Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the debugging-the-beast dept.
The Qube writes "As a followup to the in-depth story posted back in February regarding the history and the development of Windows NT, part 3 of the series of articles is now online.
It discusses the software testing procedures inside Microsoft."
243 comments
Microsoft has testing procedures?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Well, I guess you have to make sure those "features" work correctly
Re:Microsoft has testing procedures?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
*clicks start*
*pink screen of death*
Damn, even thats buggy.
Microsoft's testing:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
QA Engineer 1: "Does it compile?" QA Engineer 2: "Yup." QA Engineer 1: "Okay, I'm declaring it GM and releasing it to manufacturing." QA Engineer 2: "It's 'Miller Time'!"
Re:Microsoft's testing:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Is it strange that 'F7' is spell check in M$ word and compile in dev studio?
Re:Microsoft's testing:
by
Grease
·
· Score: 5, Funny
QA Engineer 2: "It's 'Miller Time'!"
As an ex-MS employee, I take great offense at this statement. In fact, we drank Red Hook, not Miller.
Re:Microsoft's testing:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
In fact, we drank Red Hook, not Miller.
The stock's gone down since you left. Not only are they drinking Miller, they get their coffee at the local Exxon stations now, as well.
Re:Microsoft's testing:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Except the local gas stations are both Chevrons (Intersection of 51st & 148th Ave, and Intersection of 24th & 156th Ave)
And the coffee is still free, unless you mean espresso in which case we have Starbucks on-site. (Which sometimes is also free depending on how many "Free Snack or Latte" coupons your group's administrative assistant has to hand out...)
1. They test it??? lololololol!
2. M$ sucks. Use Linux - it's tested by millions worldwide.
3. Teh QA is bribed!
Did I miss any other particularly obvious comments?
Re:Let's see-
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Did I miss any other particularly obvious comments?
Yes, you missed the obligatory "Hey, you MS bashers suck!" comment in your list.... though you thoughtfully included it AS your list. Asshole.
Re:Let's see-
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You missed
4. I'm a troll... watch my nets fill up with fish.
Re:Let's see-
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
gaywad.
Re:Let's see-
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
troll v. tr.
1.
1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
I'd say that's even more obvious than your examples.
Re:Let's see-
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am pretty sick of comments like this.
I use both Linux and Windows XP, and I for one have to say that Linux on the desktop is not exactly rock solid stable either. Parts of KDE crash all of the time (_especially_ KATE), OpenOffice.org is dog-slow. And all in all, I would say windows is substantially _more_ responsive than Linux is (on the desktop again).
I know that this post will probably be modded as trolling, but hell.. thats the state of things right now.
I run the following system: Pentium III @ 1ghz 256MB RAM GeForce2 MX RedHat 8, upgraded to the 2.4.21-pre5-ac2 kernel KDE 3.0.3-8 RedHat
And I almost never have problems with KDE. I use Kate for almost all my programming, and I can count the number of times it's crashed on one hand with fingers left over.
You know that you can adjust how much CPU time KDE uses, right? I don't know about other distros, but for RedHat 8 it's under Extras - Preferences - Desktop Settings Wizard.
Re:Let's see-
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I run the following system: Pentium III @ 1ghz 256MB RAM GeForce2 MX RedHat 8, upgraded to the 2.4.21-pre5-ac2 kernel KDE 3.0.3-8 RedHat
And I almost never have problems with KDE
Key words 'almost never'...
How about a 200mhz 80mb Laptop running Windows 2000 since Beta 1 back in fall of 1997 up to currently running WindowsXP.
And to this day it has only crashed once, when the user popped the IDE Hard Drive out accidentally while the system was running.
However, with a nice journalled file system, putting back in the hard drive and just turning it back on was all that was needed(no integrity check:) )
People can debate stability and who's OS is better and runs the best all day here. Neither WindowsNT/XP or any *nix is perfect, PERIOD.
So give up the my OS is the best and never will crash and runs faster stuff. This just won't be true across the vast array of hardware these OSes run on and the devices they support. THERE IS NO SUCH THING, SORRY.
And BTW, the story about the little 200mhz laptop is 100% true. It was my personal test system for years (low end test system for the past few years) and it has yet to see a BSOD or lockup, except when (admittedly) 'I' accidentally popped out the Hard Drive while it was doing some serious number crunching.
It also is used far more than an average person's PC. I still use it as a development test platform for software speed analysis, since it is now on the low end of the spectrum.
And it is still a cute notebook that runs well, is great for Music, Video, and Audio books and at one time I loved more than any other computer. *tear in eye*:)
I didn't say that Linux was perfect. Hell, the kernel that ships with RedHat 8 (2.4.18-7 I think) would freeze during heavy IDE activity unless I disabled DMA (by passing the kernel the ide=nodma parameter), which is why I upgraded it to 2.4.21-pre5-ac2.
Obviously all OSes are going to have bugs. The question is, how severe are those bugs? How frequent do they manifest themselves? KDE hasn't crashed on me in a very long time, and Linux hasn't crashed since I upgraded to 2.4.21-pre5-ac2 (and prior to "upgrading" to RedHat 8 in March, back when I ran RH 7.2 I think the OS crashed maybe once).
My experiences running Win2k on the same system haven't been nearly as good.
And before it starts, that wasn't a "Linux is so stable that it runs longer than Windows" post. Rather, just a comment on the fact that the longer your system is on, the more likely you are to experience a crash.
I my experience people who turn their system on, use it for a while, and then turn it off immediately have fewer crashes than people who (like me) leave their system on 24/7. Of course, the people who turn their system on and off a lot wear their HDs out faster >:)
Oh, and one more thing: this system is on 24/7, for weeks (and sometimes months) at a time.
The laptop up until early last year ran 24/7 as well (It sat at a desktop). It now is hibernated in between use using WindowsXP, and according to the log hasn't been rebooted in over five months. But that is pretty common in the XP world anymore.
(PS. Just for the record, I sit on the fence with the MS love/hate thing - it truly is a waste of resources.)
TheNetAvenger
Re:Let's see-
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yeeeeehaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww support pastor richards salvation statue
Re:Let's see-
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
STFU, fatty. Remember last time, when Bob and Joe from Security had to drag you out kicking and screaming? You want that to happen again?
Open source business model
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1) Test open source software for bugs 2) ??? 3) Profit!!
Re:Open source business model
by
MooKore+(675835)
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
microsoft? testing? consumer input? sounds like corperate lies to me...
I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
1nv4d3r
·
· Score: 4, Funny
From the article (not kidding!):
Originally, the KDE worked to upgrade its infrastructure to Windows 2000 on its own. But after spending 18 months evaluating and testing, Cornett realized they'd need some help. The department contacted Microsoft Consulting Services (MCS) to ask about architectural guidance, and hired a full-time technical account manager from Microsoft's Enterprise Services group. Eventually, the KDE joined Windows Server 2003 Rapid Adoption Program (RAP), which allowed them to begin working with the product early in its development process.
(ok, so when you look into it you're likely to realize that it's the Kentucky Dept of Education, but when skimming the article it caught my eye and I was really confused!)
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
JJahn
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think its funny that it took them 18 months to figure out they needed help. Obviously Cornett is not all that gifted in the computer realm, given 18 months I'm pretty sure I could come up with something better than installing an MS beta on all my servers.
Besides the fact that as far as I can tell Windows 2003 offers very few benefits over the finally acceptably stable Windows 2000.
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Im sure he had his hands full with just trying to justify it to 170 some school districts. Try talking to some of these people in yours. Youll find it a eye opening experiance. If you think the paper flys thick in washington. You have not seen the mountains they plow through. And the funny thing is they did it to themselves! The not so funny thing is that it costs us ALL money. Oh and by the way once people get to that level they are usually so FULL of BS its amazing they can actually talk normally sometimes. The educational system is the problem. Not how much money they get. If I had to get rid of/upgrade 4400 NT4 servers Id ask for help too. Also some people are attached to their hardware even IF it wigs out on em everyday.
There was even a snipit out of that where he wants to get rid of 1 server per school for exchange. Yet he will still have to fight to get that one. If they were smart they would see it as one less thing they need to deal with. But instead they see it as an erosion of their power.
Did you know that your taxes help pay for this also? Lets say you give 1 dollar to the federal goverment. That one dollar will pass through no less than 20 levels of goverment. The actual student ends up with like 4 cents of it. Do not doubt for a second that the schools system is not a political entity. He had his hands full im sure.
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
Besides the fact that as far as I can tell Windows 2003 offers very few benefits over the finally acceptably stable Windows 2000
Actually there are numerous differences. For starters Windows2003 is using the evolved WindowsXP code base.
For the other hundred differences, I shall just refer you to the Microsoft Web Site. www.microsoft.com/server:)
Our tech team was in the beta program for Windows 2003 Server (actually all NTs since 1992), and there is a significant difference between Windows 2003 Server and Windows 2000.
Just like there is quite a bit of difference between Win2k Professional and WindowsXP Professional, but most people don't see or know about these differences unless they use WindowsXP or look at the architectural differences and new technologies it offers.
(Like I have said a hundred times, even if you hate Microsoft, at least look at what they are doing so you are educated on the matter. Don't make yourself a fool by saying well Windows 2003 Server won't do this and Linux will - when in fact WindowsNT was doing it back in 1993.
It is also in your best interest to see what they are doing so you know where to leverage what they are succeeding at and what they are failing at for your own development benefits.)
Know thy enemy and the tool's of thy enemy...
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
CAIMLAS
·
· Score: 1
Does someone really need to point out to you that winxp code is functionally very similar, if not mostly identical, to win2k code, except for several added trinkets? Thus, win2k3 isn't that much different than win2k.
-- ~/ssh slashdot.org
ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
Does someone really need to point out to you that winxp code is functionally very similar, if not mostly identical, to win2k code, except for several added trinkets? Thus, win2k3 isn't that much different than win2k.
Just like the NT core that has existed since 1992 is pretty much the same in WindowsNT3.1, 4.0, Win2k, and WinXP.
You are kidding with this, right?
There are SIGNIFICANT differences in how WindowsXP and Windows2000 operate, both architecturally and in the WIN32 subsystem.
(Check the new driver abilities in the DDK section on Microsoft's site for just small difference on architecture changes.)
As for the WIN32 system and changes, there are more differences than I have time to even begin to mention, from UI changes and UI model changes to even GDI+ plus changes and cleartype. Be a big person and go to Microsoft and look this stuff up for yourself.
I do agree that WindowsXP is not as much as an upgrade as Win2k was to NT4, but it is definitely far more evolved than Win2k. Windows development doesn't stop just because a version is released. What doesn't get in the released version is already being added to the new version. Also new technologies and fixes are automatically rolled into the next OS.
As for the differences in Win2k Server and Windows 2003 server, again, there are so many things that you apparently do not realize.
One example: The IIS implementation was completely rewritten. It now operates at a lower ring and has a tremendous advantage for security and performance over Win2k.
I could sit and list differences on both of these issues for hours, but it would be easier if you would just educate yourself by going to www.microsoft.com and doing a quick search. You will find the answers and differences there.
So, no, you don't need to point out that WinXP code is 'similar or mostly identical' to Win2k code. ----It simply isn't.
TheNetAvenger
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
CAIMLAS
·
· Score: 1
Just like the NT core that has existed since 1992 is pretty much the same in WindowsNT3.1, 4.0, Win2k, and WinXP.
No, Win2k was a drastic leap up from WinNT. It was a functional redesign, and just as similar to Win9x as it was to WinNT.
My arguement is that the kernel is functionally the same. The driver interface is relatively insignificant, since it causes little, if any, performance difference in a running system.
I'm not saying that the whole OS is the same, certainly not the GUI and tiddly things of that sort. Sure, the programming procedures are finally beginning to resemble those of quality products, but all that aside, Win2k's kernel and WinXP's perform quite similarly when running benchmarks on the same hardware platform (and sometimes slower on the WinXP side).
I've seen more problems with WinXP's "new and improved" driver architechture, network support, and GUI alone to give win2k precidence in the 'quality product' department, as have most of the techs that I know or work with.
Going to microsoft.com and 'educating' myself about the differences between Win2k and WinXP is identical to having them outline how any windows product is better than any linux distro. In both cases, they'll give (often technically innacurate) information bolstering their latest, "greatest" product. It's similar to consulting the devil for the validity of murder - asking for a thesis on a subject from someone that could very well be considered the antithesis of validity.
-- ~/ssh slashdot.org
ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
No, Win2k was a drastic leap up from WinNT. It was a functional redesign, and just as similar to Win9x as it was to WinNT
This true with regard to being a drastic leap up, but the part about it being redesigned to be more similar to Win9x is completely false. I can't believe that people are still pushing this myth to scare people away from Win2k or WinXP.
The NT Kernel that is underneath the WIN32 subsystem has NO CODE THAT IS SHARED WITH ANY Win9x version of Windows. In addition, the WIN32 subsystem that is used in NT4.0/Win2k/WinXP has NO CODE THAT IS SHARED FROM Windows9x.
I get so tired of morons incorrectly thinking that Win2k somehow merged Win9x code into NT. Or because WinXP added features like system restore and Movie maker that it somehow included code from WinME. This is just not the case whatsoever. They are completely different OSes and code bases. The NT line from 3.1 to XP shares NO CODE from the Win9x line in regard to teh core OS or the core of WIN32.
For example, Win9x software had a lot of assembly optimizations for the Intel platform. This code in NO WAY could be used on the NT platform, as all code on NT and the WIN32 subsystem produced has to be in a portable language (C). A design rule of NT from DAY 1.
If you somehow are stupid enough to still not believe this, then look back at the Win2k development cycle, until Compaq acquired DEC and the Alpha chip, Win2k was also in beta testing for the Alpha chip. Now if Win2k had Win9x assembly code in it, how do you think it would run on the Alpha chip? It couldn't becuase it doesn't. Until the Win9x platform development was dissolved, even the development teams were COMPLETELY different. There was the NT OS group and the Win9x OS group of people.
People are just nuts with stuff and are so willing to believe whatever negative crap they can find.
As for the driver model, the 'shared' WDM between Win9x and Win2k and WinXP simply required the drivers for Win9x to be based on the NT drier specifications and no longer support VXD and other DOS/Win9x driver mechanisms. It does not mean that the NT drivers use ANYTHING from the Win9x systems.
I'm not saying that the whole OS is the same, certainly not the GUI and tiddly things of that sort. Sure, the programming procedures are finally beginning to resemble those of quality products, but all that aside, Win2k's kernel and WinXP's perform quite similarly when running benchmarks on the same hardware platform (and sometimes slower on the WinXP side).
Actually benchmarks show that even on low end hardware WindowsXP is faster because of the changes in the memory management of the WIN32 and other underlying changes in the OS.
I was in the Win2k Beta program for 3 years and in the XP beta program as well. We were introduced to the OS technological differences.
I'm truly sorry that these differences are not touted more to geek communities and instead Microsoft tends to sell the fluff on top of Windows XP, even in their own marketing. But there are articles that demonstrate a plethora of differences in Win2k and WinXP anyway.
If you can't find the articles that explain this, then I feel sorry for your research abilities, but spreading inaccurate information because you were 'not able to find many differences' just doesn't fly.
In regard to the original post, Windows2003 Server has proven itself as a giant leap ahead of Win2k in not only architecture, but the services it offers.
In fact, Windows2003 Server is pulling significantly better performance as a desktop OS than even WindowsXP Professional DUE TO THE VAST CHANGES in its architectural changes. It even boots faster than WindowsXP Professional even with all the additional Server services. Making it the fastest desktop OS from Microsoft as well.
Here is a referring link so you don't have to look for it yourself. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3655
Also since you were unable to find information from the Microsof
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
mink
·
· Score: 1
I dont consider this proof or anything. Win2k for Alpha had FX32 built into the OS, unlike NT4. Win2k for Alpha can run x86 code just fine because of this. It speeds up once it's been optimized, but even unoptimized code runs.
-- Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
CAIMLAS
·
· Score: 1
... but the part about it being redesigned to be more similar to Win9x is completely false.
You're making it sound like I'm saying this is a negative thing. It's not - win2k got the proper (well, decent) graphical support from the win9x support, making it a viable alternative for games and other graphical applications. I'm not saying it was designed to incorporate win9x bugs, heck - it's got less bugs than winNT. It's more stable than WinNT. They took the nice things about win9x and winNT and produced win2k. Were it simply another product in the line, it would have introduced just as many bugs (as did winxp), but it didn't. Signifiantly fewer bugs, from a desktop perspective.
Really, your points themselves are flawed. I don't see the point in continuing our relationship.
-- ~/ssh slashdot.org
ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
I dont consider this proof or anything. Win2k for Alpha had FX32 built into the OS, unlike NT4. Win2k for Alpha can run x86 code just fine because of this. It speeds up once it's been optimized, but even unoptimized code runs.
FX32 was a PRODUCT supplied by DEC, NOT Microsoft, and NO IT WAS NOT BUILT INTO THE OS.
Additionally Win2k was never released for the Alpha Chip because Compaq dropped support when they acquired DEC, and FX32 was only available on WinNT 4.0.
Where did you get this? This is the dumbest thing I have read today yet. Pick another hyperbole out of the sky and try it. Geesh.
WinNT, Win2k, and WinXP have no DOS or Win9x code in it, none, PERIOD. Get over it, ok...
If you still don't believe this, go pick up a book, like "Inside Windows NT" - it might help you understand how silly your post is.
The more stupid the idea, the harder people try to hold on to it.
The Net Avenger
Re:I'm definitely sticking with gnome
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
It's not - win2k got the proper (well, decent) graphical support from the win9x support, making it a viable alternative for games and other graphical applications
I get what you are saying, but what you DON'T realize is that the 'interface' you are referring to was already in WinNT4.0. (The basic Chicago Interface)
Additionally, this interface was developed for NT originally, even though it was released in Win95 first. That is why the developers at Microsoft were running (and there are documented settings) to make Explorer (the modern version) run on WindowsNT 3.51 even.
It was ported from the NT group to the Win9x group, not the other way around. The NT team was used to develop the interface for Win95. They had the experience in WIN32 development.
The other aspects that you refer to I assume is DirectX for games. Again, this was not a project that was married to the Win9x platform. DirectX was even available on NT 4.0.
But because the Graphics drivers didn't get a lower ring level access in WindowsNT4.0, they never continued to update the DirectX project for NT4.0, as it would not have been fast enough.
DirectX is a SEPARATE development project than Win9x. Different people, etc etc. It was not a 'part of Win98' in the sense it was a 'part of the OS'. Just like Media Player is not a 'part of the OS'.
If you are talking OpenGL, OpenGL was available on NT years before OpenGL drivers were ever made for Win98.
As for the bugs, and you imply that WinXP carried over the Win2k bugs, you are mistaken. Anything that was fixed in Win2k,and even stuff that wasn't, was fixed in WinXP.
Our tech team participates in the beta security update group for Microsoft, and we constantly see updates for Win2k that DO NOT APPLY TO WINXP.
Why? Because more of the OS than you realize, even the networking stack, was re-written in WindowsXP. If you want to believe that WindowsXP is just Windows2k with a pretty graphics, I feel sorry for you and anyone you advise.
Period.
The Net Avenger
Re:Inside MS...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow... how long did that one take you? It seems you make a karmic career out of unfunny MS bashing.
"Surely not even the RIAA is mad enough to trust Microsoft with the security of its' music? Oh wait..."
Sound familiar? Huh, Chauncey?!?
The video of this is out...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
It starts off with a room. a huge room... the largest one you've ever seen...
The camera flies down, zooming in & out, between dozens of the ten million monkeys at ten million PCs, and back up to a control desk manned by straw-chewing yokels.
A screen flashes red
"Sir! Monkey number Y435A23J has come up with something that boots!"
The camera pans around to Bill Gates' face
"I call it... Windows 2008. Release it"
or something
Re:The video of this is out...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh man, that was hilarious. I mean side bustin. How in the world did you come up with that. Stellar!!
Re:The video of this is out...
by
johnkp
·
· Score: 1
"Sir! Monkey number X335B12K has smashed his PC with a sledgehammer!"
The camera pans around to Bill Gates' face
"I call it... X-BOX. Release it"
Re:The video of this is out...
by
wik
·
· Score: 1
When I read this, I could not help but to think of this Novell ad:
Re:Text of the article (fixed formatting)
by
Omkar
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You know you're on slashdot when a post begins
Windows Server 2003: The Road To Gold
Part Three: Testing Windows
and ends
Can anyone recommend a way to get my cat off heroin? It would be much
appreciated.
All jokes aside...
by
KFury
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
All jokes aside, the amount of testing and the build process for NT is one of the most tightly organized and comprehensive testing methodologies in existence.
Rather than take 'miller time' pot shots at Microsoft, the real takeaway is the understanding that, no matter how rigorous the testing and build process, there is a complexity limit where a unified one-organization nightly fix-build-test model simply can't provide a product of suitable quality.
Better to acknowledge the best-of-breed methodology Microsoft uses to test their OSes, and conclude that while this breed works okay for applications, a world-class operating system needs peer review and distributed open source development to create a quality, secure product.
Re:All jokes aside...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How long have you been with Microsoft? Do they have better benefits than they used to?
Re:All jokes aside...
by
asa
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Better to acknowledge the best-of-breed methodology Microsoft uses to test their OSes...."
Except that this article says nothing about the testing methodology that Microsoft uses. It describes how Microsoft helps certain customers test deployment. Deployment testing has little or nothing to do with software testing.
This is an article about how Microsoft has the budget to help "special" customers with a free "service" (not software) and frankly, the bits about offering cash-strapped school systems free consulting and test deployments sounds a lot more like a Microsoft press release than a software testing case study.
I was genuinely hoping to read about their software QA process. What a waste of 5 minutes.
How long have you been with Microsoft? Do they have better benefits than they used to?
How is blind anti-microsoft arrogance any better than FUD? My comment, if you read beyond the first line, is that these are smart people doing a hard job, and yet it still doesn't work. It's a little too easy to say that Windows breaks because its engineers are stupid, but that's not the reason. And no, I've never worked for them and never will. I work for Google.
My bad. I read a really interesting comprehensive article on Microsoft's build and QA process for Windows NT a few months ago, and I just assumed that that was what the link pointed to. Now I wish I could find the article because it's something/.ers would love (if/. isn't where I found it in the first place).
Re:All jokes aside...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All jokes aside, the amount of testing and the build process for NT is one of the most tightly organized and comprehensive testing methodologies in existence.
Moving the backup packets to a larger size is hardly a bug. It may create inconvenience until a patch for XP and Win2k is available, but a bug? Get real...
I can see the next big bug headline "Windows 2003 Server can't use Windows 3.1 printer drivers, causing mass panic in the streets!" Geesh....
What went wrong? As I said, it's simply too complex a product, with too many interdependencies, for a single team and linear build to maintain a quality QA process.
Re:All jokes aside...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Company execs buying into this have got to be certifiably INSANE! You're gonna give M$ your business DATA, let them check out how it is you MAKE MONEY, and write a business model FOR YOU??? Ask any exec over at SENDO how things worked out for them! Yeah, and when the customer goes home, his data goes with him (of course). Yeah right, I beleive that! NOT!!! You gotta know they've got it backed up somewhere so they can have a closer look if it's something interesting to them that they could make money at (and squeeze you out in the process).
I don't know anyone who knows anything about computers who trusts M$ anymore at all. I guess the fact that some do serves to point out that P.T. Barnham was correct.
I wonder how long until was start to hear about a bunch of companies that participated in this program filing lawsuits ala Sendo.
No way this article is about software testing. This is about an evaluation lab where customers bring in their applications to show to Microsoft. It's a marketing puff-piece, that's all.
Where is the description of the test methodologies used? The bug escalation and change control systems? What sort of configuration control is used?
Re:Testing??? Not at all.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Exactly. We need to know this, as our Linux projects are helpless bogged down. Havin a million geeks coding doesn;t do much good if thier producin crap.
We need to steal the "Microsoft Way" to success.
Re:Testing??? Not at all.
by
ElGuapoGolf
·
· Score: 1
Exactly.
Testing is more than making sure it works and is stable under load.
If they wanted to impress me, they should set up a seperate lab full of programmers emulating script kiddies, and trying to hack into the servers to get at their data. Kiddies trying to take advantage of IE holes to plant trojans and own the servers.
After reading the article, I would agree. But at the same time, I wish the article had more details, like what does it take to get time in their lab? How much time can a big customer get in the lab. It would be more honest if Microsoft posted positive and negative testimonials from customers who used the lab.
I also don't buy people's excuse about "testing 50million lines of code is nearly impossible." Obviously it's not impossible. Otherwise IBM, HP, SAP, Oracle and Sun would have the same scalability issues that Windows 2K and 2K3 have with high availability. I'm not trolling, just go read the MSDN site for windows 2K and 2K3 and it states clearly it is more scalable than previous windows servers, but it is not "High availability".
Re:Testing??? Not at all.
by
EvilTwinSkippy
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft employs a very thourough testing procedure procedure for every software product, going back to DOS. The problem is that it's generally the customers doing the testing.
-- "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Inside MS...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Great, thanks for reformating it. Now I can see the true comedic genius that you are.
People that laugh at the products MS produces really do have to look hard at how THEY would manage and TEST 50 MILLION lines of code.
With 50 million lines of code you're looking at virtually an infinate number of tests to run, which is obviously impossible to do.
Thus you either have to roll out a product that hasn't been 100% tested because of its size or keep testing and never make money.
As part of the Microsoft culture, it appears that you've missed the point.
The problem is the 50 million lines of code itself.
I would have "managed" NT's testing by "not managing it" at all, and instead would have clipped out all those bells and whistles to make a much more trim and modular OS.
The code base is unecessarily large, from a functional point of view.
But just like the current SUV problem in America, it appears that Microsoft is dancing a tango with the consumers.
Microsoft produces shitty code that looks good on the screen, and the consumers say "ohh" and "ahh" while not minding the crashes and restrictions, and then Microsoft gets encouraged to produce more "pretty code".
I don't consider this problem to be fixable... we who know better and are less mediocre simply have to fend for ourselves and rely on the influence of our leadership to promote the Better Way.
This is the slow method of providing a good example for others to follow, which is the only leadership that matters.
Microsoft's billions are just a facade; consumer mediocrity is another facade; what will matter in the long run is bullet-proof code that more serves public needs instead of software-industry investors.
-- [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Its a fine line and MS has done a fairly good job given the size of their code base and the pressure on them from the comsumer to get new products out in a timely way.
Whoa, there. Since when is it the consumer who is pressuring MS for new products? It seems to me that it's MS who has been rushing new "features" into production and pressuring consumers to upgrade. I don't know of anyone who had a burning desire to upgrade to Word 2K or Windows XP. The fact that others were upgrading and causing compatibility problems was the compelling reason.
Re:Testing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hrm -- I'd guess your typical Linux workstation install has well more than 50mloc, apples-to-apples with Windows, but I'll let some gentooboy figure it out.
Anyway, Msoft's bloat crown has been passed on to your Linux distro.
People that laugh at the products MS produces really do have to look hard at how THEY would manage and TEST 50 MILLION lines of code."
If I were that product manager, my first question would be... "Why does it have ALL THAT CODE?"
With 50 million lines of code you're looking at virtually an infinate number of tests to run, which is obviously impossible to do.
No, if it were properly modular and each module well-tested, there would be much less code and much less testing. What Micro$oft suffers from is an inability to make a PLAN for what their software is supposed to do and stick to it. They are always trying toi stuff in more features, which increases complexity exponential.
Thus you either have to roll out a product that hasn't been 100% tested because of its size or keep testing and never make money. Since its all about the money you obviously roll out the product and try to patch it as fast as you can when somone does find a bug that got by Q&A and the testers. You need to find a balance between testing a product completely and releasing a product to make money.
Their record for promptly fixing bugs is abysmal. Your "its all about the money [so] you obviously roll out the product and try to patch it"... is exactly what they do, and why there is such disdain for them.
Its a fine line and MS has done a fairly good job given the size of their code base and the pressure on them from the comsumer to get new products out in a timely way.
Pressure? WHAT PRESSURE? I'd rather wait another year and have something that was lean, rock-solid and reliable. I'm still using Win95 because they haven't produced anything worth upgrading for.
I'm still using Win95 because they haven't produced anything worth upgrading for.
Then you relinquish all rights to talk about MS Windows, or indeed operating systems at all. Why? Because you don't see an advantage to upgrading from a flaky first-attempt at a 32 bit desktop windowing environment, to a mature, rock-solid, fully protected server quality operating system.
Don't bother to reply; as I say, if you can't see a reason to upgrade from Win95 to Win2k then you are probably a 15 year old child who has no idea of what goes on in the world past what slashdot tells you. And you've clearly never used Win2k.
Interesting fact of the day: my PC has been running Win2k for years. It has never crashed, except when I installed some buggy drivers for a modem (which, as it runs in ring 0, cannot possibly ever be preempted by the kernel). Uninstall them, and it goes back to never crashing.
A Linux distro probably does include more than 50 million loc, but that is for EVERYTHING.
When you install a Microsoft OS on a new machine, what do you get? You get the underlying OS, a pretty but braindead GUI, IIS, and a few toy apps (like Wordpad and MS Paint).
When you install a Linux distro, you get the OS (kernel and GNU tools), a less pretty but less braindead GUI (only if you want it), Apache (again, only if you want it), and a boatload of useful programs (GCC, CVS, The GIMP, OpenOffice, etc., and only if you want them).
The 50 million lines of code in Windows is for the OS. Linux, even if you include the code for the base GNU stuff (cp, ls, bash, glibc, etc.) in all likelyhood has much less.
People tend to want options, all of those 'bells and whistles' are just the options that people keep asking for.
You might think that an "option" is something you can add to what you have now.
Sure, Microsoft marketing knows full well that their feature-bloated code makes the sales.
But that's a real problem that causes well-nigh untestable code and I said so in my article.
It even bypasses the idea of "opt out" options.
Can I get just a Windows kernal and add drivers and apps to customize my computer needs... to assign my computing power as I want it?
No!... since like any monopolistic enterprise, Microsoft fails to give the consumer much ability to opt out of all their bloated software.
The construction of Internet Explorer was enough of an example to show how featuritis had overrun serving user needs --- all users, not just the online-shopping, AOL-chatting drones whose browsing experiences are being disrupted as we speak by browser spies, hijackers, ad-ware and drive-by downloads.
-- [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:Testing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No!... since like any monopolistic enterprise, Microsoft fails to give the consumer much ability to opt out of all their bloated software.
It's called 'not buying the product.' Yay free market! But I suppose it's all Microsoft's fault anyway... damn those evil corporations with their making money and employing you and whatnot...
Umm, that is not entirely correct. You can purchase embedded NT, and get just the kernel and the drivers that you select. It won't run most off the shelf software because they expect the "bloat".
If enough people ask for it, the laws of economics demand that someone will provide it......then you have a different testing problem - instead of testing one complex product, you need to test a hundred thousand products of varying complexity!!!
I don't think that what you are saying is correct. It maybe 50 milion lines of code, but it is not one application. There are several tens of apps into Windows NT, which is highly componentized. Therefore, testing applies to components and intergration between those components, limiting the number of tests to a down-to-earth number.
By the way, Windows NT is one of the best, if not the best, pieces of software created. The kernel architecture is vastly complex, far more complex than Unix/Linux. They have done a tremendous job of doing a rock-solid operating system. It is usually the spoiled drivers that give the O/S a bad name; that is due (partially) to the dump Intel CPUs memory model though which forces drivers to operate in kernel mode without further protection.
