Talk:Dancing pigs

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title[edit]

The title for this was a problem. I googled on "dancing pigs problem" and got bugger-all, but "dancing pigs" problem got lots of relevant hits, a lot of which were people using the phrase "dancing pigs" to refer to this problem. So the long form is a redirect here.

The Mozilla quote is one I thought was a good example; feel free to use a better one.

Thanks to Guanaco for catching my typos ;-) - David Gerard 00:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dancing bunnies[edit]

I took this out of the article. The only ref I could find to this was the Larry Osterman blog entry in ext links, and in that he notes that he got the name wrong ... referring to this very article ;-) - David Gerard 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now in 2008, in part because of that reference, the dancing pig problem is now also called the dancing bunnies problem, one guy gets it wrong in his blog, and ten the next year 20 people get it wrong, and the year after that 200 people get it wrong, fortunately, when i googled dancing bunnies wiki, it was linked to the dancing pigs page, and i stopped calling it the dancing bunnies problem.. the website that gets it wrong (again is here) [dancing bunnies] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesuki (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a Google search for "dancing bunnies problem" gets 221 hits, while "dancing pigs problem" only gets 134 hits. There is no "wrong" here. The purpose of Wikipedia is to describe the world as it is, not as it would be under optimal conditions. The fact that Larry Osterman honestly misremembered "dancing pigs" as "dancing bunnies" does not alter the fact that it is under the latter name that the phenomenon appears to have become more widely known, and the article needs to acknowledge that. —phh (^t/_c) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Describing things as they are" does not mean including every label by which they've ever been known. The single source that used "dancing bunnies" apologised for misremembering in the comments to the very post in question. That's like having "Bill Gates, also known as Paul Gates" because some guy once misremembered his name on his blog. I've removed this again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A talking moose wants my credit card number, that's only fair.[edit]

This is a quote from Homer Simpson. This was the first thing that came in my mind reading this article. This is nothing scientifically, but its a well-known show and I guess also a known quote. I am not certain if we should mention it on the side. You can find the quote in the net: [1].. and with google in some other places. --JonnyJD (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan horse[edit]

B R (D) I added a link to Trojan horse programs, but Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) rolled back the change. Because rollbacks leave no explanation, I feel confused as to the rationale. Was this supposed to represent an assertion that "dancing pigs" and "dancing bunnies" are entirely unrelated to Trojan horses? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if your edit wasn't intended as vandalism, but it seemed such a disconnected link to add that I couldn't see any rationale behind it and assumed it was. I've re-added it. I can only assume your meaning was, "animal metaphors in IT security"?

Perhaps the root of this is that the article has two problems:

It's not just about security, it's about the user requirements capture process in broader terms.
It's not about pigs, it's penguins. "Dancing penguins" has a far longer track record in the industry and I've yet to see a single dancing pig - I've no idea why Securing Java used pigs instead. Maybe they feared confusion with the infernal (and penguin-like) dancing Duke applet that started the whole craze. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "penguins" really has the longer track record, I'd expect it to have plenty of sources. But the whole reason around focusing on blocking dancing $animal programs is that a dancing $animal program may be a trojan horse. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question then is whether our "dancing pigs" are more like penguins (harmless, but distracting and absorbing development effort that could have gone elsewhere) or the "Britney topless" subject lines so beloved of email phishing (deliberately and immediately harmful, but tempting). In either case, it's more than just animals, although I can see where you're coming from in comparing Britney to a Greek horse (in this context, anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Ghits are about 3x greater for penguins than pigs, but that's simply without filtering to software development. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook's Privacy Dinosaur[edit]

Recently, Facebook has added an anthropomorphic dinosaur to the link to their privacy settings. I'm not certain whether this is worthy of mention on the article, but it is certainly an example of someone taking advantage of this phenomenon. If people will take funny animals over security, why not give them both?--98.163.253.213 (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]