Sometime in the 2000s I started reading the RISKS Digest mailing list[1] from the beginning. I did it for fun - it's an interesting mix of fun anecdotes and lessons learned, and the 80's and early 90's were before my time which I found interesting too.
A side effect of reading the mailing list in bulk is that a set of common "stereotypes" of failure (for lack of a better word) start to emerge clearly from the stream of anecdotes. These really influenced my mental model of technology risks. I would still recommend the exercise for anyone interested in the subject.
RISKS Digest got me started too. I think there are some things best learned from the very beginning. "Consider modes of failure" is probably my favourite piece of security advice.
> Although there is an element of apparent sloppiness in many creative people, discipline is also required. (Note that time-sharing has been condemned by some as encouraging sloppiness, as opposed to batch processing [where sloppiness can be exceedingly costly in time and computing resources]. Perhaps time-sharing could actually encourage creativity, although there is the countering argument that computers intrinsically stifle creativity.) Similarly, diversity of experience also appears to be extremely important (e.g., [Sheppard]); the perspective afforded by familiarity with a variety of systems, subsystems, programming languages, and methodologies provides extremely valuable insights, especially where there is wide diversity (e.g., among TOPS-20, Multics, UNIX, and OS/370; SCRIBE, TEX, PUB and ROFF; Pascal-based languages and LISP; a formal methodology/specification language and conventional design).
I will think “Agentic Engineering” is the “time-sharing” of our time. Embrace it.
Sometime in the 2000s I started reading the RISKS Digest mailing list[1] from the beginning. I did it for fun - it's an interesting mix of fun anecdotes and lessons learned, and the 80's and early 90's were before my time which I found interesting too.
A side effect of reading the mailing list in bulk is that a set of common "stereotypes" of failure (for lack of a better word) start to emerge clearly from the stream of anecdotes. These really influenced my mental model of technology risks. I would still recommend the exercise for anyone interested in the subject.
[1] https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/
RISKS Digest got me started too. I think there are some things best learned from the very beginning. "Consider modes of failure" is probably my favourite piece of security advice.
Bookmark this link for future reference, it is very relevant in the era of “agentic engineering”
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1005937.1005938
> Although there is an element of apparent sloppiness in many creative people, discipline is also required. (Note that time-sharing has been condemned by some as encouraging sloppiness, as opposed to batch processing [where sloppiness can be exceedingly costly in time and computing resources]. Perhaps time-sharing could actually encourage creativity, although there is the countering argument that computers intrinsically stifle creativity.) Similarly, diversity of experience also appears to be extremely important (e.g., [Sheppard]); the perspective afforded by familiarity with a variety of systems, subsystems, programming languages, and methodologies provides extremely valuable insights, especially where there is wide diversity (e.g., among TOPS-20, Multics, UNIX, and OS/370; SCRIBE, TEX, PUB and ROFF; Pascal-based languages and LISP; a formal methodology/specification language and conventional design).
I will think “Agentic Engineering” is the “time-sharing” of our time. Embrace it.
I loved reading RISKS and looks like back in 1991 (35 years ago! Eek!) I was worried about trojan horses on Netware 286: https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/risks/11/65#subj3
RIP
Previously (25 points - same list, LWN host) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48172640
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/science/peter-g-neumann-a...
https://cacm.acm.org/news/in-memoriam-peter-g-neumann-1932-2...
To see "Albert Einstein" in the list of his mentors was beautiful. He was a connection link to many of the greatest minds in our history. RIP.
The mailing list style and his personal web page tells me all that I need to do
(And if you don't get it, you wouldn't get it)
It feels as though an entire era is fading day by day
Not to be confused with John von Neumann
he has died as well