<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" target="_blank"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" alt="i" width="468" height="60"/></a>
Log in
::
Register
::
Not logged in
Home
Tags
Articles
Editorials
Stairways
Forums
Scripts
Videos
Blogs
QotD
Books
Ask SSC
SQL Jobs
Training
Authors
About us
Contact us
Newsletters
Write for us
<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" target="_top"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" alt="i" width="120" height="300"/></a>
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Popular Topics
Popular Topics
Home
Search
Members
Calendar
Who's On
Home
»
SQLServerCentral.com
»
Editorials
»
Inconsistency
58 posts, Page 4 of 6
««
«
2
3
4
5
6
»
»»
Inconsistency
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
Ed Salva
Ed Salva
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 1:51 PM
SSC Rookie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:46 AM
Points: 27,
Visits: 287
TravisDBA (3/15/2013)
True story, but the rub with that is you got to treat and pay "good people" well, or they leave sooner or later and you are then left with "not so good people" running your business into the ground. i have seen this so many times in the industry it is not even funny anymore.
You really do get what you pay for, good or bad
.
Not always true - Last couple of rounds with some purchased software has proven that even though you may pay top dollar for something and it may look like a good fit, it ends up being a Lemon with no sugar around to make lemonade.
-- Optimist with experience and still learning
Post #1431726
jlennartz
jlennartz
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 2:38 PM
Mr or Mrs. 500
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:27 PM
Points: 579,
Visits: 871
I think we got off track in an area Steve said to avoid. He specifically said to
"Please avoid political or socials issues and stick to something in technology that's you have altered your standing on. And if you haven't changed your mind on anything, perhaps that's something to think about as well."
Post #1431760
Jim P.
Jim P.
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 4:43 PM
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:05 AM
Points: 443,
Visits: 495
My belief:
The more secure you try to make systems and software makes them either less secure or become unused and useless.
Some examples locking down Windows that a regular user has problems even changing the the background image on the desktop. They will then find every possible way to bypass that rule, or if it is a privately owned system they will turn off all security.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
Post #1431838
SQLRNNR
SQLRNNR
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 5:14 PM
SSCoach
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:25 AM
Points: 18,754,
Visits: 12,337
I am very open to the idea that I don't know what I don't know about many subjects, especially databases.
A few things come to mind real quick.
The use of cursors
The use of table variables
Parallelism is bad
I used to be strongly opposed to the use of cursors. But that is just silly. There are many good uses - if used properly.
Table variables are a good tool. But they are not necessarily the absolute to replace temp tables as was a huge push for a while. Table variables can be a good tool or a really bad tool.
Parallelism can be a wonderful thing. In a well tuned query, parallelism can be that turbo button
. In a poorly tuned query parallelism can be, well - a pain. But the fact that parallelism exists doesn't imply that something is wrong or bad.
Those are a few things I have had to change my mind about over the years. And that is a good thing because that means I have hopefully learned something.
Jason
AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server 2008
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #1431843
Miles Neale
Miles Neale
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 5:15 PM
SSCommitted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:51 AM
Points: 1,891,
Visits: 936
Say goodnight Gracie!
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
Post #1431844
SQLRNNR
SQLRNNR
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 5:17 PM
SSCoach
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:25 AM
Points: 18,754,
Visits: 12,337
Miles Neale (3/15/2013)
Say goodnight Gracie!
Goodnight Gracie
Jason
AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server 2008
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #1431845
Miles Neale
Miles Neale
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 5:31 PM
SSCommitted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:51 AM
Points: 1,891,
Visits: 936
Bless You!
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
Post #1431849
Doctor Who 2
Doctor Who 2
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 5:42 PM
SSC Journeyman
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:38 PM
Points: 97,
Visits: 236
The opinion of mine that I've changed, is an older one, and developer related, so perhaps not everyone on this list can relate. Years ago, when I first came to where I now work (I've been there for a long time), we wrote a couple of apps which are still in use today. They started life as VB4 apps, but are now VB6 apps. The opinion I had (in fact, the opinion we all had), back in the day, was the data binding was unreliable. We devoted a lot of time writing our own code to bind data from our SQL Server databases, to the apps that we wrote. Most of those apps are still in use today.