Of course, another question rises: is this complexity justified ? I think not. Unix/Linux does the same things, while being much less complex. But they deserve credit for successfully managing/testing such a complex project as Windows NT.
P.S: The Windows NT complexity also affects developers: the more complex an API is, the higher possibility there is that the end product contains bugs. But that is an entirely different story.
I have used Win95/98/9K/ME NT3.5/4.0/etc. and even XP for various employers, and am totally unimpressed with the general speed or stability, even when supported by supposedly qualified MS certified IT staffers. I see no reason to upgrade my adequately stable (if you use it right) Win95 for anything Microsoft has produced so far.
"a mature, rock-solid, fully protected server quality operating system" Say what? The fully protected server-quality OS that brought us vulnerability to various worms like CODERED and NIMDA, with the "patch a week" record holding steady for the last year or so? Is that the OS you are talking about?
I was SOOOO happy I had NT and not Win2K at one position, because I heard about the problems the others were having with their systems.
Point 1: CodeRed and NIMDA were both vulnerabilities in IIS not Win2k - if Win95 ran that software it would be vulnerable too.
Point 2: The vulnerability both those worms used was fixed and a patch available for several months before the exploits appeared, it's just that too many "admins" didn't upgrade.
Point 3: Patch-a-week? Are you subscribed to anything like the RedHat network? I am. I get far more than a patch a week emailed to me. Welcome to the modern world of complex software.
Point 4: Win95 does not have a decent kernel offering full memory protection etc. A badly behaved application can bring the system down; Win95 is not stable enough except as a desktop system, and even then Win2k is noticably more stable when you start stressing it. Unless your definition of "using it right" means "only ever running perfectly behaved applications" then it doesn't matter how you use Win95 - it is not as stable as Win2k. And if that is your definition, you should have stuck with Win3.11 and its cooperative multitasking - after all, that is extremely efficient for code that you know will never ever misbehave.
If you use Linux, think about every core dump you've ever seen. If you use Win2k, think about every time it's popped up a dialog saying an application has stopped responding or the famous "This memory could not be read/written". Each one of those would have stood a reasonable chance of crashing a Win95 box hard.
And yes, Win2k is very slightly slower in some respects. But that is the trade-off for having a strict kernel looking after everything. It's a trade off that is well worth making.
I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind what you say, but there is another sentiment behind what I'm saying, and I don't think you are picking up on it.
The issue is that with a monopolistic enterprise (and more to the point, a culture that only supports a certain restricted set of technologies) you wind up with few options ("options" = "things you can choose off the shelf and add to your life").
This has been Microsoft's position since the days of DOS.
Cars make for an excellent exampling of the problem with Microsoft (although the cars example doesn't represent the entire software industry).
People clearly want -- and society clearly needs -- more energy-efficient cars.
But while the gas mileage rose only modestly until recently, fscking SUVs hit the market in force, and overall we are getting a worse deal from the monopolistic enterprises that try to fulfill our transportation needs.
To wit:
it is technically possible to provide a small auto that gets x2 to x3 the present average compact-car gas mileage, but the automakers aren't building it, and they will continue to refuse to do so.
I don't know what you see from day to day, but I seem to live in a world where functional needs are widely wanting for fulfillment, but simply aren't being done since people serve up this set of excuses (assuming these things, like the "elephant in the living room", are even up for discussion in the public mind):
we don't have the time to make item X
we dont have the money to make item X
we don't have the skill to make item X
we don't really want item X
None of these excuses are true, since history has more than shown that people can perform past these restrictions in times of stress, which is only using things like military emergencies to do the right thing in the first place.
Perhaps I'm just saying that Humans are lazy, greedy and skeptical bastards... but this historical cycle leads to more doing the wrong thing, which leads to another emergency, etc.
Soooo... sorry for all my blather, but your assertion of "don't buy" tends to lead to "don't have", and our civilization is capable of delivering more than that.
We simply need to remove a portion of the law of the jungle from our capitalistic bahaviors and replace it with more Humanistic feeling.
P.S.
Did you ever see the movie "Pay It Forward"?
It's idea of paying debts forward (instead of "paying back") would be a real social advance for current Western civilization.
-- [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:Testing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Very predictable reply. Yeah, most Linuxes are modular. Good for them. That's why I specified Apples-To-Apples.
First of all - 50MLOC is the entire NT codebase, with Active Directory, DFS, news server, etc etc. So the actual workstaion install would be much less.
Second, just look at the on disk size of a binary install. Linux + GNU + XFree + KDE + Gnome + MPlayer + Game APIs + applets is much larger than your barebones Win2000 install. Assuming the compilers are comparable, that would imply more code, no?
Development costs
by
BWJones
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
O.K., can anyone here tell me why Microsoft is spending an order of magnatude more $$'s to develop Windows than Apple is spending on developing OS X? It can't be testing because the Apple products appear so much more refined.
Re:Development costs
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
2003 is a server OS. MacOS X is not, despite Apples best attempts. The only parts of MacOS that are used for serving stuff is the open source code, which effectively is built and tested by the community. MS include things like IIS/Active Directory as part of the Windows product, so more testing is needed.
It's also a lot more popular.
Re:Development costs
by
Ciderx
·
· Score: 3, Funny
So you didn't use OS X prior to version 10.1.5?
Re:Development costs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
NetInfo and a lot of stuff needs to be tested... Plus Apple does work to integrate a lot of that OSS stuff.
The real reason MS spends more on testing is probably linked to the much larger range of hardware Windows supports.
Mac OS X uses all the same open-source components as open-source OSs use for serving, ergo, Mac OS X is no lesser a server OS than Linux or FreeBSD or any other OS which uses the same components. No?
-- --
There are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can add and those who can't.
Hmm, maybe because they don't control the hardware?
Nah, couldn't be that. Must be because MS sucks and Apple doesn't!
-- using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Re:Development costs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> It can't be testing because the Apple products appear so much more refined.
In what ways?
Re:Development costs
by
BWJones
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
2003 is a server OS. MacOS X is not, despite Apples best attempts.
I don't know what you are talking about. I have been using OS X as a server OS for some time now and it has got to be the easiest server OS to manage. It is more stable than W2003 server, easier to manage less expensive etc...etc...etc... I am running it here and in several other places in addition to my primary workstation that also hosts a couple of small bandwidth websites.
I don't know what you are talking about. I have been using OS X as a server OS for some time now.......
Nonetheless, the user base of MacOS as a server OS is trace. There simply are no deployments of the type talked about in the article, with hundreds of domain servers needing to be migrated. These guys don't mess around - they expect to have industrial strength support during the upgrade, and they expect there to be no regressions.
Apple is in an entirely different league - they can ship a trivial OS update that accidentally deletes entire hard disks worth of data and can get off by paying for a few hundred disk recoveries and having an "everybody makes mistakes" attitude. That kind of thing isn't really acceptable for the desktop, but the extreme loyalty of Apples customers means they can essentially get away with it. That simply doesn't fly when you run most of the worlds servers.
Re:Development costs
by
BWJones
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nonetheless, the user base of MacOS as a server OS is trace.
That may be, but until recently Apple has not had an OS capable of large scale serving. I have used IRIX, Solaris and Windows in the past, but I find OS X to be the best of breed in terms of a do it all OS.
There simply are no deployments of the type talked about in the article, with hundreds of domain servers needing to be migrated. These guys don't mess around - they expect to have industrial strength support during the upgrade, and they expect there to be no regressions.
Ummmm, well, seeing as how the xserve is a very recent entry into the field, I would not expect many large deployments yet. However, the ability to provide over 5000 hits/second and saturating 3 T3 lines is pretty damned impressive. Or how about streaming 3000 live connections all at once? Or netbooting hundreds of machines all at once? As for sites that are using OS X, off the top of my head, I believe that there is certainly Apple.com, all of the Quicktime streaming they are doing for the movies on Apple.com. I am sure there are others that I am not aware of.
Apple is in an entirely different league - they can ship a trivial OS update that accidentally deletes entire hard disks worth of data and can get off by paying for a few hundred disk recoveries and having an "everybody makes mistakes" attitude. That kind of thing isn't really acceptable for the desktop, but the extreme loyalty of Apples customers means they can essentially get away with it. That simply doesn't fly when you run most of the worlds servers.
Well, Microsoft has proven you wrong here on innumerable occasions. I can't tell you how many times I have had to advise folks to reinstall Windows because of file/registry corruption, or had to deal with the implications of an infection by a virus or worm in someones database or email program that got in becuase of commonly known and well documented security holes. You are sounding like a Microsoft apologist here.
Re:Development costs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The issue really isn't capability -- it's complexity.
Show us a case where Apple helped an organization integrate 400 different NetInfo domains.... Hell, there's probably not even 400 NetInfo deployments in the whole world.
This operating on a whole nother level than your Desktop Tech FixIt guy handling registry corruption or "Save your password in your keychain".
Re:Development costs
by
afantee
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>> 2003 is a server OS. MacOS X is not, despite Apples best attempts.
There is a thing called Mac OS X Server, you Windows idiot.
>> The only parts of MacOS that are used for serving stuff is the open source code, which effectively is built and tested by the community.
You are talking pure shit through your fat ass. What about WebObjects, NetInfo, Apple Remote Desktop, NetBoot and a host of other Apple sysadmin tools?
O.K., can anyone here tell me why Microsoft is spending an order of magnatude more $$'s to develop Windows than Apple is spending on developing OS X?
That they support probably two or three orders of magnitude more hardware is reason enough, but on top of that they don't have the luxury of a significant chunk of their development being done for free by the OSS community.
Maybe if Apple had spent similar amounts of money on OS X, you wouldn't have to have the fastest Mac available just to be able to run OS X at a barely acceptable speed ?
Because they have a horrifying amount of legacy code to maintain, on what is basically a legacy architecture - i.e. the PC.
Apple got to throw away all their mistakes when they started making OS X. They don't need to support nearly so many hardware experiments - ISA, VLB, MCA, assorted stupid methods of getting to "high" memory, fifty different ways of using large hard drives etc. etc. They also don't need to support a wide assortment of "good idea at the time" legacy technologies, DCOM and others of their ilk not to mention Netware drivers and similar amusement.
Given how large it is, that windows works at all is a bit of a miracle. Doesn't make me want to use it any more.
There is a thing called Mac OS X Server, you Windows idiot.
BTW nice language...
Yes there is a Server version of Mac OS X, that has been available since even before OSX was available on the desktop.
However, it does not have many of the tools that are expected in a modern server to accommodate enterprise level deployment. (i.e. robust Directory Services, Security, etc)
Additionally, we don't see it winning many performance awards. It may be a Server product, but it is not geared for the same markets as Windows 2003 Server, and many other vendor *nix Server OSes like from Sun and IBM.
Yes Mac OSX Server is a nice product, but it isn't even in the same league as the other guys...
Give them a few years... (Like the few years it took to bring a non-cooperative multitasking OS to the desktop. So in about nine years, it will be great!):)
Sorry for the satire, I truly do think Apple has done some really great things and I don't want them to stop. Whatever development inroads they make will just push other OSes to do better as well.
O.K., can anyone here tell me why Microsoft is spending an order of magnatude more $$'s to develop Windows than Apple is spending on developing OS X? It can't be testing because the Apple products appear so much more refined.
Maybe because Apple only has to support Apple hardware and Microsoft has to support literally hundreds of thousands of hardware components, which results in an infinite amount of hardware configurations.
Additionally, Windows 2003 Server is truly a top notch server and also provides an extensive level of enterprise support that is not in the Mac OSX Server.
Just the same reason that there are so many people in the Linux development world; there is a ton of hardware to support.
Re:Development costs
by
afantee
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>> That they support probably two or three orders of magnitude more hardware is reason enough
What the fuck are you talking about?
Other than different CPU architecture, Mac OS X and Windows both support the same sort of hardware: ATI and nVidia GPU, Ethernet, USB, FireWire, 802.11b, SCSI and ATA Drive. Apple usually is years ahead of MS in adopting new technology: USB, FireWire, FireWire 800, BlueTooth, 802.11b, 802.11g, gigabit Ethernet, Rendezvous.
Apple is 60 times smaller than MS, but actually makes more software as well as better ones, in addition to lots of sexy hardware innovations.
Re:Development costs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
2003 is a server OS. MacOS X is not, despite Apples best attempts.
That's rubbish. OS X is BSD, the original server OS.
I am not saying Apple is a player in the major league yet. But Mac OS X Server is as powerful as Linux, Solaris or any other Unix system, and much easier to manage.
The main reason for Apple's small market share in the server space is due to hardware, not software. But things have changed since the introduction of Xserve and Xserve RAID last year, and Apple's server market share in Dec 2002 had grown nearly 300% - not too shabby for a new entry. With IBM PPC 970 just around the corner, the performance issue is likely to disappear soon.
>> Maybe because Apple only has to support Apple hardware and Microsoft has to support literally hundreds of thousands of hardware components
Pure rubbish!
Tell me how much MS code in Windows that is due to differences between PCs made by IBM, HP, Dell or other box makers. They all use Intel CPU, ATI or nVidia GPU, etc.
I don't know where you get your hundreds of thousands components from, but the device drivers are all written by the device makers themselves not MS.
Tell me how much MS code in Windows that is due to differences between PCs made by IBM, HP, Dell or other box makers. They all use Intel CPU, ATI or nVidia GPU, etc.
I don't know where you get your hundreds of thousands components from, but the device drivers are all written by the device makers themselves not MS.
There are approximately what 100 video chipsets that Windows supports, another 100 printer, 50 sound chipsets, etc...
Do you see where I am going here? Sure there are big players, but the smaller chipsets are also supported. Even my old Neomagic 128ZX in my laptop from 1997 is supported in WindowsXP.
In the Apple world, you have maybe what 20 video chipsets supported, and that is being generous. (And this is not a dig to Apple, but a fact.)
Additionally you are forgetting peripherals like tape backups in addition to core level components like mainboard chipsets, CPUs (yes there are differences in Windows code for different CPUs - MMX, etc), PCI bus controllers, USB controllers, etc etc...
Just in mainboard chipsets there are over easily over 100 supported chipsets in Windows that manage everything from PCI, USB, Firewire, SCSI, IDE, etc and support to every basic part of the system like the AGP interface drivers.
And they all have to work and work in a stable environment.
Windows 2003 Server recognizes and installs the appropriate chipset drivers for mainboards in our servers that are running eight year old mainboards without a hitch.
Now do you start to see where this becomes an astronomical amount of hardware to support?
With the driver model of the NT architecture, I agree, it is easier than on most OSes because of the way drivers are layered, but still there is a high level of testing to ensure stability as drivers have access to a lower level of the OS.
As for your comment about the vendors providing the drivers, this is only partially true.
Microsoft pushes the vendors to provide drivers, but often has been the case that Microsoft has ended up lending its own development to drivers because the vendor is reluctant to support the new OSes.
Take the move from Win3.1 to Win95 driver model, and the NT driver model, and then again to the WDM driver model that is used in Win2k and even the extension in the driver model for WinXP in supporting more consumer level devices.
Vendors were VERY reluctant to provide NT drivers for their hardware, which forced Microsoft to provide the driver level support themselves for most hardware back in 1996 when NT4.0 was released.
When the shift to the WDM model and the newer model of it in Win2k and WinXP, again manufacturers were content with the drivers for Win98 for their hardware, and especially their legacy devices, they had no interest in providing a new driver model for. Microsoft again was put in the role of writing the drivers with the manufacturer support or lending support to the manufacturers to write the drivers.
How do I know this, been a part of this process personally, watched it happen. Driver after driver after driver. (And no I do not work for Microsoft)
Out of the box the 'Microsoft' supplied drivers that are certified are at least 80% written or co-written by Microsoft, not just the vendors.
