Slashdot Mirror

You can already get those features from 3rd parties like CrazyBrowser and from other plug-ins that are freely available.

Not to mention the fact that one can download Mozilla, FireFox, or any of a number of other browsers that give you this functionality.

Why is it a bad thing that different browsers have different functionality and people can go out and have a fine selection of software to choose from?

-- Cyrus (http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn)

Bollucks. The hours are fantastic. I'm also given a tremendous amount of flexibility with my schedule. As long as I am getting my work done, then there are no qualms with doing things like working 40 hours in 4 days and taking a long vation, or working on a weekend and taking weekdays off, etc.

Microsoft doesn't care how many hours you work as long as you get your work done on (or ahead of) time. If you can do your workload in 30 or 20 (or hell, 10) hours then that's fine. However, boredom tends to sit in in that case and you usually find interesting things that you can then be doing in the meantime to help out customers.

Which group did you interview with and what was the interviewers name who told you that 60 hours was expected of you?

-- Cyrus (http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn)

The innards of Calc - the arithmetic engine - was completely thrown away and rewritten from scratch. The standard IEEE floating point library was replaced with an arbitrary-precision arithmetic library. This was done after people kept writing ha-ha articles about how Calc couldn't do decimal arithmetic correctly, that for example computing 10.21 - 10.2 resulted in 0.0100000000000016.

(These all came from people who didn't understand how computers handle floating point. I have a future entry planned to go into floating point representations in more detail.)

Today, Calc's internal computations are done with infinite precision for basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) and 32 digits of precision for advanced operations (square root, transcendental operators).

The innards of Calc - the arithmetic engine - was completely thrown away and rewritten from scratch. The standard IEEE floating point library was replaced with an arbitrary-precision arithmetic library. This was done after people kept writing ha-ha articles about how Calc couldn't do decimal arithmetic correctly, that for example computing 10.21 - 10.2 resulted in 0.0100000000000016.

(These all came from people who didn't understand how computers handle floating point. I have a future entry planned to go into floating point representations in more detail.)

Today, Calc's internal computations are done with infinite precision for basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) and 32 digits of precision for advanced operations (square root, transcendental operators).

I'm sure this slashdotting will produce a lot of useful ideas and insightful comments.

Yeah, just like this one did :-/

Gosh, I'm tired of the /.'er quest to "expose" double standards by comparing incomparable situations.

Orkut is a part-time project done by a single enthusiastic employee, a project which Google does not seem to have any idea what to do with. The appropriate comparison isn't with a MSIE a highly strategic product for Microsoft that thousands of developers have participated in.

A comparable situation with be if Windows Installer XML contained code which Microsoft does not have the right. It is a one person, part-time project, which Microsoft does not seem to know what to do with. If someone then sued Microsoft, I'd say the situation was similar. , and the suers were just going for the big pockets.

A comparable situation to the MSIE scenario would be if Google hadn't the rights to the code for the search or ad-matching technologies.

1. They are creating a much more robust community than they ever have. Check out http://blogs.msdn.com sometime. They have a lot of their developers - and not just low level guys - blogging on a regular basis. It's an interesting thing to watch these people work. And it really gets out of that "faceless corproate entity" mold they were heading down.

It sounds nice, and I went there with some hopeful anticipation that these would be honest, straightforward thoughts from the developers that we could trust for advance data. However, quotes like this: "I see Andy beat me to the punch of being the first VC blogger to mention the new beta VC++ Express SKU. If I wasn't a Microsoft employee, I'd be downloading this right now instead of typing this entry..." make this sound like nothing more than a new marketing ploy than an actual attempt to provide users with honest, BS-free information from the developers. I like mailing lists, bugzilla/open bug trackers/forums because it means that with Open Source, I don't have to swim through oceans of meaningless crap from marketers to find out what I want. It's a *far* better environment for a user.

It really discourages salespeople to have to do this. I've found that a lot of vendors seem to not deal well with younger purchasers that were brought up on the Web being a source of actual solid data. Last time I was trying to evaluate products for a major purchase, I just wanted a damn feature and price list on the software product involved from each vendor. I'd look all over the vendor's website -- nothing, just "contact this number to obtain information". I call them up to get a feature list, and the salesguy fights tooth and nail to avoid giving me a any hard data. He wants me "to specify my needs" so that he can "assist me in making a decision". I'm quite capable of making my own evaluation, and he's quite reachable if I have technical questions, but he is absolutely scared stiff that his product won't be able to stand on its own merit, and needs a healthy dose of BS about how wonderful it is from him before I'll buy anything. It's astounding, completely contrary to the way I've always worked, and a huge waste of my time.

