what's really weird is that you have your XP PC still connected to the internetits not weird to maintain a stable and practical OS. its not weird if its not data sensitive or server PC. its not weird when there are 3rd party security softwares supporting it. whats weird is humanity embracing darwinism novelties.
I have several computers used for different things (audio editing, video, editing, graphics, circuit/PC design, etc.).
But most of them are NEVER connected to the public internet because I don't need reference to the outside world to do the particular job.
Of course, sometimes application programs are updated, etc. I don't believe in slavishly "updating" software unless it provides some benefit TO ME.
If I need to update something, I will download the code on my internet-connected machine and then "sneaker-net" the USB flash drive over to the protected PC.
I would be VERY wary about connecting an XP system to the public internet since MS discontinued support.
I think you might have mistakenly posted this in the wrong forum. I might be mistaken, but I fail to see any relevance to the subject being discussed.
BTW: MS is still updating XP even they said it would be the end of it. (but no guarantees for how long)
Thanks, yeah, most people don't realize how much work goes into writing a single line of production worthy code.
Easy to think if you know a bit of programming you can easily do 1000s of lines of code a day, but that will change once you need to get every single line of code reviewed.
And knowing everything you write will be included in your yearly review, where the bottom x% gets the pink slip:D
So yeah, production code quality is by definition much higher quality than open source.
And yeah, 3rd party libraries, not allowed unless full source available, and full source passes the same security standards required for internally produced code. Any exception requires director level management approval.
And here is the one that gets me.QuoteAnd yeah, 3rd party libraries, not allowed unless full source available, and full source passes the same security standards required for internally produced code. Any exception requires director level management approval.
We should trust your companies code even though it is almost certainly closed source?
HYPOCRISY writ large.
So yeah, production code quality is by definition much higher quality than open source.
@Jaxbird. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your companies methodology just that your argument is flawed.
I am also fairly certain that if you say your company produces top quality code then I am sure it does.
It's just that I have seen such crap come out of big and small companies with all the QA in the world that I don't believe a corporate culture actually produces code as good as the top OSS projects.
Let me ask you this, how many open source QA people do you see out there? Most people enjoy writing code rather than testing it.
However I've used plenty of broken, poorly written open source libraries as well, some of which I've had to gut almost completely to get an sort of meaningful performance or resource management up the the level required for production.
If you're comparing top open source projects with all the commercial code out there then of course you're going to find large disparities.
how do you compare open source with a closed sourced? its closed right?
scanned what? by eye, by the said mumbo jumbo analysis tool? or by scanner?
QuoteThanks, yeah, most people don't realize how much work goes into writing a single line of production worthy code.
Easy to think if you know a bit of programming you can easily do 1000s of lines of code a day, but that will change once you need to get every single line of code reviewed.
And knowing everything you write will be included in your yearly review, where the bottom x% gets the pink slip:D
So yeah, production code quality is by definition much higher quality than open source.
So no, production code quality is not by definition much higher quality than open source. FTFY.
How can production quality code be better if it is written by people who cant apply logic correctly to an argument?
Your logic assumes a few things that clearly are not correct.
One is that every production house does things the same formalised way as you.
Another is that no open source projects do apply quality controls to the same degree as you specified.
Another is that the quality controls you specified equate to higher quality code.
Maybe I am being pedantic but I am guessing that is the nature of high quality production code. So it should be second nature to you.
I agree that more reviewing and more care helps create better coding but to paint all OSS as lower quality than commercial source code is a crock of shit.
There are probably better ways of measuring code quality,including things such as
what the user thinks of the code.
the complexity of what the codes does.
bug/issues currently open.
new bug/issue rate.
test coverage.
etc etc but you get the picture.
I think these are so much more important than just a code review. In the heartbeat bug the code was actually reviewed and signed off on.
And the vice president signing off, well that would be a joke in some companies.
@Jaxbird. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your companies methodology just that your argument is flawed.
I am also fairly certain that if you say your company produces top quality code then I am sure it does.
It's just that I have seen such crap come out of big and small companies with all the QA in the world that I don't believe a corporate culture actually produces code as good as the top OSS projects.
And here is the one that gets me.QuoteAnd yeah, 3rd party libraries, not allowed unless full source available, and full source passes the same security standards required for internally produced code. Any exception requires director level management approval.
We should trust your companies code even though it is almost certainly closed source?
HYPOCRISY writ large.
I think you might have mistakenly posted this in the wrong forum. I might be mistaken, but I fail to see any relevance to the subject being discussed.
BTW: MS is still updating XP even they said it would be the end of it. (but no guarantees for how long)He didn't post on the wrong forum, he was replying to me having still XP, well I'm not too worried about the security of my systems.
I do prefer windows 7 by all means, just have a system stuck with XP because of an expensive license for a product that is not supported, so, that will be my XP machine until I don't need that software anymore. I guess since I have a license I could download and install a cracked version but no reason to do so.
Of course the production quality from smaller companies can be much lower, as it's often driven by a single (or a few) "know it all/my shit doesn't smell" developers who've been key to a product since it was created. This is very typical, and the quality they produce is usually much lower.
Code quality has so many dimensions that it is hard to assess without knowing the constraints that the original authors were working under... budget, timeline, speed, maintainability, performance, manpower, changing requirements. SOmetimes a person operating alone can acheive things in a night that would take a large company a year.
However, I think some people have are just able write better code than others...
...
jaxbird: How do you get anything done, you must have worked in aerospace? =)
..
...
jaxbird: How do you get anything done, you must have worked in aerospace? =)
..Perhaps but that type of process is pretty standard across the board at the big software shops. Microsoft, Amazon and Google all follow these practices as does quite a few other places that I've worked at.
The code quality depends almost entirely on the skill of the programmer(s) involved and any restrictions placed on themQuoteQuotethat type of process is pretty standard across the board at the big software shops."big" software shops have additional problems just based on the size of their code and the number of people that they have contributing. Their "heavy" processes barely manage to compensate :-( (no one thinks that Microsoft/etc ends up producing "nearly perfect" code as a result of these processes, right?)
And you'd be surprised how much software comes from places that are NOT "big software shops."
And EVERYONE has trouble finding good QA engineers. They're a rare breed, unfortunately. (Although there seem to quite a lot of people who will CLAIM to be QA experts, implement a bunch of things that the developers find distasteful and ineffective while holding up deployment of fixes AND new features (don't forget that a missing feature is a bug, too), eventually resulting in attempts at completely new development models that will magically keep developers content AND improve quality AND reduced time-to-market... Sigh. This is HARD STUFF.)
(There was that Ariane 5 failure, which you can more-or-less attribute to various "standard" edicts aimed at IMPROVING SW quality:
1) thou shalt write the code in Ada!
(ok, so we write fortran-like code in Ada.)
(except for the exception mechanism. oops.)
2) thou shalt minimize thy changes!
(so we'll redefine "int32" to be a 16bit integer, which means MANY fewer lines of code than changing all those "int32" variable definitions to "int16". So the code doesn't read like what it does; we minimized changes!)
3) Reuse proven code!
(sure, even if it's inappropriate and in fact not needed any more.)
(Unfortunately, I'm not finding my link to the video that showed/explained some of these errors. Sigh.))