Even if your argument that the vendors are solely responsible for the drivers was true you are also forgetting that Microsoft still has to test the drivers and ensure that they are stable and work with the other drivers in the system.
There is a dizzying amount of driver support and compatibility in WindowsXP. In addition, even for legacy NT4.0 drivers that vendors would not let Microsoft update the drivers or there wasn't enough of a market call to do so, there is compatibility checks in WindowsXP that will allow the driver to load and run, but yet jump in when the driver is incorrectly doing something it shouldn't do.
This is part of the legacy driver compatibility layer, just as there are dynamic b
This is so true and sometime it is taken for granted. I am able to plug my web cam into my PC and it just works. I was surprised when I plugged it into my iMac (yes I own both PCs and Macs) and it didn't just work, and in fact I have not yet been able to find a OSX driver for it.
Who says Apple is spending less then Microsoft in terms of OS development.
The core Windows team is a drop in the bucket compared to all of microsoft's other projects. Go to Microsoft's website and try to select a product. The selection is huge!
Most of the developers for Windows are actually only partial contributers. They work on the.net and visual studio team. They only provide code to run.net, com, ole, etc on Windows. The core that actually write the kernel, gui, and IE probably is less then 1,000.
Apple probably has the same or a slightly less number working on MacOSX. Remember that a big portition of the code is based on Nextstep and FreeBSD. This makes most of the work on the kernel a matter of integration and testing.
MacOSX is easier to develop then Windows because of the lack of legacy code in the api's. I believe Microsoft's change to.net was probably to purge alot of the shitty win32 api code and not just to sell web services. Windows api's are a nightmare to maintain and are really a hack to port win16 code to NT.
>> Maybe if Apple had spent similar amounts of money on OS X, you wouldn't have to have the fastest Mac available just to be able to run OS X at a barely acceptable speed ?
Have you ever tried Mac OS X?
My 400 MHz iMac bought 4 years ago runs faster and smoother than Win XP on my 800 MHz PC, and it does much more than XP and works 24 hours a day for weeks and months without getting shut down. In contrast, the PC has to be shut down by the end of each day because it's too noisy, and it still crashes once or twice a week.
>> Who says Apple is spending less then Microsoft in terms of OS development.
According to the article, there are 8000 to 10000 programmers working on the Win 2k3. I don't think Apple has that many employees world wide.
MS is about 60 times bigger than Apple and has more than $40 bln cash. Apple is primarily a hardware company, so lots of its resources are devoted to hardware innovations. But the irony is that Apple's software portfolio is actually bigger and better than that of MS. You may find that incredible, but for virtually every MS product, there is usually an better Apple counterpart, and the opposite is not true.
Other than different CPU architecture, Mac OS X and Windows both support the same sort of hardware: ATI and nVidia GPU, Ethernet, USB, FireWire, 802.11b, SCSI and ATA Drive.
Do you have any concept of just how many different pieces of hardware that covers ? "Ethernet" on its own would encompass *thousands* of different types of network cards, all of which require different drivers. Similarly for things like "SCSI". Heck, XP probably supports near a hundred different *motherboard chipsets*. Also, it may come as a surprise to you, but the video card market has significantly more players than just NVidia and ATI.
I can grab nearly any peice of hardware off the shelf and be reasonably sure that I'll get some sort of basic functionality out of it on my XP box. With my Mac, I need to pick and choose my hardware carefully because so little of it is supported.
Apple is 60 times smaller than MS, but actually makes more software as well as better ones, in addition to lots of sexy hardware innovations.
I've used OS X on nearly every Mac from a 233Mhz Beige G3 all the way up to a Dual 1.25GHz G4 as well, so I've got a rough idea how fast it runs on each of them - and I've yet to see one that runs even close to as smoothly as my ~4 year old dual P3/700, let alone some of the dual 3Ghz monsters you can buy today. Heck, my ~7 year old dual Pentium 200 runs XP about as fast as your 400Mhz iMac would - you can't even run OS X on a Mac that old.
This is unfortunate as, slowness aside, it's easily the nicest OS I've ever used (and is why I put up with the slowness at all). Hopefully the 970-based Macs will actually be fast enough to overpower the software deficiencies and run it at a decent speed.
My 400 MHz iMac bought 4 years ago runs faster and smoother than Win XP on my 800 MHz PC [...]
You should get your PC fixed, or invest in one that uses decent hardware - assuming you want to actually use it for something useful instead of as a poor example in your anti-PC FUD.
OK, maybe there is something wrong with my own PC, but I have used XP on a 2 GHz Sony Vaio - its video performance is much slower than my 700 MHz iBook. On the Vaio, dragging a window quickly would leave a long trail of very ugly broken window frames - something that never ever happen to me on any Mac.
What exactly are you doing with OS X machines? I do lots of programming and graphics on an iBook, and just don't feel it's slow at all, unless I watch QuickTime video and play iTunes at the same time as well as compile programs.
MS only has to write code to support standard protocols like USB or FireWire. The device makers will write the device drivers, do the testing, and pay MS to get certifications.
Similarly, Apple provide free programming tools and documents for companies to write device drivers, but ultimately the manufacturers have to take the main responsibility to support their own products.
In any case, this really has very little to do with the quality of the OS.
MS only has to write code to support standard protocols like USB or FireWire. The device makers will write the device drivers, do the testing, and pay MS to get certifications.
But what _actually_ happens is that Microsoft write multitudes of hardware drivers to give basic functionality for a wide range of hardware to their customers. Just like Apple have drivers that support some of the hardware they don't ship (eg: wheel mice).
In any case, this really has very little to do with the quality of the OS.
I disagree. Hardware support has a _lot_ to do with the quality of an OS - and the work involved in supporting large amounts of hardware answers your original question about development costs.
OK, maybe there is something wrong with my own PC, but I have used XP on a 2 GHz Sony Vaio - its video performance is much slower than my 700 MHz iBook. On the Vaio, dragging a window quickly would leave a long trail of very ugly broken window frames - something that never ever happen to me on any Mac.
That's because the two OSes exhibit different behaviours under excessive load conditions. OS X's superior (in terms of features) graphics system performs double-buffering, so you never get the half-drawn window problem. OTOH, when OS X gets starved for memory or CPU time (the former of which is probably what happened to the Vaio you were using) it simply becomes unresponsive - either the GUI won't respond to actions at all, or the beachball appears.
What exactly are you doing with OS X machines? I do lots of programming and graphics on an iBook, and just don't feel it's slow at all, unless I watch QuickTime video and play iTunes at the same time as well as compile programs.
SYsadmin stuff. So, lots and lots of windows open doing lots of stuff simultaneously.
The problem is not the raw speed of the system doing things like playing MP3s or compiling. The problem is that lack of *responsiveness*. Noticable delays opening menus, the atrocious window resizing performace, delays switching between apps/windows, etc.
Maybe you should get your Mac fixed.
There's nothing to fix. Every Mac I've ever used has exhibited the same problems.
I doubt it's hardware, since in terms of raw power pretty much any G4 machine "isn't slow", so I can only assume the problem lies in the lack of software optimisations.
>> But what _actually_ happens is that Microsoft write multitudes of hardware drivers to give basic functionality for a wide range of hardware to their customers.
But not for "hundreds of thousands components" as the other guy claimed earlier.
>> Just like Apple have drivers that support some of the hardware they don't ship (eg: wheel mice).
Exactly. Apple write code for generic USB mouse that also support mice with wheel and two buttons, which doesn't mean they have to write drivers for every past or future mouse in the world. I suspect MS does the same.
>> I disagree. Hardware support has a _lot_ to do with the quality of an OS - and the work involved in supporting large amounts of hardware answers your original question about development costs.
I am just trying to dispell the myth that MS spends lots of money and time on writing device drivers for every computer component in the world. It's just no true.
>> SYsadmin stuff. So, lots and lots of windows open doing lots of stuff simultaneously.
In other words, you are just talking about Finder performance - one single app! I agree that the Finder is not the most responsive app in the world, but at least it's much more usable than Windows.
But not for "hundreds of thousands components" as the other guy claimed earlier.
That was me. And what I actually said was that Microsoft support probably two or three orders of magnitude more hardware than Apple, which seems to me like a reasonable estimate. Id say Apple only support a couple of hundred different bits of hardware, at most.
Exactly. Apple write code for generic USB mouse that also support mice with wheel and two buttons, which doesn't mean they have to write drivers for every past or future mouse in the world. I suspect MS does the same.
At the very least theyre writing a basic driver for the base chipsets, if not the specific piece of hardware itself. So theres a GeForce driver that covers all the GeForce-based cards.
But what you dont seem to realise is just how much hardware this covers. I can install XP on a ~7 year old PC and everything in it is supported out of the box (and have done so recently).
When Apple do this they only write for a very limited range of hardware - most all of which they produced in the first place - and only support machines less than about 4 -5 years old.
In short, Microsoft are supporting *shitloads* more hardware out of the box than Apple. As I said, easily an order of magnitude, probably two and possibly even three.
I am just trying to dispell the myth that MS spends lots of money and time on writing device drivers for every computer component in the world. It's just no true.
It certainly is true, it isnt a myth. Out of the box XP would support most mainstream bits of PC hardware produced in the last 7 - 8 years.
>> Windows' Explorer is superior to Finder in basically every way I can imagine. Ive yet to find anything Finder does better than Explorer.
It's probably because you have spent so many years getting used to the Windows oddities so that you are incapable of learning easier and better ways to do thing.
How do you do these in Windows:
(1) Finder Column View - the best way to navigate the file system. (2) Spring-loaded folder - drag and drop files to any depth without clicking. (3) Finder Toolbar - one-click access to any folder in the toolbar. (4) Genie effect - visually indicates where a minimized windows is heading to. (5) Animation - shows app is launching. (6) Icon magnification - reduces eye strain. (7) Folders and URLs in the Dock. (8) Find location of apps in the Dock. (9) Quit running app or bring any app window directly from the Dock. (10) Preview movie, music, graphics without starting apps. (11) Type "open *" from a Terminal window to open all files in the working folder with their default apps. (12) System Services (such as spelling check or text to speech) accessible from any app. (13) Chat, browse, print, sync and share music across LAN with no IP configuration through Rendezvous. (14) Access eBay, flight, translation, dictionary and many more service through Sherlock. (15) One-click music preview and purchase through iTunes Music Store. (16) Best-of-class digital tools (iLife, iChat, iSync, etc), dozens of free programming tools (GCC for C/C++, Objective C/C++, Java, Project Builder, Interface Builder, and so on), and tons of open source software (Apache, Perl, Ruby, Python, etc).
There are so many more things that you can do with Mac OS X than Windows, so stop limiting yourself to the poor old Windows hole and start exploring the new and better world.
Ah, there's nothing quite like the unique combination of pompous, ignorant condescension emanating from a Mac zealot in full flight.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
It's probably because you have spent so many years getting used to the Windows oddities so that you are incapable of learning easier and better ways to do thing.
Translation: "You're a big dumb-head !".
I've spent as much time getting used to Windows oddities as I have getting used to MacOS oddities, OS/2 oddities, FreeBSD oddities, Solaris oddities, etc, etc. Which is to say, lots.
(1) Finder Column View - the best way to navigate the file system.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
I tried for six solid months to learn to like the column view and couldn't. I concluded the people who say it's the best thing ever have either been RDF'ed beyond all hope or just never have to manage remotely complex directory structures.
It would be trivial to fix nearly all the shortcomings of Column View - decent keyboard shortcuts or the return of the Shelf would make it about a thousand times more usable.
(2) Spring-loaded folder - drag and drop files to any depth without clicking.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
Explorer has had an equivalent for years (slightly different implementation).
(3) Finder Toolbar - one-click access to any folder in the toolbar.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
This too.
(4) Genie effect - visually indicates where a minimized windows is heading to.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
And an equivalent to this.
(5) Animation - shows app is launching.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
And this.
(6) Icon magnification - reduces eye strain.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
Now you're stretching. The Dock magnification looks cool, but it's actual usefulness is pretty limited (not to mention it breaks well-established UI guidelines).
(7) Folders and URLs in the Dock.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
Had this for years as well.
(8) Find location of apps in the Dock.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
Find Target has been around for a _long_ time.
(9) Quit running app or bring any app window directly from the Dock.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
The taskbar has had this since Windows 95.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
(10) Preview movie, music, graphics without starting apps.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
Explorer had this ca. 1997 - 1998.
(11) Type "open *" from a Terminal window to open all files in the working folder with their default apps.(Additional text added to avoid lame/. lameness filter)
Windows equivalent: "start file". Relevance to a comparison of Explorer and Finder: nil.
(12) System Services (such as spelling check or text to speech) accessible from any app.
Very cool feature. Grossly underutilised. Not relevant to Explorer vs Finder. I hope you don't think Apple invented this ?
(13) Chat, browse, print, sync and share music across LAN with no IP configuration through Rendezvous.
Windows Networking, ca. 1994. Hell, Local/Appletalk had this even earlier. Once again, not relevant to Finder vs Explorer.
(14) Access eBay, flight, translation, dictionary and many more service through Sherlock.
No idea if there's a Windows equivalent since I've never been compelled to use any of these features (since ou
Yes, we all know that buying software causes development costs to go up retroactively. Somoene should really use this phenomenon to send messages into the past.
Sorry, the knee-jerk "it's more popular" defense usually makes a little sense, but not against the development costs argument. Not that I blame you, the MS lawyers did try and use basically the same defense in the anti-trust case.
That was me. And what I actually said was that Microsoft support probably two or three orders of magnitude more hardware than Apple, which seems to me like a reasonable estimate. Iï½d say Apple only support a couple of hundred different bits of hardware, at most.
200 x 1x10^3 = 2x10^5. Three orders of magnitude more than a couple hundred is hundreds of thousands, so the grandparent's paraphrase is in line with your statement. If this is not wat you meant, you should use less hyperbole. I also believe there are more than 200 drivers and chipsets supported by Apple, but I could be wrong.
>I am just trying to dispell the myth that MS >spends lots of money and time on writing device >drivers for every computer component in the >world. It's just no true.
It certainly is true, it isnï½t a myth. Out of the box XP would support most mainstream bits of PC hardware produced in the last 7 - 8 years.
The grandparent isn't saying the myth is you can run XP on everything under the Sun. The grandparent is saying the myth is MS pays a shitload to develop drivers for everything uner the Sun. "Nu-uh, the sky is blue" isn't a good counter-argument for "The street is green".
As far as who is correct, I don't know. I'm just saying you need to tighten down your arguments if you're going to have a meaningful debate. Be more precise in your arguments and make sure you read and understand the gradparent's arguments before replying.
Also, you appear to be posting non-ASCII MS "smart-quotes". I advise against this. They are non-standad characters and display as "?" on many systems.
Sorry if this comes across as mean, it's just that it bugs me to watch people argue but not properly adress eachother's points.
Testing is a vital part of programming. Tests should always be written PRIOR to the programming. This allows you to think of problems before they arise. In some sense it seems as if MS is avoiding this by having someone "come over to fix the problem within 20 minutes." HHowever, given the diverse environments there does not seem to be a direct solution for them. The EEC seems to be a huge step forward to finding where code breaks for a given customer but it doesnt solve any security holes (which should have been addressed pre-coding when you come up w/ tests for your software). As for all the joking about MS programmers in this forum so far, i find it kinda rediculous that people do that. People that laugh at the products MS produces really do have to look hard at how THEY would manage and TEST 50 MILLION lines of code. With 50 million lines of code you're looking at virtually an infinate number of tests to run, which is obviously impossible to do. Thus you either have to roll out a product that hasn't been 100% tested because of its size or keep testing and never make money. Since its all about the money you obviously roll out the product and try to patch it as fast as you can when somone does find a bug that got by Q&A and the testers. You need to find a balance between testing a product completely and releasing a product to make money. Its a fine line and MS has done a fairly good job given the size of their code base and the pressure on them from the comsumer to get new products out in a timely way.