If there's a problem in a piece of software, I want to know about it, not have some completely ridiculous sales assurances that it "isn't an issue" or "will be fixed soon." If you're straightforward, I don't *have* to expect that the product will be perfect. *That's* why I want to be able to see what developers are saying and talk to them. Salesmen are conditioned to feed out bullshit. It's incredibly frusterating for anyone spoiled on the luxuries of the open source world, which has a very simple contract. If you have simple problems, you resolve them yourself (or have a consultant do it) to avoid consuming developer time. You check online documentation to avoid asking duplicate questions. In exchange for this simple outlay of effort, if you have serious issues that still aren't resolved, you can reach the developer, and get no-BS answers. If mutt can't do something, the people on mutt-users are going to say "you can't do that" or suggest a method of making it work, rather than trying to spin everything. It's awfully nice.

2. The software is getting better. Windows is pretty reliable now. It's not perfect by any means, but Windows 2000 was the first shot. Windows XP and Windows 2003 are really quite a bit better. It's easy to joke about "the most reliable Windows ever". In the real world there isn't that dread like there was in the NT4 days about BSOD's and reliablitly problems.

Yes, but "better than Windows used to be" is a lot different than "good". The biggest thing I heard about Win2k for home use was that "It's better than Windows 9x", which was a pretty weak claim. The issue here is how Windows stacks up to Linux, not how it compares to old version of Windows. Linux 2.6 is a lot nicer than Linux 1.0, for instanc

This is a huge opportunity for Mozilla if they really mobilize and take advantage of it before I.E.'s team and Dave Massy get going on their "renewed effort on Internet Explorer."

-- Cyrus (http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn)

By using this site you can send us that information which will get read and responded to. These issues are read by Developers, QA and Program Managers and all of them are addressed. This site is going live with the Betas and I'm hoping that it will spread to include all MS products not just the ones for developers.

You can also vote for the issues that you think are the most important. In that way we can then tell what the community is really interested in and how we should be focussing our reasources. I'm really happy about this development because I've felt that there has been too much of a disconnect between the company and the amazing amount of people in the community. By bringing each closer we can greatly improve how well our software will serve your needs.

I hope that the developers, hobbyists, and other interested people here will get a chance to download these Betas, try them out and let us know what they think of it. You might also want to look into blogs.msdn.com where you can communicate directly with a lot of people and have full conversations about things that interest you. I've posted my blog site below. It's open to everybody and I'd love to hear back from you. It's targetted toward C# developers, but if you're interested in other things that I don't know about, I'll try to help you find a relevant blog site about it.

Thanks very much for talking about this release and letting the developer world know about it!!

-- Cyrus (http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn)

By using this site you can send us that information which will get read and responded to. These issues are read by Developers, QA and Program Managers and all of them are addressed. This site is going live with the Betas and I'm hoping that it will spread to include all MS products not just the ones for developers.

You can also vote for the issues that you think are the most important. In that way we can then tell what the community is really interested in and how we should be focussing our reasources. I'm really happy about this development because I've felt that there has been too much of a disconnect between the company and the amazing amount of people in the community. By bringing each closer we can greatly improve how well our software will serve your needs.

I hope that the developers, hobbyists, and other interested people here will get a chance to download these Betas, try them out and let us know what they think of it. You might also want to look into blogs.msdn.com where you can communicate directly with a lot of people and have full conversations about things that interest you. I've posted my blog site below. It's open to everybody and I'd love to hear back from you. It's targetted toward C# developers, but if you're interested in other things that I don't know about, I'll try to help you find a relevant blog site about it.

Thanks very much for talking about this release and letting the developer world know about it!!

-- Cyrus (http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn)

Channel 9 is hosting a coding contest making use of these new Express editions. Six winners get an Xbox, a one-year subscription to Xbox Live, and a copy of Halo 2 (once it's released of course...)

after 20 years of writing operating systems, they still can't keep it from crashing?
You can easily say the same thing about ANY commerical Unix vendor. For example, after 30 years of writing operating systems, AIX still crashes. What is wrong with IBM?


