Keyboard layout
Thank $deity that there's a version with a US keyboard layout. I'd forgotten how perverse the UK layout is.
138 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Jul 2023
I think the proliferation of garbage collected languages bears part of the responsibility for creating the lazy, incompetent programmers who can't write C properly in the first place. If languages themselves encourage bad habits then those bad habits become ingrained and as soon as the lazy, incompetent programmer needs to work in a close to the metal language like C, you get crap, unreliable code as the result.
Not to mention the fact that code reviews would catch a lot of the bad programming that makes many C programs insecure, but manglement doesn't insist on code reviews and too many programmers are prima donnas who feel threatened by having their code peer reviewed.
As to concurrency; if your code needs concurrency which can only be provided via locks, semaphores and other techniques, what you really need to do is start again and design your program properly so that concurrency is eliminated.
"Or perhaps 2025 will be the year of Linux on the desktop. ®"
We can but hope! The company I work for is rolling out Windows 11 at speed, so the corporate resistance appears to be minimal. Thankfully, I can keep their virus caged in virtual machines on my Linux desktop.
I might have to get some VMs upgraded eventually...
Mozilla need to get their act together.
Spurious behaviour towards code from a trusted developer gives me a bad feeling. Like someone decided to let a LLM loose on inspecting code. I'm sure it's wonderful analysis will be inaccurate, arbitrary and unreliable. The next line (humans) is probably outsourced to the cheapest provider and is unlikely to even understand what they are supposed to review. "Computer says no."
This isn't the first time that Mozilla is making me uneasy recently after it got its new CEO. I'm prepared to give them a chance on dipping into the ad money trough, but only under two conditions. First, their solution has to provably work and achieve its aims. Secondly, I can still decide if I want to play or not.
I still don't see any evidence to back up claims about better productivity or "collaboration". I've worked fairly much exclusively from my home for the last three decades. Although I'm a sample size of one, I get twice as much done when I'm working from home than I do at any of the company's offices.
This type of "one size fits all" management is what causes normal folk to rename management to manglement.
In my experience, people who write crap code with the excuses you present are also the people who have ingrained their bad habits so completely into the way they develop programs that it ends up being the only way they can do things.
My TrueNAS server runs FreeBSD and behaves just like a proper UNIX server. It just does what it's supposed to do, year after year after year.
That iXSystems have now spurned FreeBSD for Linux so that people can overload their reliable storage systems with loads of plug in and VM add-ons is probably one of the most monumentally stupid decisions I've seen.
TrueNAS Scale? Just say no.
Surely that can't be legal by any stretch of the imagination.
Anything hyperlinked can be changed after the contract is signed and you'd be hard pushed to prove what was at the link at the moment the contract was signed. Sounds like a perfect mechanism to defraud customers to me.
I hope that instead of settling out of court, Realogic pursue this all the way to the bitter end. Oracle deserve to be sanctioned for this kind of chicanery.
I like the idea behind Bitcoin and other blockchain systems. It's an irrefutable public ledger. That's a really useful thing, whether you use to to record property deeds or Pokemon card trades.
The problem with crypto was that someone floated the idea that crypto transactions were anonymous. Every illegal market was immediately drawn to crypto because of this idea. What surprised me was how uninformed the crooks were to believe that a public ledger would afford any anonymity.
In the end, the crooks have ruined cryptocurrency. It promised to be a way to hold assets with a market price completely independently of any bank owned and regulated by a country. That's a great thing for personal autonomy and freedom. It's a way for people in very undemocratic countries to receive money without risking imprisonment. But now, it's just tainted and is single handedly responsible for enabling the rise of ransomware.
I did.
The subsequent comments to this article only serve to confirm my impression that this "story" is just bullshit about American politics.
It's a shit article with an offensive sub headline and clearly shows the Register's USA bias since it was transformed from the best tech news site in the Internet into a poor shadow of its former self.
To start with, the people at OSI should be more than aware that no artificial intelligence exists and stop calling LLMs AI.
Open Source means that you can have a copy of everything used to create the final system and this, of course, includes the data. There lies the problem. As a previous commentard pointed out, the training data for an LLM is of such a size that you will not be downloading it.. Feeding and training the model is a job requiring lots and lots of compute and storage capacity. Nobody is going to be doing this at home except for very geeky millionaires.