Re:The video of this is out... - MOD PARENT FUNNY
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Man, that's a good one...
Now there's a solution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> and hired a full-time technical account manager
oh, this will help doing actual work won't it?
Re:You guys missed the punchline,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The real joke is that this post got +2 informative.
Seriously....
by
wowbagger
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
All the Q/A in the world does you no good if you don't act upon what Q/A has found.
I used to do driver development for NT4.0. As such, I had a "victim" machine and a "debugging" machine, linked via a serial cable. The victim runs my driver, and I do my development and debug using the debugging machine to access the kernel debugger on the victim.
A normal cycle of development went something like this:
{ {{edit,compile} while errors} link } while errors
Download to victim
boot victim. Watch hundreds of assertion failures from the OS scroll by on debugging console.
Shut down debugger as it has leaked all available memory
Start debugger again
Load my driver and test.
locate bugs in my driver, begin again
Note: this was a fresh install of NT4.0 debugging, with SP4. No third party apps (other than my own) installed. This was using Microsoft's WinDBG.
Now, I don't know about Microsoft's developers, but I regard an assertion failure as a failure - i.e. a bug to be fixed. Having HUNDREDS of them in released code is just unacceptable. Using an ASSERT() as a debugging printf() is wrong.
So either a) the MS developers have a different view of things than I do, or b) the MS developers were allowing hundreds of easily identified problems to go into release.
Now, EVERY non-trivial software project's lead engineer must make a decision at every release - "Do I fix these bugs and slip the release, or fix these bugs in the next release?" And EVERY lead will allow some bugs to slip. Usually, those bugs are deemed minor - spelin mestaches (sic), layout errors, things like that.
But to have a) hundreds of assertion failures, which give you file and line number of the error, and b) a memory leak in your debugger bad enough that you can WATCH it leak away hundreds of megabytes of memory each time, and to allow that to go out? Ugh.
Now I am sure that MS Q/A found those errors - if not they are far more incompetent that I am willing to assume they are. So clearly Q/A was overruled by management - "We don't care, ship it anyway!"
And that is the central problem to ANY Q/A department - if management overrules them, and forces a shipment anyway, then how do you blame Q/A?
I've said this before, and I shall say it again now: this is one of the places a real ISO-9000 standard can be useful. If the spec sayth "Lo, and the release candidate code shall have no bugs open against it in the bug tracking system, and any bugs that exist shall be clearly targeted to later revisions, and Q/A shall findth no undocumented bugs in the code, or the release shall be slipped, and the bugs corrected, AMEN!" then Q/A can say "OK, if you want to throw our ISO-9000 cert out the door, then by all means override us and ship."
(Yes, that won't prevent management from simply targeting all bugs to a later revision and shipping, but it at least forces some consideration of the consequences to me made."
Re:Seriously....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
ISO-9000 cert mearly states that you HAVE a process, and have it documented. Oh and process can change easy enough, it is after all just a doc file.
Worked at one place where they mandated that on us. One dude documented how to format a floppy disk in DOS. Then another doc how to put a sticker on it.
Unless its taken seriously its neato to have but other than that...
NT4 was basicly NT3.51 with the graphical shell. NT3.51 was 2 years old by the time NT4 shipped... Few were serious about using it at the time. It was OS2/BSD/AIX/Novel or something like that. Put NT as my main server in 95? You would have heard 'ARE YOU NUTS' three miles away.
Its taken them this long to make NT work. Not to surprising. Mature OS's take awhile. Linux has had a quicker life cycle simply becuase there are more people working on it because they care. Not because its their job. And the 'new' mac os is built on top of an already stable OS BSD. One could make an argument that it IS a BSD variant. Much easier to make something that works when youve had 20 years of someone banging on it.
But back to your point of the asserts. If it was run like most qa depts. They didnt even LOOK at it. They had hundreds of qa monkeys and they ran their 'scenerio' scripts. They probably didnt even know HOW to look at a debug port. Where I work we MAKE our testers look at the error logs and get concerned about ERRORS.
Re:Seriously....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
linux isn't exactly assert free.
Re:Seriously....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I worked at (large companies that you have heard of) who had standardized on NT for the small stuff - file/print/mail - back in 94-96. It ran TCP/IP, and it actually worked very well.
But NT4 was not just a shell -- it was a significant regression in overall product quality. MS was doing massive internal revisions throught the first 4 service packs (for smp benchmarketing purposes) -- and it took them 4 or 5 years to get NT4 back up the stability level of 3.51.
I used to do driver development for NT4.0. As such, I had a "victim" machine and a "debugging" machine, linked via a serial cable.
From the way you describe it I couldn't help reading your post with this mental image that the "driver" your were developing was really a virus/trojan with remote access functionality. It makes for hysterical reading if you imagine it's an attacker bitching about Microsoft code LOL.
Do I fix these bugs [in this virus] and slip the release, or fix these bugs in the next release?
Yeah, don't ya just hate it when management makes you release a buggy virus says to fix the bugs in the next release?
-
-- - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Seriously....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
this always buggeth the hell out of me. when you use early modern english-style verb conjugation it goes like this: I find, thou findest, he findeth. when you use shall/shalt you append the INFINITIVE and ONLY the UNCONJUGATED INFINITIVE.
if you want to pad it up with more identifying stuff, use some deprecated spellings and old adverbs as well.
"Lo, and thy release candidate code shalt have no bugges open against it in the bugge tracking system, and any bugges that existeth shalt be clearly targeted to thy later revisions, and Q/A shalt finde no undocumented bugges in thy code, or thy release shalt be slipped, and thy bugges corrected. AMEN."
Clearly you've never done development on a driver for ANY OS.
You don't want your development machine to be the machine your driver runs on. If your driver breaks, it could crash the machine, corrupt the file system, or any number of nasty things.
You also need to be able to inspect OS level objects, which you usually cannot do on a running system. So, most OS's provide a debug capability that "freezes" the system, and through a simple interface (usually serial) allows you to inspect the state of the whole system. However, to do that you need a second computer to do the development on.
So, I would suggest you stop trolling on/. and go out into the wider world, and learn something about the things you try to talk about.
For the record, the device driver I was developing was for a DSP based RF analysis board, which if you had spent any time at all checking my background as posted on/. you would have seen is what I do for a living.
Now, put down the mouse, drop your cock, go out into the world, and start actually learning something other than how to troll/. - we have plenty of those already.
I'm not a driver developer. But I am a programmer and there wasn't a single thing in your reply that I wasn't already aware of.
The phrases "mental image", "hysterical", "imagine" and "LOL" should have been a clue that I was not exactly writing a technical post. Here's a nickle, go buy an #include "humor.h"
I was just saying that your "victim machine" phrase triggered an amusing mental image while reading the post. If you re-read your post with that spin it's pretty funny. I can't imagine how you interpreted it as an accusation.
-
-- - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Seriously....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow, you really need to check in to what ISO-9000 means. All I have to do is submit a bunch of RFCs to the original spec and *voila* my bug-ridden code is ISO-9000 compliant. Remember, ISO-9000 doesn't imply HIGH QUALITY, it implies HIGH ACCOUNTABILITY.
Um, that's what he was saying: holding program managers accountable for shipped bugs won't stop bugs shipping, but it might make them think twice.
(Though you might hope they'd think twice about it just out of professional pride... but I think at MS the need to crush the opposition has overwhelmed consideration of quality.)
I'm definitely sticking with gnome-Fun with letter
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Eventually, the KDE joined Windows Server 2003 Rapid Adoption Program (RAP), which allowed them to begin working with the product early in its development process."
Add an "E" to the RAP program (Express) and you're closer to the truth.
My IQ just dropped by 10 percentage points as a result of trying to digest the meaningless marketspeak./. urgently needs a real lameness filter that will take stuff like this and reduce it to the bits that actually have meaning.
But perhaps there is one already, and the output from stuff like this is the ASCII cow art. Or, Heaven forbid, goatse.
-- Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
Anonymous+Brave+Guy
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Better to acknowledge the best-of-breed methodology Microsoft uses to test their OSes, and conclude that while this breed works okay for applications, a world-class operating system needs peer review and distributed open source development to create a quality, secure product.
And that would be Linux, I suppose? Because no bugs ever creep into Linux, and there's never been a security flaw found. Except if you read Bugtraq, of course.
This wasn't even the point of the article -- though it might have been more interesting if it had been -- and yet still someone comes in here and starts making out that Microsoft have bad QA and the open source model is vastly superior. How sad.
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This wasn't even the point of the article -- though it might have been more interesting if it had been -- and yet still someone comes in here and starts making out that Microsoft have bad QA and the open source model is vastly superior. How sad.
Yes, it =is= sad that the obvious needs to be continually restated for message to ever get across.
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
KFury
·
· Score: 1
yet still someone comes in here and starts making out that Microsoft have bad QA and the open source model is vastly superior. How sad.
I suppose I didn't state it clearly enough: I think Microsoft has GOOD QA, but that even with the BEST QA, there exists a product complexity level which, when exceeded, means that a distributed, ongoing, proactive QA system, such as that afforded by open source (or even Apple's bug/enhancement submission procedure) is a much better way to ensure a more consistantly stable product.
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
jareth-0205
·
· Score: 3, Informative
And that would be Linux, I suppose? Because no bugs ever creep into Linux, and there's never been a security flaw found.
That's the point! Bugs are much more likely to be found in an open system such as Linux because of the nature of Open source development - all people using the software can reporting / fixing bugs, not just the limited few inside a company. The parent poster is actually complimenting MS testing, just saying that it can never be as good as open source because of the numbers involved.
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
Pharmboy
·
· Score: 1
adding to your comment, with open source software, the security problems are ADMITTED so even IF a fix isn't issued quickly (which they usually are) YOU can decide to pull those machines/daemons/services down until a fix is issued. Anyone can see the bugs right after they are posted with oss, and decide for themselves what to do until a fix is issued. With MS, they often are very good about fixes, and often they are not.
From my perspective (i use MS/95-XP and Linux) at least with the open source model, I get to KNOW whats wrong, and make an informed decision, on average, quicker than with a close source solution.
-- Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
Anonymous+Brave+Guy
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, my previous post sounds harsher than intended on re-reading it. My point was that I don't actually buy the mass development argument that open source advocates put forward. Please hop up a level and see my reply to jareth-0205 for more.
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
That's the point! Bugs are much more likely to be found in an open system such as Linux because of the nature of Open source development - all people using the software can reporting / fixing bugs, not just the limited few inside a company.
Not quite true... Microsoft has one of the best and most advanced external beta cycles of any software company; a model that most software companies today mimic. Been beta testing since 1992 for them and they are very open to feedback and thousands upon thousands of testers and tech centers like our pound their software outside of their labs to weed out straggling bugs they have missed.
As for Open Source being more bug free or secure, I still disagree. When someone that is smarter than the developer that put the piece of code together can see it, they can also see how to compromise it.
So bugs, yeah it probably helps, but security no.
Coming from the security field, the fewer eyes that see the source code, the more secure the code is just by the nature of not everyone having access to see its faults and exploit them.
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
jareth-0205
·
· Score: 1
As for Open Source being more bug free or secure, I still disagree. When someone that is smarter than the developer that put the piece of code together can see it, they can also see how to compromise it.
So bugs, yeah it probably helps, but security no.
Well, I'd say that there are more people willing to fix security issues than exploit them. Of course, those wanting to exploit the code are probably more likely to be looking over it for holes. But once a hole is found and exploited, then the white-hat hacker machine can come into play and fix it. Since users have got a direct interest in keeping the code secure, security holes tend to be fixed quickly, which doesn't always happen in the commercial world because of market pressures, beurocracy, etc.
I don't think the track record of Microsoft products really helps the case that closed source is more secure...
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
Anonymous+Brave+Guy
·
· Score: 1
I don't think the track record of Microsoft products really helps the case that closed source is more secure...
Sure, but their track record on many other things doesn't help closed source, either. Look at many other vendors, Apple for example, and they're much better; sometimes they've been known to publish patches for security flaws faster than the open source community.
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Ah, yes, the obligatory Linux advocacy
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
Well, I'd say that there are more people willing to fix security issues than exploit them. Of course, those wanting to exploit the code are probably more likely to be looking over it for holes. But once a hole is found and exploited, then the white-hat hacker machine can come into play and fix it. Since users have got a direct interest in keeping the code secure, security holes tend to be fixed quickly, which doesn't always happen in the commercial world because of market pressures, beurocracy, etc.
I don't think the track record of Microsoft products really helps the case that closed source is more secure...
In an altruistic world you would be right, but if there is a reason that a system MUST be secured, then there is also a reason someone would want to find an exploit and gain access to it. All the Open Source world has to do is piss off enough Microsoft Zealots and projects like Linux will look like swiss cheese within a matter of months.
As for the track record of Microsoft, lets see.... Checking an 'independent' security alert web site, MS had 7 for their products and Linux had 12 last year. Also checking the independent security alerts provided by various Linux vendors, they list almost 10 to 1 security problems compared to WindowsXP. Again, I don't see the superiority of Open Source.
For some reason the Open Source world doesn't realize why WindowsXP has built in error reporting, it provides a direct report to Microsoft of the software failure and the access violation (no not private information as conspiracy nuts think). This gives MS the opportunity to not only address security problems, but to fix bugs on a daily basis.
The open source world needs to realize how many 'compatibility' fixes for errant applications that Microsoft releases for WindowsXP(which isn't even their responsibility), in addition to its own bug and security fixes. And this is still on a schedule that is faster than any other major vendor, hence the Automatic WindowsUpdate, and this is in comparison to even major players including, IBM, RedHat, Sun, etc.
>>Before the KDE left the EEC, Microsoft backed >>up their environment so that they could put it >>back online and test it if the department ran >>into any problems when they did the production >>rollout.
Are there any licensing issues with Microsoft backing up software that is non-Microsoft and keeping it to be restored for use at a later time? They specifically mentioned DB2 but also said "any" software even third party.
Check this PPT to.
by
Karpe
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is a very interesting presentation on the design and development of windows NT/2000 presented on USENIX here (google HTML rendition here). I love to bash Microsoft too, but reading it, there are at least some decisions that I think they did right.
If you are interested in what Microsoft did for NT and Windows 2000, look at the links in the parent post.
Just a couple of highlights: The complete source code was 50 Gigabytes. Build time was 8 hours. The source code control system tracked over 411,000 files.
There were a lot of challenges trying to keep 5000 people working on the same operating system at once, they learned from problems and improved the process for Windows 2000.
It is high-level data, but it is still quite interesting.
Win NT development Cycle
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1) CVS checkout the latest net stuff from freebsd.org 2) Look at code and scratch head until "A-ha!"; enlightenment. 3) Merge code into Windows source 4) GOTO 1 5) Profit!!!
Punted to Longhorn
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"On the day I attended, one feature group had four of its bugs punted to Longhorn because they had failed to shown up for War Room. When someone argued that they should be given another day, Wanke simply said, "F#$% 'em. If it was that important, they would have been here. It's in Longhorn. Next bug."
Quote from the Ky. Dept. of Ed. customer.
by
hndrcks
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"We're hoping to get a long-term lifespan out of Windows Server 2003 without having to do major upgrading."
-- Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
it goes like this
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
from the article:
Testing at the EEC isn't confined to a single Microsoft product running against a customer's environment. The company asks customers ahead of time which software products they'd like to test, including their own proprietary solutions, and competitor's software and hardware.
1. release buggy crap 2. charge for it 3. offer testing lab for said crap 4. charge for it 5. gain insight on customer's and "competitor's" solutions 6. charge for it (this is 4. again) 7. profit!!!
what they shoulda done...
by
Enrico+Pulatzo
·
· Score: 5, Funny
write article about testing windows 2003 server.
host article on a windows 2003 server
post article to slashdot
take notes
fix bugs/adjust settings/add features
goto 1.
Re:what they shoulda done...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4. filter all the +5 funny posts and there is nothing more to makes notes.