But on to your actual questions

1. Less Secure. Any version of IRIX before 6.2 or 6.3. Dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of unchecked buffers, etc etc. Worst yet is you have absolutely no help if you are on a pre-R4000 CPU since those versions of IRIX are completely abandoned.

2. Crashes more frequently. SCO Unix, versions 5.0.6 and thereabouts. Useless. Core-dumps all over the place. Kernel problems all over the place. Littlest hardware error cause a complete mess. Filesystem problems all over the place. Unless setup perfectly, completely unusable.

3. More restricive EULA. This isn't even hard. So many UNIX license pale in comparison to the Windows EULA. It's a joke. Some versions of Unix you can't even buy. Or sell. Or rent space on. Or give shell access to. It's a joke. Again, SCO Unix. Also, any of the System IV stuff from At&T. Horrendous terms and conditions depending on your vendor, product combination, level of support etc.

4. Ship date problems. What a joke. Again, not even close. Anything from Novell. Netware 5 was completely botched in terms of ship date. Netware 6 was at one point reportedly 18 months late if that's even possible. Netware 3.12 languished.

Your problem is that you can't examine MS products without lumping them into a big ball. People don't lump everything on Sourceforge.net into a big category, and it's not wise to do the same with Microsoft. Some of MS's products are very very good. Some are terrible. Some are so bad they've been discontinued. You may not like Windows, fine. But I tell you what, compare VS.NET 2004 head to head with other IDEs and you'll reach the same conclusion as many developers: it's good stuff. Compare Excel 2003 versus other spreadsheets, and you'll find what people who have actually researched the data learn: Excel 2003 is exceptionally good.

And that's just big name products. What about underlying stuff? For example, take a look at the ActiveX Data Object (ADO). A well design and thoughout project. The right trade-off between abstraction and flexibility. Turns out that a project that started off small came to be a great selling point for Microsoft client/server software development. So much so that other products have copied it virtually down to the names of the constants used.

The problem with your post, as I see it, is that as you and alot of fanboys are finding out, Microsoft is turning out to be a very agile business. The sutff coming out there right now as beta's is going to surprise many many people. Spend 1-2 hrs reading the blogs at blogs.msdn.com. These guys are smart. They capable. They are highly talented. Management has been changed. Microsoft has changed. A major shakeup started and continues within Microsoft. It's a big deal.

And as MS changes and gets *better*, the fanboys on Slashdot whine and bitch.


Let me put it to you this way. As all the complaining about MS's stuff goes on, MS has lowered prices and improved their products. I work with small businesses and their IT needs, right? A few years, Small Business Server cost between $1299 and $1899 depending on what you needed in terms of users. At the time, I was recommending my clients go with the same piece of hardware (low-end Dell 'server') with FreeBSD on it or perhaps RedHat linux. For the cost, SBS2000 wasn't that good a deal. Plus with Exchange problems, and virus, etc etc - it was a pain. Since then, SBS2003 is out. Now it's less money $599 for the most common edition and usuage needs. You get everything you need to run an office of less than 50 people. It runs better on the 2 yr old hardware than SBS2000

courtesy Raymond Chen's blog: During the run-up to Windows XP Service Pack 2 Beta in December of last year, there was a list of five bugs that the release management team decided were so critical that they were going to slip the beta until those bugs got fixed. The third bug on the list: Deer Hunter 4 won't run. Deer Hunter has the power to stop a beta.

(start quote (note the nested quote))

AndyJ wrote:

Yeah, so here's one guy that's too ignorant/dumb/lazy to get this site (and what a site ) working in IE and the industry is now flocking away from IE.... I'm sure MS is shaking in their collective boots.... Bill G must be apologizing to his kids for loosing his fortune even now.... -Andy

It is that thinking that allowed Linux to become what it is today and allowed Hilter to take over most of Europe. Actions must be made now and not later as little things will grow. Just as weeds grow in your yard if you don't kill them at first sight.

(end quote)

Godwin's Law, anyone?

From the blog:

I can say though that somewhat vague requests for "better standards support" are not as useful as a specific example of what you'd like to see changed and specifically why it would improve things.

reinstated the Internet Explorer team:
Look! Posted anonymous cause I don't need the Karma.

"For example, the code that lets the explorer access Zip files is licensed from another vendor and we're not allowed to disclose how that works."

