|
Thread Rules
1. This is not a "do my homework for me" thread. If you have specific questions, ask, but don't post an assignment or homework problem and expect an exact solution.
2. No recruiting for your cockamamie projects (you won't replace facebook with 3 dudes you found on the internet and $20)
3. If you can't articulate why a language is bad, don't start slinging shit about it. Just remember that nothing is worse than making CSS IE6 compatible.
4. Use [code] tags to format code blocks. |
On August 08 2018 05:46 Simberto wrote:
That sounds really weird. Also, doesn't using skype mean that microsoft can basically read all of your conversations whenever they want. The encryption is not end to end afaik. Which does not sound like something that you want to use if you care a lot about "security risks".
A colleague speculates that Microsoft sends chat to their servers to explain why Skype uses more than one gigabyte RAM after a few days. As a software engineer, I know that memory leaks could happen regardless but there's something really wrong with the latest Skype.
|
On August 08 2018 05:48 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:46 Simberto wrote:
That sounds really weird. Also, doesn't using skype mean that microsoft can basically read all of your conversations whenever they want. The encryption is not end to end afaik. Which does not sound like something that you want to use if you care a lot about "security risks". A colleague speculates that Microsoft sends chat to their servers to explain why Skype uses more than one gigabyte RAM after a few days. As a software engineer, I know that memory leaks could happen regardless but there's something really wrong with the latest Skype.
Even so, you really don't need more than a few MB to send data off to a server.
EDIT, I never would have guessed my 3k post would be this one lel.
|
On August 08 2018 05:48 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:46 Simberto wrote:
That sounds really weird. Also, doesn't using skype mean that microsoft can basically read all of your conversations whenever they want. The encryption is not end to end afaik. Which does not sound like something that you want to use if you care a lot about "security risks". A colleague speculates that Microsoft sends chat to their servers to explain why Skype uses more than one gigabyte RAM after a few days. As a software engineer, I know that memory leaks could happen regardless but there's something really wrong with the latest Skype.
I consider most things microsoft touches to have zero privacy, skype least of all. It changed a lot after microsoft purchased it, I think the entire purpose is to collect data. But I also think that windows spies on everything you do. Look at the memory usage in windows 10. The difficulty one has to go through to shut off any app or process (you can turn it off but they restart on their own). Forced updates, updates without warning. Random CPU usage and high memory from apps you aren't even using.
http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_and_the_NSA
|
What is the alternative though? We use webex where I work, but I'm not sure Cisco is any better in terms of privacy.
|
|
|
On August 08 2018 05:04 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 04:59 sc-darkness wrote:
I find the new Skype on Windows 10 to be even more offensive with Cortana. Everytime you write or someone types, Cortana suggests how you should respond as if you're a person incapable of emotions. Ironic when you consider that an AI advises you what to feel. One of those bad ideas that occur to Microsoft. Luckily, they also have nice ideas. On a tangent on Skype: My current workplace uses Skype for most communication, and apparently it's a "security risk" to store logs on the local computer. Aka, any time I close a Skype window I have no fucking idea what they just said. It's like using Snapchat for business purposes.
Our Skype for business is linked into the work Exchange server. All my conversations are thus stored in Outlook where I search for them just as any other e-mail.
|
On August 08 2018 10:32 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:48 sc-darkness wrote:On August 08 2018 05:46 Simberto wrote:
That sounds really weird. Also, doesn't using skype mean that microsoft can basically read all of your conversations whenever they want. The encryption is not end to end afaik. Which does not sound like something that you want to use if you care a lot about "security risks". A colleague speculates that Microsoft sends chat to their servers to explain why Skype uses more than one gigabyte RAM after a few days. As a software engineer, I know that memory leaks could happen regardless but there's something really wrong with the latest Skype. I consider most things microsoft touches to have zero privacy, skype least of all. It changed a lot after microsoft purchased it, I think the entire purpose is to collect data. But I also think that windows spies on everything you do. Look at the memory usage in windows 10. The difficulty one has to go through to shut off any app or process (you can turn it off but they restart on their own). Forced updates, updates without warning. Random CPU usage and high memory from apps you aren't even using. http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_and_the_NSA
Eeehhh, I'm not even sure how bad forced updates are. Considering the VAST majority of windows users do not know anything about security. I feel much safer with such a thing in place knowing that everybody is getting their security patches.
Random high disk and cpu usage sucks, but should be fixable.