I'll try posting something original as opposed to the MS-bashing and the MS-bashing-bashing whilst remaining at least a little ontopic.
I think Microsoft would do well to test more and make less. Each incarnation of Windows seems to have brought disproportionately large improvements (or hindrances if you like) in the user interface, features, and resource consumption. Whilst a gradual accumulation of features and a slow increase in resource use is inevitable for any operating system I think Microsoft has been making their systems grow too much too quickly.
Microsoft seems to be running out of some new features to add to each new version of Windows to entice consumers are resorting to making their own features (notably,.NET and the like) in order to keep sales high. Unfortunately I think that in terms of features and UI they can't push the boundary too much further for the next few years (though obvious beyond that there will no doubt be new ideas).
As such I feel that MS would benefit from focusing on testing instead of adding new things. Consolidation is often just as helpful as (if not better than) augmentation, particularly for larger systems. I feel that sales would remain high if Windows had no new features or UI but could genuinely be considered as stable as alternatives.
--
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Re:Inside MS...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We need more posts like this to highlight the geniuses who read Slashdot. Maybe we could do a VH1 special, "Behind t3h Slashdot."
MOD PARENT WAY UP!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Parent joke was very funny actually.. never thought about this:)
The customers are STILL doing the troubleshooting!
by
Tsu+Dho+Nimh
·
· Score: 1
The EEC is "designed to let the company's customers duplicate their specific environments in a lab setting and see how various Microsoft software upgrades, migrations, and deployments perform using those company's real-world data and systems"
And despite this, embarassments like the server security problems STILL get out. This is no substitute for good programming practices.
The real advantage to Micro$soft is that it lets them lock in the customer while the software is still in beta.
Testing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So how is Microsoft NT testing done vs Linux or Freebsd or open source project done?
ignorance of linux users
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
97% of the comments reguarding this article show the ignorance and childishness of the linux community. Read through the posts and you will see why linux will never make it past infancy. You guys cant even discuss something as real and important as the way the competition does software testing without cracking the same lame shitty joke 1,000 times over. The 3% of serious people are the only thing keeping this community alive. The rest of you are jerkoffs.
I cite examples:
Microsoft has testing procedures? (Score:5, Funny)
1. They test it??? lololololol!
"Sir! Monkey number Y435A23J has come up with something that boots!"
I thought they tested it by putting the encoded CD-ROM in a bucket of water overnight....
and all this time i just thought microsoft 'winged' it through testing.
Hey buddy, c'mere, I'm going to give you the inside skinny of how testing really works inside Microsoft
The customers are STILL doing the troubleshooting!
....MS Exec: Shit! We can't sell that...
But wasn't it supposed to be Not Tested?
microsoft? testing? consumer input? sounds like corperate lies to me...
Re:ignorance of linux users
by
Some+Bitch
·
· Score: 1
While I mostly agree with you I have to say the monkey comment WAS funny:D
Re:ignorance of linux users
by
davelodwig
·
· Score: 1
I do find it anoying when the linux community slates microsoft for having bugs in their code, do'es this mean that linux has no bugs what so ever. cos if you say yes then you are lying..
I get the overall impression that most of you well and truly believe that NT/2K/2003 server falls over every 10 minites or you can't install printers or any other hardware correctly. well I run a whole pile of Windows based servers and most of the time they run perfectly for months on end, when problems ocour it is often the person who configured the boxes fault for messing it up.
and just before you all flame me for being a microsoft whore I run a whole pile of unix servers as well.
-- "Describe Using Diagrams Where Appropriate, The Exact Circumstances Leading To Your Death" - Red Dwarf
Where's the Pictures of the Legal Lab?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I want to see pictures of the legal lab. The one where a bunch of people sit around the table and discuss ways to alter the EULA for each and every update and software inclusion.
I particularily like the one where with 2003, if you're a service provider, application hosting provider, ISP or web hoster that you no longer can really use their software. You are now bound under their SPLA, or "Service Provider Licensing Agreement". It's really no different except that you have to pay outrageous licensing fees *and* have two certificed Microsoft Professionals on staff. Oh, and if you upgrade, well, that SPLA is *retroactive*.
Yeah, and you people thought the Sopranos lived in New Jersey! Uh-uh, they live in Redmond.
Comparing with the UNIX model
by
mnmn
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Having a monolithic kernel + garbage, monolithic reigstery, no way to control the revisions of DLLs, worse than RPM package management etc is what NT is all about. The UNIX model is making small highly useable tools that you understand perfectly, and making them work together. In win32, if you cant work with an API, you make a new API, and we now have several generations of APIs to deal with just to access the screen, resources, widgets etc in windows. You have a standard API that has worked for over a decade for most UNIXen, and the ones that do change their API purge the last version and replace it with a similar system.... think sysv vs BSD, Solaris sysctls vs Linux sysctls.
Thats why the win32 system spirals into complexity, no matter how much money is pumped into development or testing. Of course one of the best things about windows is also one of the worst, that vendors developing their own drivers for their hardware might make incompatible or bad drivers, or ones that step on the feet of other installed drivers in the system. In the Linux kernel, all the drivers are present before the testers and are considered while any major change takes place.. such as the VM or switching to 64-bit cpu. This is true for most other UNIXen where drivers are sent to the unix vendor for testing as well, but thats not as efficient as the Linux model.
And then the number of eyeballs testing Linux and FreeBSD is a phenomenon Microsoft cant copy. The free software community does not work for a paycheck, but theres more sincerity towards the software than there would be for a proprietary software. Free Software can be a matter of ego and gives a sense of competition with Microsoft. You cant buy that. This I believe is the biggest reason why colossal manhours are poured into free software development, while some of these developers work the rest of their days as data entry or office clerks, even mcdonalds.
-- "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you."
-Nim Chimpsky
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
And then the number of eyeballs testing Linux and FreeBSD is a phenomenon Microsoft cant copy. ...Could you please explain why sendmail had over a decade of exploitable security bugs?
How many eyeballs are really *testing* Linux and FreeBSD, and how many are just using it because it is free?
I've looked at the Xwindows tool in Redhat for configuring BIND, I test software for a living, so in 30 minutes I noticed about 70 problems and it is a very small and simple interface. However, I have no idea what the program is called, who wrote it, or how to report the problems, and really, nobody is paying me to spend eight hours to document and report the problems, I don't really care about that tool, it is so broken that it isn't very usable anyway, and while I use my linux box daily, I don't really configure it much, so I don't think I'll ever report these bugs....hmmm, I guess some other eye will need to report those bugs...
(I'm not trying to troll here, but honestly I get PAID to find bugs in software, I'm not going to spend my personal time donating work to Linux, even if it is "cool" or good for my karma, I just have better things to do with my time. With many eyeballs, *someone* might know about every bug, but they aren't necessarily going to tell the developer about the bugs.)
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
mnmn
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Could you please explain why sendmail had over a decade of exploitable security bugs?
Yeah. there were'nt enough eyes on it, and Sendmail Inc really left debugging to the community. Dont forget it was eventually fixed. Noone is claiming Windows 3.1 is not buggy.. all software contains bugs somewhere. Only some sendmail bugs happened to live so long and were eventually fixed. That bug became famous because sendmail is so commonly used because its so stable.
I guess some other eye will need to report those bugs...
My pair are included in the many eyeballs working on free software. Expect bugs in redhat's own applications since they belong to one company and their profits. And then, compare OpenBSDs stability with anything else out there.
I understand your time limitations and lack of enthusiasm towards free software, I was submitting bugs and porting network drivers between linux kernel versions when I was working at the factory as general labour. Nowadays I'm working as tech support and busy with a bunch of cisco routers for certifications; building a future and making sure I somehow get paid for my efforts, but I respect and admire the free software movement. I will not be removing my eyeballs from that pool. And you can expect Linux to keep growing without a paid testing department.
-- "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you."
-Nim Chimpsky
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
acarey
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Interesting "comparison" you make.
"Monolithic" kernel: NT kernel is object based ("everything is an object" [file, ACL, semaphore, process, etc.] VS Unix "everything is a file"), mach-style modular and (as of W2K) fully reentrant. Allows for multiple independent subsystem operation (e.g. Win32 and OS2/1.0 and POSIX); significantly more advanced than (e.g.) Linux and BSD.
"Monolithic" registry: while I do not particularly agree with the implementation of the Windows Registry I do find some merit in the concept; a central, format-common storage system for hardware, OS, subsystem and application-level configuration settings. The Windows Registry is divided into several separate databases that appear as a single entity to the user (hence your mistaken assessment as "monolithic") but in actuality can be swapped in and out and backed up separately. Microsoft presumably decided on a binary based system for reasons of performance and encryption, particularly in the Windows 9x line where ACLs are not available to secure the files (on an NT-line system a text-only Registry would be feasible, if perhaps slow, because ACLs could be used to allow fine-grain control to the Registry).
No way to control the revision of DLLs; more or less fixed in NT 4 with Add/Remove Programs control panel applet, so long as applications obeyed the model; unfortunately, many didn't. Situation further improved (i.e. basically eliminated for the casual user) with Windows Installer 1.0 in 1998. Fixed foreever with the release of.NET side-by-side assemblies in 2000. Significantly better package management than the abominable RPM system used by Redhat, although I must confess a personal preference for Debian's APT.
Small but highly useable tools: COM components and object linking and embedding mean that virtually every application installed on a Windows system can make its functionality available programmatically. Object reuse and rapid application development significantly more advanced than CORBA based systems. The promise of open source may eventually eclipse the binary-based COM model (and its successors, e.g..NET assemblies) but for the meantime open source code reuse is basically limited to cut and paste which is not exactly what object oriented proponents had in mind. Not helped by open source's fascination with C (as opposed to object oriented languages).
API evolution: agreed. But the problem is somewhat alleviated by use of COM interface separation; for instance, it is still possible (although not recommended) to target, e.g. DAO for desktop database work rather than ADO or ADO.NET.
"Many eyes" philosophy of open source: agreed, in theory this should render Microsoft obsolete, in practice it has merely spurred Microsoft to create a better product.
There, that should provoke some flames:)
-- -- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
YE
·
· Score: 1
...while some of these developers work the rest of their days as data entry or office clerks, even mcdonalds.
Linux: from the people who ask "would you like fries with that?" for a living.
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
mnmn
·
· Score: 1
I stand corrected in some facts noted above, but some clarifications:
"Monolithic" kernel: NT kernel is object based ("everything is an object" [file, ACL, semaphore, process, etc.] VS Unix "everything is a file"), mach-style modular and (as of W2K) fully reentrant. Allows for multiple independent subsystem operation (e.g. Win32 and OS2/1.0 and POSIX); significantly more advanced than (e.g.) Linux and BSD.
The NT kernel is certainly modular and not monolithic in the strict sense of the word, but far from the file-based seperation, the seperation in NT is in the API. The module interface APIs in Linux is clearly defined, but it has gotten too complicated and not fully revealed in NT... think of VXD drivers vs WDM vs vendors trying to build their own interfaces by replacing some DLLs (older drivers).
But the problem is somewhat alleviated by use of COM interface separation
I wouldnt call that alleviation. Developing in a single API all the way through is efficient as well as more stable by virtue of the fact that there are fewer API interfaces to juggle in system RAM. take MFC, then GDI then lower win32 layers, while higher layers might include QT, visualbasic and others. When you get a BSOD citing kernel32, this can come from too many sources, comparing that with the crash dump of say Linux, the APIs are radically simplified, at least in numbers. Replacing glibc2 or the kernel is usually enough.
"Many eyes" philosophy of open source: agreed, in theory this should render Microsoft obsolete, in practice it has merely spurred Microsoft to create a better product
It is rendering Microsoft obsolete. Our company buys laptops for employees and promptly replaces the Windows XP with 2000 before handing them out. Too many people are still using Win98 because others are bloatware and taking their time to mature up; I wouldnt recommend Windows 2003 to anyone in the next 2 years.
Theoretically Microsoft is shaping up with the intro of.NET, better COM and integration, much improved Active Directory and of course stability. But both in performance and stability, Microsoft remains defeated, and lives on providing good fodder news to investors and using the win32 software base. The trend of Linux is quite positive in numbers.
I could be wrong with the above comments. Theyre just my opinions dumped.
-- "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you."
-Nim Chimpsky
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
acarey
·
· Score: 1
Good reply. But I query this statement:
"Many eyes" philosophy of open source: agreed, in theory this should render Microsoft obsolete, in practice it has merely spurred Microsoft to create a better product
It is rendering Microsoft obsolete. Our company buys laptops for employees and promptly replaces the Windows XP with 2000 before handing them out.
And that renders Microsoft obsolete how, exactly?
Both in performance and stability, Microsoft remains defeated
Every study that has directly compared performance of an NT-line based system and the competing Linux-based system of the day has shown NT to be faster, no matter whether tested by Microsoft, by Linux gurus, or by third parties. Furthermore, aside from hardware failures, 2000 SP 3 and XP are as solid as Linux, i.e. they simply don't crash. Gone are the days of Win9x my friend!
The trend of Linux is quite positive in numbers.
Believe me, I hope so, but I've no evidence to support that conclusion. Do you have a link?
Cheers A.
-- -- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
mnmn
·
· Score: 1
Attempted answers to the query:
And that renders Microsoft obsolete how, exactly?
Apache over IIS, Openoffice over MSOffice, samba over SMB, Sendmail over exchange. This is not an exhaustive list.
Every study that has directly compared performance of an NT-line based system and the competing Linux-based system of the day has shown NT to be faster, no matter whether tested by Microsoft, by Linux gurus, or by third parties. Furthermore, aside from hardware failures, 2000 SP 3 and XP are as solid as Linux, i.e. they simply don't crash. Gone are the days of Win9x my friend!
I've never known of such a study by a linux guru, I can testify about the performance and stability of both NT and Linux from experience. I'm an MCSE and have installed Windows 2000 servers and workstations at various places. Problems include corruption in the kernel, filesystem check sometimes not succeeding, excessive swapping even on a machine with 512MB ram, Internet services taking too much memory, and the occasional system freezing up. This is on dell hardware with the latest service pack (3), signed drivers and patched applications: SQL 2000, IE6, IIS, Exchange.
On a side note: I have used FreeBSD on two servers, Solaris on one and Linux on one at various customer locations with uptimes that beat the best of Windows2000 by a scale of 4. In case of the BSD servers, they're installed on Pentium 133 with 64mb ram, and run apache + php, qmail with over 120 imap users, samba, postgresql, iptables firewalls, ipsec VPNs, secondary DNS, DHCP, and the tomcat server on one of them. Since installation, I had to restart them twice to replace the kernels, and since have never had a problem. The Linux server is RedHat on a pentium 200 with 32MB ram, and runs similar services, but has crashed once, and its kernel was replaced about 6 months ago. The Windows 2000 servers were installed first on Pentium II with 128 MB ram computers that were later upgraded to Pentium III with 256 MB ram.
Believe me, I hope so, but I've no evidence to support that conclusion. Do you have a link?
Heres one: http://www.etaiwannews.com/Business/2003/03/06/104 6913182.htm
And then there are IDC's own reports:
http://www.idc.com/en_US/search/viewSearchRes.jhtm l?&_requestid=17236
that claim the Linux trend is better than Windows.
And then theres my own experience. I've seen public workstations, schools and home networks switched to Linux.
-- "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you."
-Nim Chimpsky
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
acarey
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the reply.
Problems include corruption in the kernel, filesystem check sometimes not succeeding, excessive swapping even on a machine with 512MB ram, Internet services taking too much memory, and the occasional system freezing up.
All I can say to that is that, if that was happening to me, I'd be returning the hardware to the vendor for a full refund. Clearly there's something terribly wrong. Boot-time NT kernel panics are generally caused by faulty RAM chips or IDE/SCSI controllers.