Choice quotes include: "Not much defense on the PNG transparency issue other than GDI made it hard back in the day. We really want this fixed too and are working on it. No eta yet. I'll try to update folks as we work through this. Same with other decisions."

... and "Anyway, we've started the get the band back together as it were. So far, the new IE team really has been focused on security and taking care of key corporate customer issues. A big part of the security effort has been our push around XPSP2. This has been all-consuming to the point where we've essentially stopped our Longhorn work for now.".

They have also set up a Wiki for gathering ideas for bugfixes/improvements to IE. Not like they are lacking ideas already though ...

Channel9

And here's everything coming up for the month of July at MSDN Events:

MSDN EVENTS

COME AND GET ME, YOU MICROSOFT LUDDITE SLASHDOT MOTHER FUGGERS!

The problem is that there's no SDK for the .NET CF 1.0, meaning you have to develop for it in Visual Studio 2003.

However, the reason is that they ran out of time, evidently a whole different kettle of fish from 'heavy licensing requirements' that's touted in the story. That's basically FUD.

So without an SDK, the only licensing requirement you have to satisfy to develop for it is a Visual Studio.NET 2003 license, there is no licensing attached to the runtimes. However, an SDK is pencilled in for the .NET CF 2.0 release.

I may be wrong here, but last time I looked, the only 'heavily licensed' part of developing for the .NET Compact Framework I could find was that I had to buy Visual Studio.NET 2003 in order to use it. There are no licenses per se for developing/deploying with the .NET CF, so what exactly does Pocket C# exist for?

Now, as far as I know, no SDK exists for Compact Framework 1.0, but one is slated for 2.0, as mentioned in this post. It seems an SDK doesn't exist due to time constraints, rather than licensing requirements.

Hey, it's nice to see Canuck contributions being noticed.

Maybe all of us up here in Canader are actually the source of the, er, open-source problem.

Between training our students to (gasp!) write operating sytems and computer languages from scratch (in one Canadian-style semester) and coming up with dangerous ideas like Java, it looks like Canada is turning into a dangerous, anti-Microsoft^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hinnovation entity. A well-known Canadian company even helped define the POSIX standard (not surprisingly, this company is linked to one of the creators of Coherent). Sounds like terrorist training camps for software zealots to me. Where do I sign up!

Perhaps Finland and Canada are the ringleaders of the real Axis of Evil. You know, up here near the earth's axis. We even have agents working on the inside.

If Brown doesn't do his job, he might be writing his idiotic screeds with a CNC editor compiled under Watcom C in a POSIX shell. We'll "allow" him to use an editor that supports en-CA localization. If he can hold his liquor and learns to follow a hockey game without asking stupid questions.

Hey, maybe in the future the phrase "a vacation in Canada" might be a euphemism for "open-source re-education camp."

Dude, there is going to be a "Never install software from ..." option. See this post from an IE developer's weblog.

[...] Startup time is all about minimizing disk I/O. So analyze your startup code to death: Track every page fault and work to get rid of it. Delay initialization of everything that can be delayed. (The fastest code is code that doesn't run at all.) Take all the functions that are called at startup and put them near each other in memory so you take fewer page faults. Use the /ORDER switch to do this. If you have a large function and only half of it is used at startup, break it into two functions, the part used at startup and the part that isn't. Reorder your data so all the memory used by startup is kept near each other in memory. With CPUs as fast as they are, disk I/O is the limiting factor in app startup. [ link]

how many mice will that require?

This guy named Darien is apparently promoting "Windows Mainframes." Apparently a "Windows Mainframe" uses the cost-effective *cough* "Windows Datacenter Edition." The Unisys ES7000, one of the says you can buy 'Datacenter', starts at $35,000. Yeah! Cheap! And that gets you four processors... "mainframe" indeed.

Google decided to use extremely large clusters of single-processor PCs and Linux.

Microsoft will need to offer some type of very low cost, gui-less, remotely manageable, stripped-down windows if they really want to compete against Linux clusters. Even then, they would be competing with both FREE and YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

Thats not strictly true either. You can replace the a file while a process is running, and the next time a process starts up it will use the new file. The existing processes that are using the file will go on using the old version until they are restarted. Because process creation on NT is slow processes tend to be few and long lived and use multiple threads, not like apache on linux where each request spawns a new worker process.

If you wanted to just patch a web server or something you could replace the files then stop and restart the service and all would be well.

