|
Richard Deeming wrote: At least if it's in an email, you can copy and paste it
Whoever put together my bank's site thought it would be a good idea to disable click and drag in the browser, so I can't copy things like 12-digit transaction numbers that I like to copy for my own records...
|
|
|
|
|
At my last company the marketing department used to send (by post) a monthly paper bulletin. It was usually about 5-10 pages and each page had at least three printed URLs, which extended to 4 or 5 lines. I sent them an email suggesting they email the stuff to make it easier. Their reply was the usual, "Thank you, we will take your suggestion under advisement" - translation: "Dude, you know nothing." (which of course is true, but that is another matter).
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that long URLs in text messages are a pain, especially if you have a phone that does not have a browser and you have to manually copy from a phone to a PC. I had one from the NHS that straddled two SMS message as it was so long. I can't remember how many times I tried to write it in Notepad then copy/paste to a browser before I got it right. 
A quick <insert name of a web browser search engine here> gives ...
http - What is the maximum length of a URL in different browsers? - Stack Overflow[^]
URL length: how long can a URL be? - SISTRIX[^]
These agree on saying you should not have them longer than 2048 chars
RFC 2616[^] says (§3.2.1 General Syntax)
Quote: The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of
a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they
serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they
provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs. A server
SHOULD return 414 (Request-URI Too Long) status if a URI is longer
than the server can handle (see section 10.4.15).
Note: Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths
above 255 bytes, because some older client or proxy
implementations might not properly support these lengths.
So, you should be able to have the whole text of War And Peace in your URL!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh so you like long string?
Spell the full name of titin... 
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if it's case sensitive, too.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The latest article on this issue states that it's not going to be cheap. I use VisualStudio without open source. If I need additional functionality I purchase it from a reliable vendor. Probably cheaper than trying to secure all that open source crap out there; and that's not counting any malware that has creeped into your system from Billy-Bob's download.
Pay me now or pay me later. 
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: I use VisualStudio without open source.
So no .NET/Core...
There are millions of open-source projects properly secured - instead of running away, learn them before use...
There are full systems built on totally secure open-source code (Linuxes)...
And it is entirely possible that with payed product you actually will pay twice... payment is not guarantee for nothing today...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
.NET is the VS framework. Don't use Core.
VB, Delphi, VS, Telerik, DevExpress. And yes, you get what you pay for. Never hear of any of these products needing to spend money to make them secure.
Been in IT for 28 years. Never had a problem worrying about open source malware because I simply do not use it.
Just because SOME projects do not blow up, does not mean it should be the goto source for code.
|
|
|
|
|
The whole of the .NET framework is open source: Reference Source[^], so any .NET based software is unavailable to you ... which includes the C# compiler, and VS itself ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Your link: Browse the .NET Framework source code online, with search and navigation powered by Roslyn.
You can browse lots of things, that doesn't mean you can do anything with the copy of VS I purchased from MS.
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly never bothered yourself with the truth...
Telerik : Security vulnerabilities[^]
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I stated the software used in projects I worked on. I did not buy Telerik and did not like having to use it; but since I was a contractor at the facility, and THEY bought it, I had no choice.
With that said, I did recommend and purchased DevExpress.
There is a difference between security flaws (which exists in everything by the way) and deliberately downloading a package of (god-knows-what) from a (god-knows-where) site; and, unless you download the source code and spend time and money analyzing it, you have no idea what it contains.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: unless you download the source code and spend time and money analyzing it, you have no idea what it contains.
That's a rather interesting argument to use against open source. You know more about what closed source contains without spending time and money analyzing it?
|
|
|
|
|
That's why you pay for VS from Microsoft who created VS in 2001 and has been in use now for over 20 years. Not some free stuff in GitHub, or web site that has is not usually a business, but could be a hacker sneaking something into the code, or not writing even ANY security into the code just to get their name show up as a contributor, thus with hopes of landing more opportunities.
Yes, I do not need to analyze VS. And in all the applications and web sites I have created over the past 13 years, never had a security breach, or had my sites hacked.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: Yes, I do not need to analyze VS. And in all the applications and web sites I have created over the past 13 years, never had a security breach, or had my sites hacked.
That you know of.
Even if true, if you're honest with yourself as a developer, you wouldn't go on a limb and make this sort of claim.
And you seem to be confusing VS - a code editor - with libraries you use to build apps.
|
|
|
|
|
Speak for yourself. I've been programming/developing with DataGeneral RDOS Basic, and from early Radio Shack PC days, DOS Basic, VB, Delphi, and on up to VS C#.
I use/build my own libraries or purchase add-ons from companies like DevExpress.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone doing this for so long would therefore clearly know better than to believe they're infallible.
Otherwise the only one getting fooled is looking right back at you in a mirror.
|
|
|
|
|
I never said anything about being infallible.
I've goofed up so many times during my career than I care to remember.
That has nothing to do with this topic.
But if you want to move into the personal arena, please continue while I ignore your comments as you seem to be ignoring the topic. 
|
|
|
|
|
No thanks, I'm done. I just saw a squirrel.
|
|
|
|
|
One has to be careful with using open source code on mission critical projects and functionality, this I agree with.
If you find open source code that fits your needs and through rigorous testing and analysis you have determined that it will work fine in Production, then I do not see the big deal.
Our projects use a combination of pay to play software and open source.
|
|
|
|
|
How much time/money is lost in that rigorous testing and analysis?
|
|
|
|
|
How much are you willing to loose in time/money if you do not do rigorous testing and analysis.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
You need rigorous testing for any project, whether it contains open source components or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course you test your project. But in the case of VS, if I code using VS components, I assume that I do not have to test the components' code that I am using.
Open source adds another layer of unknown code into an application, thus requiring double, triple, or however many pieces of open source code you are using; and this adds more rigorous testing on top of your project. I don't need that headache, especially in a RAD development project. Using VS is like building a car from a kit. Using open source (and I will add java in here simply because of the language itself) is like having to make the parts for the kit.
People l-o-o-o-v-e that "free" stuff. 
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: I assume that I do not have to test the components' code
But you still need to test your usage of them. No different to using open source.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