When you consider the enormous scope of windows, it IMO not responsible to say that MS must be evil because they have tech debt related to security. Which they do have a financial incentive to fix. And lets not forget that security wasn't a major player when they initially designed the NT kernel.
|
Hyrule19257 Posts
Yeah but on the other hand Skype has had memory leak issues since MS bought it.
|
On August 08 2018 20:31 sabas123 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 10:32 travis wrote:On August 08 2018 05:48 sc-darkness wrote:On August 08 2018 05:46 Simberto wrote:
That sounds really weird. Also, doesn't using skype mean that microsoft can basically read all of your conversations whenever they want. The encryption is not end to end afaik. Which does not sound like something that you want to use if you care a lot about "security risks". A colleague speculates that Microsoft sends chat to their servers to explain why Skype uses more than one gigabyte RAM after a few days. As a software engineer, I know that memory leaks could happen regardless but there's something really wrong with the latest Skype. I consider most things microsoft touches to have zero privacy, skype least of all. It changed a lot after microsoft purchased it, I think the entire purpose is to collect data. But I also think that windows spies on everything you do. Look at the memory usage in windows 10. The difficulty one has to go through to shut off any app or process (you can turn it off but they restart on their own). Forced updates, updates without warning. Random CPU usage and high memory from apps you aren't even using. http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_and_the_NSA Eeehhh, I'm not even sure how bad forced updates are. Considering the VAST majority of windows users do not know anything about security. I feel much safer with such a thing in place knowing that everybody is getting their security patches.
I think there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there. In a way it's similar to forced vaccinations, though I think the argument for the latter is a bit stronger.
When you consider the enormous scope of windows, it IMO not responsible to say that MS must be evil because they have tech debt related to security. Which they do have a financial incentive to fix. And lets not forget that security wasn't a major player when they initially designed the NT kernel.
Well, I am not concerned about tech debt. I am concerned about intentions and behavior.
"We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to protect our customers or enforce the terms governing the use of the services". So essentially, their stance is that they own everything that you do within windows. If you use windows, your digital property actually belongs to them.
And this is what they publicly say. Which is disturbing because Microsoft and U.S. intelligence agencies are very, very close. And why wouldn't they be. It's how tech giants stay dominant.
|
On August 09 2018 01:33 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 20:31 sabas123 wrote:On August 08 2018 10:32 travis wrote:On August 08 2018 05:48 sc-darkness wrote:On August 08 2018 05:46 Simberto wrote:
That sounds really weird. Also, doesn't using skype mean that microsoft can basically read all of your conversations whenever they want. The encryption is not end to end afaik. Which does not sound like something that you want to use if you care a lot about "security risks". A colleague speculates that Microsoft sends chat to their servers to explain why Skype uses more than one gigabyte RAM after a few days. As a software engineer, I know that memory leaks could happen regardless but there's something really wrong with the latest Skype. I consider most things microsoft touches to have zero privacy, skype least of all. It changed a lot after microsoft purchased it, I think the entire purpose is to collect data. But I also think that windows spies on everything you do. Look at the memory usage in windows 10. The difficulty one has to go through to shut off any app or process (you can turn it off but they restart on their own). Forced updates, updates without warning. Random CPU usage and high memory from apps you aren't even using. http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_and_the_NSA Eeehhh, I'm not even sure how bad forced updates are. Considering the VAST majority of windows users do not know anything about security. I feel much safer with such a thing in place knowing that everybody is getting their security patches. I think there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there. In a way it's similar to forced vaccinations, though I think the argument for the latter is a bit stronger. Show nested quote +
When you consider the enormous scope of windows, it IMO not responsible to say that MS must be evil because they have tech debt related to security. Which they do have a financial incentive to fix. And lets not forget that security wasn't a major player when they initially designed the NT kernel.
Well, I am not concerned about tech debt. I am concerned about intentions and behavior. "We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to protect our customers or enforce the terms governing the use of the services". So essentially, their stance is that they own everything that you do within windows. If you use windows, your digital property actually belongs to them. And this is what they publicly say. Which is disturbing because Microsoft and U.S. intelligence agencies are very, very close. And why wouldn't they be. It's how tech giants stay dominant.
I interpret that quote differently that you do, when I first read it my immediate thought was "Ow, that's a clause enabling them to deal with malware/spam", not that they will necessary allow for arbitrary searches and extraction of potentially IP related content.
While MS can be forced to work closely with NSA, I would hesitate to say that it is their incentive to do so. The closer they are with any agency, the more likely it will become that one day they will be shut out of a country because of these ties. For example I wouldn't say it would be unreasonable that if another large scale leak detailing intense cooperation on both sides, that a country like China (and possibly the russia and the EU?) would stop using their services when presented with a good alternative because of national security concerns.
Also any means they incorporate in their products is another attack vector to be exploited. So working with the NSA could mean exposing themselves to a catastrophy.
|
i think poulantzas is quite good on the relation state / capital.
...
data-migration is a curious problematic. when the structure of persisted data change from one revision to another this change must be reflected in the code-base somehow (at first this seems like a slight to version control).
where is data-migration-code's natural place in the code-base? above, outside or inside the versioned hierarchy or other?
how do you deal with odr in c++? do you read the data in one translation unit, communicate it to another via some intermediate format and write the data in another?
if the data-io-code is header-only you could wrap the includes from the penultimate and ultimate revisions in separate namespaces (here A and B respectively) inside the migration code, and write functions like B::type migrate(const A::type &);, provided no nested namespace specifier prefixed with scope-resolution-operators is used to refer to a revisioned symbol.
one could use versioned namespaces in the versioned branch, but that seems like a terrible idea.
does anyone have experience with this? tools, techniques, etc...
|
On August 13 2018 08:21 nunez wrote:
i think poulantzas is quite good on the relation state / capital.