-- -- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Re:Comparing with the UNIX model
by
boots@work
·
· Score: 1
Allows for multiple independent subsystem operation (e.g. Win32 and OS2/1.0 and POSIX); significantly more advanced than (e.g.) Linux and BSD.
This is a complete furphy. Have you ever heard of anyone actually using the POSIX or OS/2 subsystems of NT? I certainly haven't. The fact that the APIs are intentionally crippled might have something to do with -- there's not even any networking support under POSIX. They were put there merely to satisfy the "POSIX compliant" checkbox.
With Linux anyone can implement a new process personality, and this has been used to support Solaris binaries on linux-sparc or SCO (heh) binaries on linux-x86. There is genuine and practical support for providing multiple APIs.
NT has the classic microkernel problem of being incredibly flexible and tidy in theory, but messy and limited in practice.
Interesting article, but not really about testing.
by
deranged+unix+nut
·
· Score: 3, Informative
For a small slice of how Microsoft actually tests software:
The lifecycle of a software bug in the Windows Division
1) The bug is found, reported in a bug tracking system, and assigned to the developer. 2) The bug is evaluated by managers for severity and triaged in a daily "war" meeting. At this point, the bug may be postponed until the next cycle, or marked to be addressed in the current cycle. 3) For all open bugs in the current cycle, the developer investigates and creates a fix, frequently running a few tests before marking it as ready for test. 4) Testers make sure the bug is fixed, look for any additional problems, look for related issues, and frequently even run a regression test pass to make sure that the developer didn't accidentally break something else while making the fix. If there are additional problems, the bug goes back to the developer to make a better fix, otherwise the bug is marked as okay to check in. 5) The developer then code reviews the changes with another developer, builds the changes for all platforms to catch any possible compile breaks, and then checks in the changes. 6) The build lab picks up the changes for the day and starts to compile. 7) If a compile break occurs, usually because someone was in a hurry and didn't follow the rules, an on-call developer triages and fixes so that the compile can continue. 8) When the build finishes, it is installed on a set of machines, and a series of build verification tests are run to ensure that the build is at least good enough to run some tests. 9) When the build verification tests finish, then the testers install that build and double check that the bug is still fixed, and mark the bug as such. 10) Finally, the tester adds a regression test to their test plan, and automates that test so that it will at least be run before the end of every major cycle, sometimes every minor cycle, every week, every build, or for some issues even as part of the build verification tests.
Major cycles are for betas, and final releases, minor cycles are for releases to be deployed internally, builds tend to come out daily. At the start of a cycle, and in early cycles, the bar is fairly low, almost any bug can be fixed and added to the build. Near the end of each cycle, and at later cycles, the requirements are increased so that only changes that are absolutely necessary are taken, reducing the risk of introducing new problems that won't be discovered until after the product is released. At some point in every major cycle, the bugs and test plans are reviewed to find areas that need improvement.
Additionally, instrumented code to measure test coverage, quality standards in a number of areas like accessibility, reliability, scalability, globalization, localization, integration, interoperability, are measured for improvement, usability studies are performed, code profiling tools are used, code scanning tools look for code execution paths that could result in problems and automatically file bugs, testers bash on other components, and anything else anyone can think of to find the problems early.
However, the pace is incredible and problems can come from anywhere. Imagine testing an Xwindows application to configure networking while the kernel is changing, the networking core is changing, Xwindows is changing, the shell is changing, the compiler is changing, your application is changing, and the tools you use to test with are changing. It is a challenging job.
If you want to bash Microsoft, that's fine, I used to...hence my handle, but now that I have seen inside the "beast", it's just a business, most of the rumors are very off base, and most of the people there are just normal people who want to do the right thing.
Everytime I start to respect MS a little...
by
danielrm26
·
· Score: 1
...something comes along and makes me want to install another Gentoo box.
I see MS take positive steps with their approaches, and I am encouraged. I see them pull PR stunts like this, though, and they make me want to run X on my desktop.
When will they learn?
-- dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
Micro$oft on-site support
by
lposeidon
·
· Score: 1
speaking from experience, their onsite support could never come up with a sollution in a matter of hours/days.
when i had to deal with then, at the workplace, it takes them forever to give you an answer, and you have to beat them with a stick to get that answer.
and most of the time they will fix it for you and not tell you what they did. so you are sitting there for a few more days trying to figure out what they did to fix the problem.
thats my 2 cents on this subject. im going to go and puke now. its sickening.
-- Lizard
"Never let them set limits on your mind!"
apple.com is the #hardware site on the Web
by
afantee
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>> There simply are no deployments of the type talked about in the article, with hundreds of domain servers needing to be migrated.
I am not so sure about that. In a recent survey of hardware site, apple.com is the #1 site with about 3.5 mln unique visitors, while hp.com is a distant second with 2.7 mln. Apple Store is probably the best online store with annual sale in billions of dollars, Apple also host the most popular QuickTime movie trailers, and iTunes Music Store sell over a mln songs a week.
In fact, I haven't found another Web site with the combination of e-commerce, movie trailer and music download anywhere near the sophistication of apple.com. And guess what, apple.com is powered by Mac OS X Server.
Netscape and Borland shouldn't of used their rig!
by
deadwood
·
· Score: 0
Quote:
While the customers are at the EEC, Microsoft gathers information and writes a business model for each customer, noting how they make money...
Now I know why our MS account rep wanted us to visit their lab.
The myth of open source mass development
by
Anonymous+Brave+Guy
·
· Score: 1
Bugs are much more likely to be found in an open system such as Linux because of the nature of Open source development - all people using the software can reporting / fixing bugs, not just the limited few inside a company.
The problem is that I disagree with the practical value of this idea.
It's great in theory. Thousands of people all around the world can look over the source code to Linux, and submit their patches and so on. The same goes for any other popular open source project, be it Mozilla, OpenOffice, or whatever.
The problem is that in practice, it doesn't work this way. The vast majority of development work on most big open source projects is actually done by paid professionals, whether they work for Red Hat, or Sun, or IBM, or whoever. You don't really get hundreds of pairs of eyes looking over each line of code that gets submitted. In most cases, even if you have review and super-review on a project, you still may only get a handful of people.
I actually had some personal experiences to help formulate this view. I'm a professional developer, and I use both OO and Moz regularly at home. There were two particular bugs, one in each product, that were really annoying me, nothing spectacular, just little irritations. I decided I'd look around the source to see if I could fix them. I spent most of an afternoon looking around the source code to Moz, and it was still completely incomprehensible to me. It's not that it would be a problem given the time, but as exactly the kind of "opportunistic" helper constantly advocated by the open source world, I just didn't have the time or enthusiasm to invest days in learning my way around. I put up with the bug until the next release instead. And given how much of my spare time I spend keeping sharp and helping out the on-line programming community in other ways, if I gave up, I'd bet that the vast majority of others in my position would too.
The whole "anyone can review and fix it" argument for open source is a great big con, and always has been. It's true in theory, but in practice the barriers to entry are so high that few except for professionals and long-standing volunteers actually do it. Just check the changelogs for your favourite large scale project and see how many different names come up. If the theory is right, there should be hundreds of small contributions by Joe Developers all over the place. Usually, what you actually get is a whole load of things by the same few people.
I would suggest, quite seriously, that procedurally code is often more reviewed in a good commercial outfit with a solid QA set-up than in the open source world. I submit that most of the best open source projects are of the high quality that they are because of the quality of individual developers they attract, in both skill and attitude, and not because of any mass appeal and wide-scale code review.
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:The myth of open source mass development
by
jareth-0205
·
· Score: 1
The vast majority of development work on most big open source projects is actually done by paid professionals,
Hm, perhaps for some projects. I'm not sure how true this statement is for the Linux kernel though. Though in some ways the kernel is special because it is very modular and can have less centralised control, whereas OpenOffice might need to be more tightly controlled.
I submit that most of the best open source projects are of the high quality that they are because of the quality of individual developers they attract, in both skill and attitude, and not because of any mass appeal and wide-scale code review.
Hm, interesting. Perhaps the quality of open source is largely due to the way the community works. People do it in their own time so want to produce good work. The code is available for all which also produces additional pressure for it to be good (peer pressure). People like doing things for other people (it gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling), so bugs and features get added for the community.
Contrast this with commercial development. It's driven by deadlines and money. Whilst code quality is still important, deadlines are often more important. The code is written for money, which is a less powerful motivator than because I want to.
I'd concede that the inclusive nature of Open Source development is more helpful than the mass code review aspect.
Of course companies that contribute code must do so in the spirit of Open Source, just look at the early days of Mozilla. The source was open, but development was still driven and controlled very tightly by Netscape, which didn't gain the project any friends. Open Source projects must embrace outside help if they're to get it.
It's probably because MS keep copying and stealing ideas from Apple and other companies without real insight or understanding, which make it hard fro them to integrate with their own typically bad design.
Despite the author's infinite admiration for MS, his description of War Room in part 2 is a clear indication that the Redmond Beast lives in a mad house.
I feel particularly sorry for the poor developers who suddenly were asked to fix the tens of thousands of "branding bugs" after MS had decided to drop the stupid ".NET" from Windows.NET Server 2003 for marketing reason - what a waste of human intelligence.
For 6 days a week, hundreds of unlucky people have to be at the War Room meeting at 9:30 am shouting and cursing each other to pass bugs around, after housands of more unlucky guys begins the same process at 8:30 am. Programmers are supposed to be on duty 24 hours a day, and some are called back at 3 am to fix bugs!
The real in depth testing of Win NT was done by six monkeys in England, after which the six monkeys started work on Windows 2003 server. Each monkey is now MSCE certified. This greatly improves the level of support for Windows Server, as now there are more monkeys working on it than ever.
-- OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Yes some of us are anal but ?
by
ratfynk
·
· Score: 1
It all comes down to what you get. If what you get needs tweaking you cannot do it in MS world. If what you get has a problem with your hardware, it is cheaper to buy different hardware than get a software fix. The whole premise of Microsoft is bad. The OS becomes overburdened by added hardware command structures that cause through put restrictions.
Good example is the print server limitations caused by print drivers. Gives my wife fits on their NT system everytime a new printer needs to be included or excluded from the routing. If it wasn't for the fact that Microsoft has hardware companies squeezed by the balls, Microsoft would very quickly lose the majority of its buisiness. Their server software sucks, because of the use of too many hardware drivers.
-- OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Re:Yes some of us are anal but ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This begs the question of why your wife is using an os released almost 10 years ago. It is a good os still but you certainly cant complain about what it cant do. What was linux like 10 years ago? Could a 10 year old linux sys do what you want nt4 to do? doubt it
Re:Yes some of us are anal but ?
by
ratfynk
·
· Score: 1
By NT I mean the latest and greatest iteration. It is still the NT kernel XP pro or whatever. She is just lucky they hospital was not stupid enough to upgrade to Win 2000, they just went straight to XP. The only reason why they use Windows at all is that it is necessary because of MS Office. All the imaging software catscans, exrays, MRIs, etc are Unix based, and do not give the med imaging techs anywhere near as much grief as using Windows servers.
-- OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Public Relations for Microsoft
by
Alien54
·
· Score: 1
"We've tapped into that 40 billion dollar cash reserve we have, and decided that spending a couple percent on QA testing might be a good marketing investment"
-- "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I thought NT stood for...
by
aardwolf204
·
· Score: 1
I thought NT stood for Never Tested! Who knew?
But then again why bother to pay people to test it when you can get real user feedback and fix it with a patch later. =P
-- Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the/.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
The article would be much longer if it would discuss about the Microsoft software testing procedures outside Microsoft.
Big cars and big software
by
the_arrow
·
· Score: 1
In the 1950s and 1960s the automobile manufacturers in USA (and to some degree in western europe) built bigger and bigger cars. Then in the 1970s the oil crisis struck, making these big and gasoline-hungry cars way too expensive to the avarage joe.
Now lets look at the software industry. Microsoft are making their systems bigger and bigger, each version being bigger and more bug-ridden. Then suddeenly comes Open Source seemingly from nowhere! While Microsoft isn't down yet (they do have bigger market penetration than the big cars had), they are now struggling if not for their life, at least to keep a good market share.
Oh, and while talking about SUVs, who the heel need a jeep with four wheel drive to go from a house in the suburb to the mall (probably in the same suburb)?
-- / The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
MS testing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But, this article IS about MS' testing methodolgy: they put out a product, let customers pay to test for bugs, and whatever they find is fixed in the next OS version. Brilliant.
You are confused about device drivers with the OS. A modern microkernel OS like Mac OS X and Win 2k should just provide a plug-in architecture capable of supporting any number of devices - without coding device-specific logic in the OS.
Mac OS X provides low-level support for industry standards like USB, FireWire, BlueTooth and so on. It's totally upto the device makers to write the device-specific stuff and do most of the testing. It's my experiences that plug-n-play works much better on Mac than on PCs. My Cannon digital camera just works on Mac OS X without any installation, but the same camera requires lengthy installation on Win XP.
Maybe Windows is not so well designed in this respect, which might explain the 50 mln lines of bloated code base. You people give too much credit to MS in this case, and too little to third parties. MS is a monoply and a known bully. They may give a little help to their big partners like HP or Dell, but smaller companies like nVidia and ATI have to pay MS and work really hard to get things certified by the Beast, and only fools are naive enough to believe that MS ever gives a damn about the tiny unknown fishes, let alone writing code for them.
In any case, to suggest that MS has to develop for "hundreds of thousands components" is just stupid. I will grant you hundreds or even thousands, but not hundreds of thousands.
Personally, I believe the average Windows crowd are just not intelligent enough to see through the MS smoke screen or to actively seek better alternatives.
MS is only good at two things: it imitates and hypes. Apple and IBM are the ones that inovate and deliver.
How many years have they been talking about Windows.NET Server and Longhorn? After all those noisy and expensive ballyhoos, now they called it Windows Server 2003 (which adds tens of thousands of "branding bugs" for their own programmers), and Longhorn is at least 2 years away. Ever heard about the revolutionary file system WinFS (Windows Future Storage) to be introduced with Longhorn? No, that's just a joke as well, according the latest MS thinking. How about the latest and greatest invention NGSCB (Next Generation Secure Computing Base)? We shall wait and see, but whoever came up with the stupid moniker deserves death sentence in my court. What about DRM or Passport? Well, MS is asking the manufacturers of MP3 players and other digital devices to build an internal clock so that Windows can check the expiration dates and prevent people from playing songs or videos once they stop paying the monthly fees. But fortunately, Apple has beaten MS again with FairPlay and iTunes Music Store - over a million songs per week just for US Mac OS X users - more sales in a week than all the existing music sites have managed in a year or so - just imagine the figure when iTMS is available before the end of this year.. Once again, Apple delivers with no hypes or fusses.
I am a Unix geek with over 10 years C / C++ / Java experiences, and use Windows 2K and XP regularly. There is no doubt in my mind that Mac OS X is the superior OS in every way. Windows people don't realize that Mac OS X also comes more and much better quality software than any version of Windows. Take iPhoto as an example, it's a very smart and powerful photo database, while Windows XP only provides the My Pictures folder.
If you are a programmer, there is simply no better system than Mac OS X - Windows or anything else. Unlike Visual Studio.NET which costs more than $3000, all programming tools on Mac OS X are free, and there are dozens of them. Further more, these tools are more powerful and better than anything I have used on Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, IBM AIX.
Don't just take my words, do a Google search and find out how many alpha geeks are switching to Mac OS X: James Gosling (Java inventor) and his Java team at Sun, James Duncan Davidson (original author of Apache Tomcat and Apache Ant), Tim Bray (XML inventor), Perl 6 core team, Tim O'Reilly (geek publisher), and 4 or 5 Slashdot editors including CmdrTaco himself.
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
You are confused about device drivers with the OS. A modern microkernel OS like Mac OS X and Win 2k should just provide a plug-in architecture capable of supporting any number of devices - without coding device-specific logic in the OS.