But now, years later, I've changed to use C# instead of VB (I only use VB if I have to, such as if I absolutely have to do maintenance on that old stuff), but along the way I've had a chance to learn data binding. Man, what a difference that makes!! Much faster to code in, than writing your own stuff, and a lot less error prone.
Rod
Post #1431852
Scott Anderson #2
Scott Anderson #2
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 7:47 PM
SSC Rookie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:06 PM
Points: 28,
Visits: 86
Jim P. - I also thought that more secure meant less useable, until I realised that we are looking at securing the wrong way. Instead of the Accept\Reject model (ie. user name\password great for computer to break, bad for human to remember) why not be more human like and security via reference and familiarity. You do totally lose privacy and the system "knows" you but you do get a much more secure and useable environment.
Reference and familiarity = resource sensitivity dependency on required user access or Authent-a-Key as I like to call it.
eg. How about having low secure read only activities like running a report only require a user name, but it's how you enter the user name that the system can decide on if you are you or not. It's the speed of each letter press, the time of gap between letters, and the prior stats determine and if the system can't know for sure, the fail over to getting another human to vouch for you.
What about other access methods that cannot be forged? Like pass-sound, pass-click, pass-highlight, pass-drag, etc.
They all promote a model where an intruder can only get so far unless they actually are you.
The bottom line is only require enough security for the sensitivity of the task; instead of all or nothing.
Post #1431856
Jim P.
Jim P.
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013 11:26 PM
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:05 AM
Points: 443,
Visits: 495
Scott Anderson #2 (3/15/2013)
Jim P. - I also thought that more secure meant less useable, until I realised that we are looking at securing the wrong way. Instead of the Accept\Reject model (ie. user name\password great for computer to break, bad for human to remember) why not be more human like and security via reference and familiarity. You do totally lose privacy and the system "knows" you but you do get a much more secure and useable environment.
They all promote a model where an intruder can only get so far unless they actually are you.
Have you ever seen nthe
XKCD
view?
Setting the screensaver to 10 minutes (which can be a conversation time with a coworker) by group policy and a lockout policy is about ridiculous. The other side I had an Access DB that processed many GB of data overnight. I forgot to lock my desktop before I left for the night. I just had to move the mouse to bring the desktop up.
I had near admin level access.
But if you had to enter four words to get to your desktop each time -- the user will find a way to subvert it. But making the password so odious, the user will find a way to subvert it.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
Post #1431863
« Prev Topic
|
Next Topic »
58 posts, Page 4 of 6
««
«
2
3
4
5
6
»
»»
Permissions
You
cannot
post new topics.
You
cannot
post topic replies.
You
cannot
post new polls.
You
cannot
post replies to polls.
You
cannot
edit your own topics.
You
cannot
delete your own topics.
You
cannot
edit other topics.
You
cannot
delete other topics.
You
cannot
edit your own posts.
You
cannot
edit other posts.
You
cannot
delete your own posts.
You
cannot
delete other posts.
You
cannot
post events.
You
cannot
edit your own events.
You
cannot
edit other events.
You
cannot
delete your own events.
You
cannot
delete other events.
You
cannot
send private messages.
You
cannot
send emails.
You
may
read topics.
You
cannot
rate topics.
You
cannot
vote within polls.
You
cannot
upload attachments.
You
may
download attachments.
You
cannot
post HTML code.
You
cannot
edit HTML code.
You
cannot
post IFCode.
You
cannot
post JavaScript.
You
cannot
post EmotIcons.
You
cannot
post or upload images.
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy.
Terms of Use.
Report Abuse.
