|
Is that like suing lock makers who don't make locks 'lock pick proof' resulting in your house being robbed?
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good idea. Some time ago we had a burglary in the neighborhood. They didn't use the door but the window. Now, when thinking of this, perhaps the glass company should've been sued
|
|
|
|
|
There should be some liablity for software companies, but it should be limited and subject to an investigation and jury trial. I don't think hackers are preventable in every case and who is really responsible for the security failure may not be clear. For instance, if a software company used .Net and there is a security issue, it could take an active investigation to find out whether the software company or Microsoft caused the security failure. I also think there should be limited liability for freelance developers because otherwise it makes being freelance very difficult and almost impossible, thus killing many small or start up businesses. Developers working for a company should have some liability depending on their position and the nature of the breach, and again any criminal prosecution should require a jury trial. I do think that some software and institutions should be held to a higher standard and the nature of the breach is important. Banks should be 100% liable for any hacker emtpying any bank account and if they want to sue a software vendor for lack of security, that should be allowed but subject to a trial. Security is a complicated issue and breaches must be addressed on a case by case basis. Software companies need to be held accountable, but the businesses that use the software and even the customer is responsible for security too. Consumers and non-IT people should be taught that security is their problem too. Most breaches are inside jobs by employees that have access to passwords or caused by consumers failing to protect themselves. Even in the case of the bank account, the consumer could be responsible for the breach because they allowed their computer to be infected by a virus. It should never be assumed the computer security is only the coders job and responsibility! Finally, please keep in mind that sloppy coding is almost always, in my personal experience, the result of management not giving enough time or resources to do the project right!
|
|
|
|
|
Mika Wendelius wrote:
argues a Cambridge academic.
Well if that's the case then professors should be held liable for failure to properly train students in secure coding practices...
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt it's ever been the most popular. Most installed yes, popular... no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I doubt it's ever been the most popular. Most installed yes, popular... no.
People vote with their wallet. Even Vista is more popular than the combined desktop-systems from Apple - and that's saying something
Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Even Vista is more popular than the combined desktop-systems from Apple IMHO, that's because there are more Intel PCs sold than Macs, and not because Vista is more popular than OSX.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: IMHO, that's because there are more Intel PCs sold than Macs, and not because Vista is more popular than OSX.
Not so fast buddy;
There are more x86-based machines with Vista sold than there are hardware-machines with OSX. Meaning that even Vista on a x86 apparently offers a better alternative. (Even compared with a free competing OS on the x86 hardware)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to buy a generic x86 box and install OSX on it or will Apple only sell you the OS along with its hardware?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Apple tries to make it so you can't install it on any machine (including VMs), but some people have managed to get around that.
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I thought. Which is why I don't think one can surmise that consumers prefer Vista to OSX. They're apples and oranges - or Apples and PCs.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it is different for the majority of consumers though - most people buy their hardware and OS as a bundle, and it's not like you can buy a Mac with the option to have it running Windows either. Of course, you couldn't really include people who build their own machine in a fair comparison (like myself) because OSX isn't realistically an option for them.
|
|
|
|
|
As I replied below - you were expected to be psychic and realise that the part I was answering was the bit about IE 6 being the most popular browser.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure it was. When Vista came out, and everyone's hate for Vista made them like XP from a relative perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
I expected people to read my mind. My comment was that IE6 was never that popular.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still wearing my tinfoil hat, unfortunately it stops the psychic waves in both directions...but in that case I agree with you completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Lately I have been working on building out my first non-trivial application with node. It has been a very interesting smashing of my brain cells. Coming from a strictly typed language and moving into a prototype based language has removed a lot of my tools from my tool belt. But of all the changes, I think it is the lack of IoC that is hurting me the most. Getting out of your comfort zone will also reveal your programming assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
After reading the blog post, I still don't have an answer to "what the hell is he talking about?"
Terrence Dorsey wrote: Getting out of your comfort zone will also reveal your programming assumptions.
Metaphorically speaking, that is true of wetware too!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Some say that API design is one of the hardest things in programming. A few even go as far as to say you should have at least 10 years of experience to even attempt it. While I think this process can be sped up almost an order of magnitude by good mentorship, at one time or another we’ve all suffered under the API of an inexperienced programmer. Though, this does raise the question: what exactly is it about building libraries that can take up to 10 years to learn? Bad ideas usually seem like good ideas... until you have to use them.
|
|
|
|
|
Very good question. Now waiting for answer. 5!
Happy Programming
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: what exactly is it about building libraries that can take up to 10 years to learn?
Well, speaking from experience, just because you have a set of functions that does what you want doesn't mean you have an API. You have to learn to think "how would someone else use this?" It's then that you begin to realize that your initial API isn't abstract enough, doesn't provide enough event notifications, doesn't provide ways for someone else to easily customize the behavior. Those 10 years are from using enough of someone else's API's to learn what not to do, and then figure out how to do it better yourself.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Building an API requires 2 main things>
1. Know exactly your goal
2. Give others the freedom to use it however they want to
In a way this seem like two conflicting defenitions but they aren't.
I don't know if you need 10 years of experience for that. You sure need a lot of experience using APIs and you'll have to crack your head building your first ones to be open minded enough for this.
Another pitfall developers usually fall into is confusing flexibility with complexity.
You don't need to be over complex to deliver flexible APIs.
Keep it simple. A good practice are the use overloads.
Have a good critical look at the .net Framework design... it's probably the most complex API I'll ever work with
I usually say that it's like a war game, you always have to be several moves ahead of your "enemy"
|
|
|
|