phillmv

51 ms·

451.
by phillmv 14y ago
> What you linked to was comparable to saying Groovy is insecure because of the most recent vulnerability found in Java browser plugins. Not really, because in .NET separating the "language" from the "framework" is a little thornier. An
452.
by phillmv 14y ago
>Did they do a risk analysis on rails - no Actually, this bug was discovered precisely because people began to perform a more in depth analysis. >Did they perform input/type checking - no (sorry but statically typed languages win he
453.
by phillmv 14y ago
> If ASP.NET WebForms had the same level of security holes in the past years as Rails ... just wow. That's a joke, right? https://www.google.ca/search?q=asp.net+remote+code&oq=as... >we trust the framework authors implicitly Y
454.
by phillmv 14y ago
Just to counter some of the negativity in here, As a partner in a consulting shop just starting out, this isn't a bad proposition. It nets you rent money to work on scratching a pet peeve; if you're between clients and you've got something
455.
by phillmv 14y ago
It's not about being surprised by the standard library, there are no surprises there, it's about being appalled by the standard library.
456.
by phillmv 14y ago
This is a straw man. These kinds of issues are open to all software. I'm happy you work in the kind of place that audits all of its software, though. I'm sure you've all read through all of Hibernate, Spring and not to mention all the .NET
457.
by phillmv 14y ago
Security is a process; what matters is how people respond to new vulnerabilities. I'm naturally biased pro-Rails, but so far I don't feel uncomfortable with how it has been handled. I can't comment on how on-the-ball the Rails security team
458.
by phillmv 14y ago
He single handedly made everyone in the Ruby community feel a little more special and fun and light hearted and quirky. Kind of the opposite of a brogrammer.
459.
by phillmv 14y ago
I'm asking you to explain why any of it is an issue, and to back it up with the comments of other people. I want to see people who have written "the fact that this project is in Ruby is the bane of my existence and here is why these probl
460.
by phillmv 14y ago
I'm surprised people are still making these arguments. Well, that's okay - don't use it then! We'll figure it out on our own. I'm interested on the "maintainability" claim, though, because that one is new to me. Are there any blog posts tha
461.
by phillmv 14y ago
I think this kind of view point is mostly influenced by having to deal with poorly designed ORMs and (tho occasionally very necessary) convoluted database designs. > For world-facing code, ORMs are risky unless you've got someone on the
462.
by phillmv 14y ago
>The fact that this keeps happening on Rails is the #1 reason I haven't bothered to take the time to do anything real with it. I don't have the time to read the code for the framework and I don't trust that it's written with security in
463.
by phillmv 14y ago
Yes, clearly, because Rails has introduced absolutely no other kind of default protection . Is this an argument for hand rolling your own code, or for using some other framework that is apparently immune (or, to be charitable, has a strong
464.
China Can Copy Anything(spiegel.de)
2 points by phillmv 14y ago|1 comments
465.
by phillmv 14y ago
Things change a lot once you begin to have disposable income. Almost everyone my age has a smartphone.
466.
by phillmv 14y ago
If you wanted your password reset for the first couple of years, didn't you have to email pg personally?
467.
by phillmv 14y ago
It's ruby. Just change your load path. The beauty of that language is that almost no one can really force you to do anything you don't want to do.
468.
by phillmv 14y ago
You really can't lump Rack in there, given that it's a meta framework, and a meta framework to which Rails has been built around since 2.3.
469.
by phillmv 14y ago
Rails has a lot of moving parts, which is certainly daunting for the beginner, and having worked in it professionally for three or however many years it's been I have a certain cognitive bias going on here but bear with me: What part of Rai
470.
by phillmv 14y ago
>The point is typically getting rich. No, it's not. The point is to be in Control Of Your Own Destiny, and be wealthier . If your goal from the outset is to GET RICH then that's very nice and ambitious of you but that's a) unlikely to
471.
by phillmv 14y ago
Have you never burned out? People need to live their lives. I don't see much the point in creating companies where people can't be happy.
472.
by phillmv 14y ago
Why, they're investments. Of course you want prices to go up! You're sinking a huge quantity of money - presumably, above that of an equivalent rental unit in your region - and by golly, you need returns on that or else you're just fritting
473.
by phillmv 14y ago
When you ship your own browser and OS you can prob get away with that.
474.
by phillmv 14y ago
It's great. We got unicorns and Series As for everyone!
475.
by phillmv 14y ago
Eh, I'm not terribly persuaded by that line of reasoning: the article CW links to^1 mentions that the IT field operates at full employment. At 3.7% unemployment you have a huge amount of bargaining power. As you alluded above, I too think t
476.
by phillmv 14y ago
Okay. What are you arguing here? Income has remained stagnant for the past 40 years. I don't understand how the massive gains achieved in the 40-60s is relevant. The whole story behind the 1% thing is that for the past two generations the b
477.
by phillmv 14y ago
Hi j_s, >You may have indadvertently overstated your case here. I meant, amongst the people who cry foul. Of course we know who organizes any given conference, just not necessarily amongst those who complain. I don't disagree re: the
478.
by phillmv 14y ago
Don't be a jackass. 1. You never know who has actually organized a conference, 2. That's not a relevant counter argument.
479.
by phillmv 14y ago
If you're at the stage of your company's lifecyle where you're in YC, then all metrics of users. Users, users, users.
480.
by phillmv 14y ago
1. Couldn't he have linked to some of this stuff? 2. Some of this stuff is absurdly broad and weirdly pandering. 3. "I have no idea what the copyright implications of this are, so I will be printing out only my own private copy and not maki

More ›