...
data-migration is a curious problematic. when the structure of persisted data change from one revision to another this change must be reflected in the code-base somehow (at first this seems like a slight to version control).
where is data-migration-code's natural place in the code-base? above, outside or inside the versioned hierarchy or other?
how do you deal with odr in c++? do you read the data in one translation unit, communicate it to another via some intermediate format and write the data in another?
if the data-io-code is header-only you could wrap the includes from the penultimate and ultimate revisions in separate namespaces (here A and B respectively) inside the migration code, and write functions like B::type migrate(const A::type &);, provided no nested namespace specifier prefixed with scope-resolution-operators is used to refer to a revisioned symbol.
one could use versioned namespaces in the versioned branch, but that seems like a terrible idea.
does anyone have experience with this? tools, techniques, etc...
It depends on the kind of data. I've worked a lot with systems that had to version their data and they took different approaches to it. Mostly it's database-oriented but you can use any form of logging for it (Kafka for example).
Here's a really basic example from Loggable extension for Doctrine, where you have revision history of your data and can revert to earlier versions if necessary:
http://atlantic18.github.io/DoctrineExtensions/doc/loggable.html
Edit: One other idea is to store the data in a repository and tag it (great for config files etc.)
|
ah, i am just working with binary-data persisted to file f.ex.
|
Microsoft might finally be fixing this encoding madness. They have a beta option to convert system language to UTF-8 (65001), so you can use Microsoft API's ANSI functions with std::string/char UTF-8 encoding. Just like strings on Linux.
Let's see if this option gets widely adopted though. If it does, a lot of code could be fixed.
|
|
|
yes, but it's migrating the blob with the structure from version A to a blob with the structure of version B that was the problem. not versioning the blob.
|
On August 18 2018 19:30 nunez wrote:
yes, but it's migrating the blob with the structure from version A to a blob with the structure of version B that was the problem. not versioning the blob.
You create your original migration with original blob as sql dump. When you change the blob you create another migration file (basically an insert statement) and you keep those migrations in repository. Then whenever you set up a project you just fire the migrations and have access to all versions of the data.
Even better solution would be to keep it like that:
db
| - migrations
| - - base.sql (create db and required table)
| - - v1.sql (insert version 1 of blob)
| - - v2.sql (insert version 2 of blob)
| - - ...
Then just create a mechanism that creates the db and populates it with desired amount of data versions so you can have just one, all of them, last 5 etc. It's pretty convenient too since you don't need much for sqlite db and you can keep it as a file inside your project if you want to.
|
Canada16217 Posts
Anyone here use the ionic platform? I'm having an interesting issue where i'm sending http requests and getting data back, this works fine using Ionic serve however running on actual device this does not work. Having used android studio and remote chrome tools to debug this, the variables I'm using as part of the request to get things like the session id(which is required) are returning as null.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
edit: solved!!
|
On August 19 2018 00:46 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2018 19:30 nunez wrote:
yes, but it's migrating the blob with the structure from version A to a blob with the structure of version B that was the problem. not versioning the blob. You create your original migration with original blob as sql dump. When you change the blob you create another migration file (basically an insert statement) and you keep those migrations in repository. Then whenever you set up a project you just fire the migrations and have access to all versions of the data. Even better solution would be to keep it like that: db | - migrations | - - base.sql (create db and required table) | - - v1.sql (insert version 1 of blob) | - - v2.sql (insert version 2 of blob) | - - ... Then just create a mechanism that creates the db and populates it with desired amount of data versions so you can have just one, all of them, last 5 etc. It's pretty convenient too since you don't need much for sqlite db and you can keep it as a file inside your project if you want to.
hm, i don't think you are following.
|
On August 20 2018 03:20 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2018 00:46 Manit0u wrote:On August 18 2018 19:30 nunez wrote:
yes, but it's migrating the blob with the structure from version A to a blob with the structure of version B that was the problem. not versioning the blob. You create your original migration with original blob as sql dump. When you change the blob you create another migration file (basically an insert statement) and you keep those migrations in repository. Then whenever you set up a project you just fire the migrations and have access to all versions of the data. Even better solution would be to keep it like that: db | - migrations | - - base.sql (create db and required table) | - - v1.sql (insert version 1 of blob) | - - v2.sql (insert version 2 of blob) | - - ... Then just create a mechanism that creates the db and populates it with desired amount of data versions so you can have just one, all of them, last 5 etc. It's pretty convenient too since you don't need much for sqlite db and you can keep it as a file inside your project if you want to. hm, i don't think you are following.
I guess I'm not 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