I don't know what OSI thinks they will achieve trying to define some slippery new definition of "Open Source" for LLMs. It looks to me like they have been owned and are trying to weaken the concept of Open Source from the inside.
There are accepted standards in publishing for romanising languages with Cyrillic or other non-western characters.
When there are accepted substitute names in English for other countries or their cities, then of course the substitute should be used.
Everyone is just fine with "Gothenburg" instead of "Göteborg", but when there isn't an accepted substitute, place names should be written as is.
The characters öäå are letters of the Swedish alphabet. They are not "accented versions" of o and a. If you don't use them, there's a risk of referring to a completely different place than the one you thought you were talking about. And as a previous commentard rightly pointed out, CTRL-C and CTRL-V are available to short cut having to type the Swedish characters.
This discussion isn't about (or shouldn't be about) any cultural elitism or ad-absurdium arguments, it's about the standards that El Reg and their journalists should be following when referring to unfamiliar place names and non-English languages in general. Writing "Vasteras" instead of "Västerås" is unprofessional.
It's a Swedish word. It should be spelled with the correct characters.
If you can't pronounce Swedish (and nobody expects you to be able to) then just make up your own sounds. Suggesting that the article's author should attempt to spell the name phonetically in English when they are unlikely to know how it should be pronounced is a terrible idea and would merely lead to even more ridiculous spellings which would be meaningless to everyone.
Your suggestion of "Vesteros" is incorrect. While your interpretation of "ä" as sounding like an English "e" in this context is correct, the Swedish character "å" is pronounced like the end of the English word "paw".
The missing word here is "immutable".
A large service provider here in Sweden got owned recently. They didn't have immutable backups, so the first thing the crooks did was to encrypt the backups.
The biggest shame is that many of their customers were government authorities. None of these authorities could be bothered to check the security and recoverability of the cost saving outsourcing they had realised moving everything to "the cloud" and firing everyone who worked in their IT departments.
The only losers here are the taxpayers of course. To levy a fine against a government authority for incompetence is pointless.
Indeed. Handling database concurrency in a sensible, predictable and reliable way cannot necessarily be accomplished with the "one size fits all" thinking behind most abstractions. Few developers have to make this work by talking directly to the database and few of them have any concept of how isolation and locking strategies affect concurrency.
As long as you don't have thousands of concurrent updates to your database, the abstraction works. As soon as you get into real sized workloads and it all falls apart, unless you understand the database, you won't even have a clue how to handle the volume.
As I'm an old bastard, I can work in everything from assembler to C#. This is what leads me to agree wholeheartedly with Marlinspike's point about the dangers of not understanding programming any further than the rosy view of reality presented by many high level abstractions.
What he actually placed most of the blame on is the layers and layers of black box abstractions so beloved of Microsoft and there, I completely agree with him.
When all the software developer sees of his tools is some horribly abstracted black box package, that's as far as they get in understanding what they are working with. They lose sight of how the stuff hidden by the abstraction works. This is behind the fact that our computers are vastly more powerful than they were 20 years ago but don't deliver any of that improved performance to the end user.
Many developers make fatal, performance guzzling mistakes, by restricting their level of understanding to the highest possible abstraction and have no idea why they suddenly find their latest and greatest program exhibiting the performance level of a drunk snail when it gets real production data thrown at it. Add to this, the fact that Microsoft deprecate C# packages and abstractions at an ever increasing rate, making keeping code up to date almost impossible and you have the recipe for the malaise that Marlinspike was actually referring to.
I find a lot of the M$ C# development patterns totally impenetrable, web development in particular.
How anything works is hidden behind so many levels of abstraction and hidden code that you can't see and don't know how it works that doing anything with this stuff amounts to little more than making magic incantations in a language you don't understand and hoping you don't summon a major demon.
The clue is in the fact that some access broker will have needed to establish a domain administrator's hash or password. You can make Linux servers part of a Windows AD domain. Once they are members of the domain, administrator access is going to give the ransomware all the access it needs to encrypt every file.
It's ML!!
If these "biz leaders" could get their heads around the fact that there's no intelligence here, artificial or otherwise, maybe they might start to understand.
If I try to contact a company with an issue and get diverted to a chatbot, or even worse, a voice recognition system, I hang up and do not return.