However there are some services that windows heavily relies on, such as winlogon and lsass that will cause the operating system to restart if they fail, (hence the rebooting systems from the recent Blaster and Sasser worms)

If you want to replace a file that is used by one of these services, the only way to get it to start using the new version is to reboot the machine.
Most of the time reboots are not really required, its simply an easy way to make sure that the services and programs in question are restarted so they are using the patched versions of the files.

See here for more detailed information on this issue.

What FUD!

This is from Rob Menschings own blog

Anyway, now that WTL has been released under an Open Source license the community that has built up around the code will finally be able to contribute back (should they desire).

Sounds like he is quite open to me.

You should check out blogs.msdn.com if your interested in stuff like this.

Especially interesting is Chris Pratley's web log. He's got some great posts on the history of Word, the Open Source movement and other fun stuff.

You should check out blogs.msdn.com if your interested in stuff like this.

Especially interesting is Chris Pratley's web log. He's got some great posts on the history of Word, the Open Source movement and other fun stuff.

So much for the supposed anti-microsoft bias of Slashdot! This story appears to be taken straight from a Microsoft website.

So I guess all the folks who think Slashdot is nothing but a bunch of M$ hating Linux fan-boys can go back in the closet now. Sadly, only to be replaced by a new crew crowing about how /. has sold out to the Evil Empire...

This software was last updated 18 months ago - it's not undergoing development.

Gee, that's interesting. I guess the people who are hard at work on it don't exist, either?

Does anyone at Slashdot who posts these supposed "facts" about Microsoft really know anything at all?

Check out This MSDN page and this from channel 9

Well, fast forward to "now", and the patent system is used almost entirely differently. At Microsoft, we used to pay little attention to patents - we would just make new things, and that would be it. Then we started getting worried - other big competitors (much bigger than we were at the time) had been patenting their inventions for some years, and it made us vulnerable. One of these big companies could dig through their patent portfolio, find something close to what we had done, then sue us, and we would have to go through an elaborate defense and possibly lose. So Microsoft did what most big companies do, which is start to build what is called a "defensive" patent portfolio. So if a big company tried to sue us, we could find something in our portfolio they were afoul of, and counter-sue. In the cold war days, this strategy was called "mutual assured destruction", and since it was intolerable for all parties to engage, it resulted in a state called "détente", or "standoff". This is what you see today for the most part in lots of industries.

There are lots of other problems with the patent system. For example, Microsoft gets "submarined" quite often. A small company or individual has an idea, which they patent as quietly as possible. Then they sit back and wait (years if necessary), until some big company develops something (independently of course) that is sufficiently similar to their idea that they can surface and sue us. I have been involved in a couple of these, so I can speak from experience. The people involved often never had any intent of developing their idea, and they also make sure to wait until we have been shipping a product for several years before informing us they think they have a patent on something related, so that "damages" can be assessed as high as possible. This simply makes innovating the equivalent of walking into a minefield. This doesn't seem to be helping the process of moving humanity forward.

Another view is that big companies patent lots of things, and then by the implicit threat of suing the "small guy", prevent innovation from moving forward. In practice this is harder than it sounds, since the damage to the image of the company can be considerable if it tried to sue a small target - that's why you rarely see it happen. I think this works both ways of course as I described in the last paragraph. Basically whoever has the patent has the power.

The #1 problem I have with Microsoft is "Advancements" as well. The Windows foundation, IMHO, has always been nothing more than quicksand.. it seems like every so often, Microsoft needs to "bet the company" on a new paradigm because quite frankly, the old one simply didn't work. We have Xenix, DOS, Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.x, Win95-Me, WinNT and soon, Longhorn.. All significantly different from each other. In addition to that, you have different development tools, APIs and so forth that are "bigger and better".

Of course, Chris Pratley summed this up nicely when he said the following:

"Details like great design were not critical to most customers, so that didn't really make it into the products, except where it mattered to the customer. It's hard to fault this logic really - it is pure efficiency from a business perspective, and in the mid-90's, Microsoft could do nothing wrong.."

Pure efficiency eh? Reinventing the OS every few years based on the whims of management and customers? Pure efficiency is determining how to resolve the issue correctly the first time and creating a solid foundation on which to work. Sure it might take a little longer to develop, but it will definitely make everyone a lot more efficient when everything remains constant for years and years and years.

