" scripting technology their best browser at the time literally can't run because it lacks OS support, well, that's a pretty obvious, "hey guys, let's rethink this..." kind of situation. The only reason ActiveX was even still around in Windows XP was because so many third parties were more enthusiastic about adopting it than MS themselves.
@fire2k said:
- Online-Based Office/Google Docs (see the first link)
Uh... wha? Are you seriously suggesting Google Docs is competition for Office? You are a crazyman.
And what do ANY of these bulletpoints have to do with Microsoft missing out on "the Internet"? Let me present an alternative suggestion: you repeated the "Microsoft missed the Internet" piece of Slashdot bullshit, got called on it being bullshit, and then pulled that list out of your ass to somehow retroactively attempt to make some sense of the saying.
@fire2k said:
Except, you know, Apple.
Bullshit.
You've literally never heard of Windows CE PDAs, or Windows XP tablets? You somehow didn't know that they even released an OS specifically named Windows XP Tablet PC Edition designed to run on tablets and only tablets? You are either a liar or an idiot.
@fire2k said:
Apple also beat them to Desktop Search Engines with Sherlock around the time the XP-Engine stopped being capable of putting up with people's newfound possibilities of maintaining a music collection. They didn't fix Desktop searching on Windows until Windows 7, which is why Google used to publish a Desktop Search tool for XP and Vista.
Bullshit.
I concede that Apple had Sherlock before XP had fast full-content indexing. (Edit: I'm not even 100% sure that's true.) But there's a detail you're missing here: Sherlock SUCKED ASS. MUCH more than XP's search sucked ass. Nobody used Sherlock, and anybody saying otherwise is a fucking liar.
Apple's search didn't become actually good until they released Spotlight in 2005. And the only reason they were able to make that in a non-fucked-up way is that they just bought a third-party solution.
But guess what: by 2005, Windows XP had good search indexers. They weren't shipped with the OS by default, but they worked as well as Spotlight and a damn sight better than Sherlock ever did. And Windows Vista (2007), included that as core functionality in the OS. Not Windows 7, which as your lie-filled lie-paragraph suggests-- Windows 7 search is identical to Windows Vista search.
So this idiotic little complaint sums to: if you wee an XP user who didn't download a search indexer, even though the OS maker had a great one, there was a period of about 18 months where Apple's search was better than Windows search. Ooo. What a devastating point. I'm shaking.
@fire2k said:
So? They are still losing money in this venture.
So? I didn't say it was profitable, I said they were competing better against Google's core product than anybody else. All that means is nobody can compete against Google's monopoly without money infusion.
@fire2k said:
and certain parts of Bing, like their API-Services are miles ahead of Google
Almost everything Bing does is miles ahead of Google. And Google's been doing nothing but ripping-off Bing's ideas for 5 years. Bing isn't losing money because it's a bad product, it's losing money because Google is a monopoly.
-
@Ben L. said:
Does NTFS support forward slashes in filenames, anyway?
Nope.
@fire2k said:Except, you know, Apple. Apple was the first to the market, despite the rollout advantage Microsoft should have had from their non-negligable success on the embedded phone/Windows CE market, that continues to rake in industry money to this day.
Nope. Microsoft started pushing tablets in 2003 (remember XP Tablet Edition?), but nobody cared. They also had Windows CE-based phones long before iPhone, but again nobody cared.
