Talk:Jack
[JSpaith:] You may want to consider jumping into your thesis about the coming software tools earlier. See Caroline's paper and how right away she tells us where she's going. You could still tie this the Internet Worm (or Slammer is better since the reader was probably bitten by it, but probably not on Internet in '88) that if we'd had these tools in 1988 or before SQL 2000 then there would be no story to tell and no bugs to patch. But since we didn't have these tools back then, we got in lots of trouble. Then tell us what went wrong with the details, then give us specifics about these tools.
--Jack Richins 16:12, 29 Nov 2004 (PST) After looking at how I'd reword this, I wonder if I need to provide such detail about the Morris worm and Slammer at all. Perhaps I should just mention them as reference points instead of going into detailed paragraphs describing them. Any other opinions?
Caroline In my comments, repeating them here for everyone's benefit, I suggested that the whole intro on vulnerabilities kind of directly overlaps with Santtu. Think you need it? Think you can just jump directly into your chapter, as John suggests, with how to improve software technically-speaking? that's what I would do. Perhaps Santtu can grab info from here for his--including taking the buffer overrun 7-11 dude explanation and somehow credit you?
--Santtu 11:10, 30 Nov 2004 (PST) Not sure whether this completely fits in with your chapter, but you may want to mention "automatic failure recovery/transparency". And interesting paper on this is "David E. Lowell, Subhachandra Chandra, and Peter M. Chen, Exploring Failure Transparency and the Limits of Generic Recovery. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 2000), October 2000", a link to which can be found on the Distributed Computing course reading list.
You may want to consider either removing the reference to PREFast, or at least move it from the conclusion to some earlier point.