I'd like to note that Chris Pratley has just replied to all your comments.

I think he's referring to Raymond's comment policy

"I thought Microsoft was, if not an evil empire, at least a maker of substandard products that didn't deserve its success." If you have any doubt, see the page c program doesnt compile

I could never understand why the MSI wasn't XML based from the start. It was written when MS was XML mad, after all.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, since you claim that the hacks in their for Borland are "BS", when they are right there in the code that we all saw. But in case you're just misinformed, I'll point you towards Raymond Chen's blog entry where you can learn quite a bit about why Microsoft needs to make new versions of their OS work with old software, even when it may not be the best thing to do from a pure engineering perspective.

Anybody can tell what it's like working for Microsoft?

I've been working with Microsoft for six years. I quit college and left my country more or less on a whim when I got that job. Since I was without a degree, I was working for (relative) peanuts from the start.

There are a lot of great things about the company. One of the main things is that top performers get recognition. Thus, my salary has gone up something fierce during the years - I'm not a millionnaire and don't expect to be one in the foreseeable future, but I make a lot more money than I ever thought I'd make.

The money is good (as are other benefits), but that's not why I'm planning on staying. I stay because I enjoy working in a place where you are free to shape your job however you want (provided what you want to do makes sense); where you're encouraged and rewarded for coming up with new ideas & trying new things; where you're not afraid to speak youre mind -- even to a veep, and even if you know it's a hugely unpopular opinion. I truly and honestly feel that I'm making my end users' lives better. No, really. And there's millions of those, mind.

That's just the start of it though. What I really appreciate about the place is that therea are tonnes of seriously clever, dedidcated and talented people. When you walk through the hallways, when you read the public folders, when you watch the training on MSTE, you're constantly reminded that this is a company that has the brain power and cold cash to do whatever it wants -- and that's including doing the right thing, that's including creating a secure OS and that's including building the most efficient developer platform ever seen.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who read my post will question it -- well, if you're one of them, why don't you check out http://blogs.msdn.com; if you don't agree with me, let the bloggers know. Better yet, check out http://www.microsoft.com/careers -- maybe you'll get a chance to experience it first hand.

Now, I recognize that I might be losing some credibility by posting this anonymous. The reason isn't that I fear HR though (HR: I'm in 24/1131). Quite the opposite; the reason is that I enjoy posting here, but when I post here I do so on my spare time, without any affiliation to Microsoft. It's all for my own amusement, all because I think the art of arguing is important.

That said, I don't want my future posts to be pre-judged because I make it known where I earn my living. And I don't want Microsoft to suffer for any of my potential future trollings...

If anyone has more specific questions, I'll do my best to answer.

OR Styrofoam cups!

OR Sand!

Basically, there are tons of examples at MS since this happens all the time there.

OR Styrofoam cups!

OR Sand!

Basically, there are tons of examples at MS since this happens all the time there.

Omar Shahine, one of the primary developers of IMAP support in Microsoft Entourage says "Thunderbird is an almost perfect IMAP client for Windows. If you use IMAP, this is the product for you." The only thing ranked higher is his own Entourage. Coming from someone at Microsoft, that's pretty high praise.

If you're wondering what IMAP IDLE is, and why you should care, read this review of IMAP email clients -- by an MS developer who works on their email software (the review's conclusion may surprise you).

Hey Mr. Z, check out this developer profile on Channel 9!

• Don Box, Indigo
• Chris Anderson, Avalon
• Rico Mariani, Performance
• Brad Abrams, Class Libraries
• Chris Brumme, CLR
• Raymond Chen, win32 guru
• Chris Sells, MSDN strategist
• Andy Pennell, Debugger

• Don Box, Indigo
• Chris Anderson, Avalon
• Rico Mariani, Performance
• Brad Abrams, Class Libraries
• Chris Brumme, CLR
• Raymond Chen, win32 guru
• Chris Sells, MSDN strategist
• Andy Pennell, Debugger

• Don Box, Indigo
• Chris Anderson, Avalon
• Rico Mariani, Performance
• Brad Abrams, Class Libraries
• Chris Brumme, CLR
• Raymond Chen, win32 guru
• Chris Sells, MSDN strategist
• Andy Pennell, Debugger

donno how they mistyped that one so badly... (on a philosophical note, the first link points to an operating system not unlike linux in many ways...)