That's revisionist. The release of the iPhone was a huge inflection point in the industry. You can argue about how much was inevitable and how much was innovative, but you can't dispute that the iPhone led the way.
I used SXCE, OpenSolaris and finally SmartOS for a while after the death, and unfortunately the benefits just werent' really there any more. I also hit some pretty nasty performance issues storage wise on my OVH gear (some interrupt related issue, unsure if fixed, but it was well above my head to grok, and I' not terribly new to this) which were instantly solved by converting to BSD.
With FreeBSD, the userland is pretty capable (I run all my DBs, some node apps, reverse proxies etc under it) so jails kinda made sense again. With SmartOS I had to run most of my stuff under KVM, so what was the point?
Interesting to see what direction the linux abi stuff joyent are working on goes though.
I have often imagined a dashcam that does license plate recognition and lets you know when shitty drivers are nearby. And of course, it would have voice response so you could give nearby cars compliments and public grumbles. Presumably you'd also want it to be geosensitive and real time, so that it could say, "Hey, there's a lunatic coming up behind you."
Seems like it would be easy to put together a dash stand, some OpenCV magic, and a little glue logic to get a prototype together.
Actually that's a bloody brilliant idea. In an ideal world, morality or enlightened self-interest would convince everyone to behave well. The real world falls far short of that ideal, but social pressure is often a powerful tool for filling in the gaps. You'd think "you might die" would deter drunk drivers, but it didn't. "Everyone will think you're an asshole" was more effective. Let's extend that to other forms of misbehaviour on the road. The point here isn't the technology. It's using the technology to save lives.
Our current version of this in the US is a system where there are a much smaller number of observers (cops). Too many bad observations and you face license suspensions.
In practice, the small number of observers means that there are plenty of bad drivers who have long periods of bad behavior with no negative feedback. Basically all I'm suggesting here is increasing frequency of observation while reducing the size of the penalty from "large ticket" to "mild shame".
It's also approximately equivalent to what happens in a small community. There if you are a bad driver, word will get around and eventually get back to you. That doesn't seem like a terrible dynamic to me.
A big, obvious concern would be having a system that alerted you to drivers previously seen exhibiting bad behavior, and the social justice network taking that as an opportunity to avenge the bad behavior and inadvertently causing danger to themselves, their "adversaries" or other drivers on the road.
On top of that, everybody drives poorly at some point, and for some reason. A roommate of mine wrecked his car once like, one block from our house. I couldn't stop laughing at him long enough for him to explain that while he was driving, a spider was crawling out of his ear, and it justifiably freaked him out enough to hit a telephone pole.
If I was a random passerby that didn't get to stick around for the explanation, I would have flagged him as a clear danger to other motorists, which would have been undeserved. To boot, I think he reacted as well as he could have, and probably better than most, given the circumstance.
Isn't this roughly equivalent to the concern that sometimes people give unfairly bad reviews on Yelp? Sure, it happens, but it seems like the solution isn't less data, but more. If you have 100 or 1000 data points on every driver, then it seems like it would be pretty easy to extract the people who are actually problematic versus just normal drivers.
It wouldn't surprise me. Oracle certainly runs the same static analysis tools against their own stuff, and fixes anything legitimate.
But notice the other comment about a "well-known security researcher" "alleging" vulnerabilities that yee-haw we're already working on fixes for so we're awesome and he's lame and nanny nanny boo boo etc.
Serious cognitive dissonance there. I used to buy a lot of Oracle product. Their value proposition has grossly weakened over the last decade and a half or so, so I don't any more. But if I did, I'd be embarrassed today.
Yup. It's not like those customers that are busy reverse engineering Oracle's code are doing it for the kicks. They have their own jobs to do. Much more likely, they are getting weird results out of Oracle's software that they don't understand, so they reverse engineer the code to see why the system is crashing / giving unexpected results so that they can find a workaround without having to wait for the vendor to fix their bug.
Then, if it turns out that it's a security issue, of course they are going to notify Oracle of the fact, both as a moral duty, and because it makes it more likely that Oracle will get a patch out faster.
Oracle whinging about people finding bugs in their code would be better off trying to improve their processes so that there are less bugs to find, rather than complaining that they've been found out for shipping buggy code.
I actually understand how it gets to be this way though.
I literally can't touch a Government project without an Oracle license. When I talk to a salesman, the attitude is "I know you can't do this without me", contrary to salesmen for any other product in any other industry.
When I talk to a project manager, they don't ask how it will be hosted, or what the platform will be, or anything else obvious. The first question, often before a project is fined, is "how many Oracle licenses can I buy?".
Indeed, it does tend to end badly, and the best example is a company that ended up being bought by Oracle. The arrogant tone of this post reminds me very much of the flurry of blog posts that came out when ZFS and DTrace were first introduced. Remember "The Last Word in File Systems"? That kind of arrogance, complacency, and impatience with interlocutors is mildly annoying to developers elsewhere. It's more than annoying to customers, and to sales people who feel unsafe pushing products whose developers continually undermine them. That's why Sun is no more. Oracle might want to consider that before they start relying on this kind of astroturf to convince anyone of anything.
I don't think the particular kind of arrogance that Oracle has goes away except by being killed. Heck even once the former sales guys are homeless under a bridge I doubt they would see the connection, they'd still be spinning yarns about when they worked for the greatest tech company ever.
Ditto for the engineers. The kind of engineer who contributes to a culture like that in the first place will also be constitutionally incapable of accepting that their own behavior contributed in any way to the demise.
I didn't say it was unremarkable, Mr. Strawman. However, it wasn't the "last word" either. If it had been, there wouldn't have been so many generations of major change to it since then. It's possible for people to be good at what they do but still nowhere near as good as they think, and that pretty accurately described a lot of Sun engineers at that time. The answer to all criticism, including that which history has shown to be completely accurate, was never anything but a sneer. It was the most anti-collegial attitude ever, and the industry is worse off for it.