Um, actually you seem to be a bit confused here. First off the Mac OSX is not a true microkernel as generally defined. It is a monolithic Mach kernel, hence the inability to layer multiple OS processes on the kernel without locking the other OS layers. WindowsNT/2k/XP is a variation of a microkernel design that makes use of the client/server model. NT is roughly divided into two parts, NT executive, the kernel portion of the operating system based on a layered design, and a set of "protected subsystem" servers that run in user mode. This is quite different than the MacOSX kernel architecture. This plays out in not only the ability to abstract the OS subsystems but also in how drivers are implemented into the system.
NT does not have 'device-specific' logic in the OS; however, the WIN32 OS Subsystem does provide for some driver level compatibility for legacy or poorly written drivers. The WIN32 kernel is NOT the NT kernel - God I hope you understand this. The NT driver model is truly separated from the OS. That is why there is a HAL layer and why NT can be ported to other hardware platforms, just like any *nix.
Mac OS X provides low-level support for industry standards like USB, FireWire, BlueTooth and so on. It's totally upto the device makers to write the device-specific stuff and do most of the testing. It's my experiences that plug-n-play works much better on Mac than on PCs. My Cannon digital camera just works on Mac OS X without any installation, but the same camera requires lengthy installation on Win XP.
First off, MacOSX ONLY provides basic Firewire, Bluetooth, and USB support for the Apple hardware chipsets. In the PC world there tons of different chipsets even for these basic technologies.
Secondly, To debate plug and play is just silly. They BOTH use the same plug and play specification mechanisms. Now whether your camera driver was included as a native driver in MacOSX would be the only difference.
In WindowsXP (Just like in OSX), if the driver is not a native driver, simply putting the manufacturer's CD in the drive will allow WindowsXP to load and install the driver automatically. If your driver was not native to the MacOSX (as another post pointed out) then you would have to also put the CD in the drive or hope that the manufacturer has a driver available for OSX.
Maybe Windows is not so well designed in this respect, which might explain the 50 mln lines of bloated code base. You people give too much credit to MS in this case, and too little to third parties. MS is a monoply and a known bully.
Actually, the NT architecture model of driver support is a bit more advanced that MacOSX or even Linux. That is why drivers are abstracted from the kernel. (In other words, you don't have to compile your kernel drivers for better performance as you would in the *nix world.)
Bloat code? Hm... You seem to be a bit of a trolling type with this statement. If you hate Microsoft, then just say so and move on to your cave and back into your own version of Plato's allegory.
Even with the 'bloated' code you mention, Windows 2003 Server is still considerably faster (even on comparative hardware) than MacOSX server.
In fact Windows 2003 Server right now is pretty much on the top of the stack when it comes to performance in Intel/AMD based processors.
Would I like to see Linux or another OS be able to knock them off the top, yes, but for now the architectural differences are giving Microsoft the edge to tune NT to keep ahead of what everyone else is capable of doing.
They may give a little help to their big partners like HP or Dell, but smaller companies like nVidia and ATI have to pay MS and work really hard to get things certified by the Beast, and onl
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
afantee
·
· Score: 1
First of all, I didn't mean to pick on you personally when I mentioned the average Windows crowd - please accept my appology for not making that clear.
Secondly, you really have to get yourself a Mac to experience the power and elegance of Mac OS X. You obviously have lots of theory about OS architectures, but OS X on my 400 MHz iMac bought 4 years ago just runs faster and much more stable than Win XP on my 800 MHz PC. The only thing that XP is good at is faster booting, but that's a moot point because I don't reboot OS X for weeks or months - just put it asleep and it wakes up in a second or two. My PC gets shut down everyday to reduce the noise level, and XP still crashes once or twice a week, so your theory that the NT kernel stability just doesn't reflect the reality.
Thirdly, you have to look at the whole picture to appreciate Apple's unique contribution to the computer industry, not just focus on the OS. Apple is primarily a hardware company about 60 times smaller than MS, and yet has managed to produce more and better software than the software giant. This may sound beyond imagination, but for virtually every MS application, there is usually a better Apple counterpart, and the opposite is not true. For instance, MS doesn't have anything to match WebObjects (the original application server) and the high end Apple tools for pro digital productions such as Final Cut Pro (non-linear video editing) or DVD Studio Pro (DVD Authoring) or Shake (movie composition) Logic (music production).
Sure, MS has come up with a few GUI tricks of their own after they learnt the basic from the master in the course of developing Word and Excel on the Mac, but blunders like putting the Shut Down option within the Start menu indicate that they are still a long way from getting the fundamental right.
I challenge you to list the 100s of MS innovations, and bet many of them are just cheap imitations of similar Apple technologies. Now let have a quick run of what Apple has either invented or popularized: GUI, mouse, color monitor, laser printer, plug-n-play, voice command, AppleTalk, 32 bit OS - years before MS, QuickTime - the grandad of media players, Newton - PDA with natural hand writing recognition 10 years before MS Tablet, Darwin Open Source - the only open source OS by a major computer maker, Darwin Streaming Server - the only open source cross-platform media server, WebObjects - the original application server, AppleWorks (formerly ClarisWorks) - compact and seamless integration of word processing / spreadsheet / drawing / painting / database / communication / presentation tools, FileMaker Pro - powerful and easy to use database system, Mac OS X - lickabe GUI with rock solid BSD / Mach Unix, iLife (iMovie/iTunes / iPhoto / iDVD) - best free applications for the digital age, iMac - the first legacy-free computer with built-in wireless / USB / FireWire that has also ignited a revolution in industrial design for computers / printers / keyboards / mouse and many more, FireWire and FireWire 800, G4 Cube - the 8" cubic marvel that broke the GFLOP barrier, Titanium PowerBook - the first laptop with wide screen display and gigabit Ethernet and DVD burner, Xserve and Xserve RAID, iPod - the best ever MP3 player, the 17" PowerBook - the only 17" laptop with built-in 54 mbps 802.11g wireless / gigabit Ethernet / BlueTooth / slot-loading DVD-R / fiber optical light sensor to light up the keyboard when the light goes out, Quartz Extreme - the first Window composition architecture that offloads the desktop rendering to the 3D GPU (to be adopted by MS for Longhorn in 2005), Keynote - the powerPoint killer, Safari - fast and powerful browser that beats MS IE even in its current beta release, Rendezvous - open source and zero-configuration networking, iTunes Music Store - the best music site that could save the record industry, and the innovation will go on.
It's absurd to suggest that Mac OS X is monolithic and the Linux Kernel is not, because the opposite is true. I agree that Mac OS X
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
afantee
·
· Score: 1
>> The $3000 you tout for.NET development is for the IDE and integration for large project management.
Project Builder is a very powerful IDE for building large Cocoa / Carbon apps or Framework / Bundle / Kernel Extension / Plug-in / Unix tool in C/C++, Objective C / C++, Java, AppleScript, with highly sophisticated dependency management for multiple targets / build styles / build phases.
Interface is the only GUI builder that I have ever used that is capable of making sleek GUI with virtually no code.
Both are free.
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
Secondly, you really have to get yourself a Mac to experience the power and elegance of Mac OS X.
Actually I already do... At home, and several in the test labs at work. I use and have worked with OSX quite a bit. I also have owned a Mac since the late 1980s. I even have a 'legally licensed' Mac Emulator for System 8.1 that I run on my WindowsXP laptop.
My personal preference is still to go back to WindowsXP, but this is a personal choice based on the UI design and model of WindowsXP's interface more than anything.
Mac OSX is a great product, but it still has a bit of growing up to do to catch up with some of the features that I take for granted in WindowsXP.
It's absurd to suggest that Mac OS X is monolithic and the Linux Kernel is not, because the opposite is true. I agree that Mac OS X is not 100% microkernel-based for performance reasons, but why do you think Apple should use Mach at all if they throw away all the microkernel elements?
Actually, this is quite true. Do a few net searches and you will find details on this (I don't have time tonight to pull the links for you). But yes, the MacOSX kernel is monolithic and no the Linux kernel is not.
The interface to the MACH kernel that the Mac OSX uses is based on BSD, which is monolithic. This is just the facts; I'm not trying to sell you a bridge. I truly urge you to do some reading on this.
Thanks for the hearted debate. I enjoy OSX, I just don't believe in it as much as you do. But I also don't want you to change your feelings for OSX.
You need to keep up your support of OSX, but don't blind yourself to what it is and what it isn't, and then be a strong proponent that pushes Apple to make it even better by recognizing what it lacks and where its strengths are.
Take Care, TheNetAvenger
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
afantee
·
· Score: 1
I respect your personal prefernce, but you must be one of the very few in the world who actually prefer XP for its GUI! Most people stick to Windows because of games or application or the perceived speed. But everyone in my circle including many Windows users agrees that Aqua looks so much better than Luna (or whatever it's called now).
The color scheme and icons and buttons in XP just look amateurish and clumsy at best. Even on 2GHz machines, dragging a window around would frequently leave unsightly trails of broken window frames or cause all desktop icons to flicker - very disturbing to the eyes - something that never evre happen on the slowest Mac.
Unlike the useless and ever so annoying Office Clippy, most eye candies in Aqua serve a purpose. For instance, the genie effect or bouncing icons lets user know where a minimized window is heading to or whether an app is launching, transparency and softshadow are just a pleasure to look at. The UI in XP has so many rough edges and simply doesn't have the refinement of Aqua. I use computer over 10 hours a day and want something visually pleasing - XP just doesn't cut it for me - and it really insult my intelligence to have to click the Start Menu to shut down Windows. There is evidence that Longhorn will catch up with OS X in many respects, but I don't want to wait for another 2 years.
I will take your word for the microkernel dispute before I conduct a proper research. But I have seen Apple's own document and remember very well that they have only changed the Mach messaging system to improve the performance. You have to remember that Mach is the original micrikernel, there is very little point to use it if its main feature is removed.
For me, there is nothing even close to OS X with Darwin Open Source and Aqua / Cocoa / Java / POSIX, and I am eagerly waiting for Panther on the 64 bit PPC 970. MS may have a solid kernel architecture, but I would put them at least 3 years behind Apple in terms of overall application environment. And Apple is moving much faster than MS since the introduction of OS X 2 years ago. It's going to be very boring in the Windows world until at least 2005 apart from waves and waves of security patches and Longhorn leaks, while Apple is makeing steady progress every few weeks - Safari - Rendezvous - iTunes Music Store - iChat - Keynote - Panther...
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
I respect your personal prefernce, but you must be one of the very few in the world who actually prefer XP for its GUI!
As I have mentioned before I have worked with OS design, not only the architecture but the UI as well. I have studied and taught user productivity in relation to many GUI models.
The biggest misconception of the Windows model is people not knowing how to apply real world working techniques. They get stuck in the old DOS/Win3.1 model and don't realize that there is an entire different way to work in Windows now.
Just for example, in teaching I apply a method of analogizing word processing to the old way of using a typewriter. In the real world you don't keep all of your documents you type inside your typewriter case, you actually file them. The same model when applied to a GUI, if the GUI supports it, the same should be true. When you are looking for a document you don't open your word processor to find it, you should instead find where you filed the document and open it from there.
On Windows you can extend this analogy further because of the mechanisms built into the basic GUI of explorer. The sad part is that many of these concepts are something that both the Mac and Windows originally shared, but now the Mac has lost its way with regard to extending this conceptual model. The extensibility of ActiveX(OLE) technology and drag and drop are something that is far more mature in Windows than MacOSX.
In Windows the Open/Save dialog boxes are superfluous and something that is truly not needed 99.9% of the time if the user applies this model. There is a lot to this theory and its implementation, so I will save you the class time, besides I get paid to teach these theories, so the Slashdot crowd doesn't get a free class here either.
The Mac used to be really good at this model, and with OSX is getting back to being good at it, but it just isn't as fully consistent as in Windows. Explaining to users why they can't 'always' use the keyboard to navigation any application and why the DELETE key works sometimes, sometimes doesn't, and sometimes acts like the Backspace key is another example of the loss of consistency in the MacOS.
The Multi-Window approach that the Mac uses was originally a design to save precious screen space by putting the menu bar at the top of the screen, but for usability, this model has proven to be less cohesive with users. Having the Menu bar actually inside and tied to the application it is working for is a lot easier for novice users. It is also a model that was consistent with the original single application (non-multitasking model) that the Mac was based on. Windows users, even novices, are much more prone to have several applications running and using them concurrently to switch back and forth for information or performing other tasks.
I also agree with you that the MacOSX is far prettier than WindowsXP, but with a simple patch to allow third party skins, I can use any theme and make my WindowsXP machine look just like MacOSX. And this is using the native built in skinning of WindowsXP, not an add-on like WindowBlinds. I do like the animations of OSX though, and will anxiously await what Longhorn brings when the beta starts.
Again, thanks, TheNetAvenger
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
afantee
·
· Score: 1
There are many advantages by having the menu bar at the top of the screen in addition to saving screen space:
(1) You can reach it with your eyes shut, knowing its location never changes. In contrast, a menu bar within a window requires more precise mouse control and mental effort.
(2) For multi-document apps, it just doesn't make sense to duplicate the same menu bar in every document window.
(3) There are usually 3 types of menu commands: document-wide, application-wide, or system-wide. It really doesn't make any sense to put anything other than the document commands on a menu bar attached to a document window. On the Mac, the Apple menu is the place for system commands like Sleep / Restart / Shut Down / Log Out, the application menu next to the Apple menu hosts application commands like About / Preferences / Quit, which is very consistent and logic. In contrast, Windows menu system is a mess, which is probably why the Shut Down command inside the Start Menu.
Talking about UI inconsistency, I can't imagine anyone worse than MS. For instance, every multi-document apps (Mac or Windows) should have a Window menu that list the currently open windows, right? But no, the rule doesn't Apply to IE for some reason. Worst still, IE doesn't even have the Exit command. So how do you quit IE if you have a few dozens of browser windows? The only way I can see is close all the windows one by one, and even then it might still be running the the background.
If you are a power user, the Unix shell and AppleScript will open up a new dimension for you. For instance, the simple command "open *" would open all files in your working folder with the correct applications simultaneously, and you can write AppleScript to drive remote applications by simulating mouse clicks. How do you do these in Windows?
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
Talking about UI inconsistency, I can't imagine anyone worse than MS. For instance, every multi-document apps (Mac or Windows) should have a Window menu that list the currently open windows, right? But no, the rule doesn't Apply to IE for some reason. Worst still, IE doesn't even have the Exit command. So how do you quit IE if you have a few dozens of browser windows? The only way I can see is close all the windows one by one, and even then it might still be running the the background.
There are a lot of things you just don't know of UI design and the reasons behind them. I don't have the time to explain them here.
However, moving FROM a Multi-Doc Window interface to Separate windows for each document instance is the way MS and most UI designers of today are moving because it is a better way to design applications. It offers not only ease of use for novices, but power for experienced users. The MDI application is a thing and concept of the past.
As for your statement about closing IE and 'all its Windows' - Just right click on it on the taskbar and hit 'Close Group'. It will close all the document IE Windows.
This is a part of moving from ONE application controlling ALL OF ITS DOCUMENTS and DOCUMENT WINDOWS to the DOCUMENTS themselves being the focus and NOT the application. If you have a picture open, you have a picture open, you should not have to know or worry about what 'application' it is being displayed or edited in. It should just be a picture either being displayed or edited, not about the application.
This is a part of the 'new' theories of UI design, a real document centric model, instead of an application centric model, which by what you say is all you are accustomed to having.
As I said before, the document should be abstracted from whatever application it is being viewed or edited in. Just like in the real world, a piece of paper you have typed on does NOT get filed in your Typewriter case, nor do you have to take your typewriter with the document still stuck in it over to the copier to make copies of it.
The real world does not work like the application model. In the real world, documents are INDEPENDANT of the tools you use to create and modify them, and this is also how it should be on computers as well. This is how Windows has operated and been moving application developers since 1995.
The changing of the Menu at the top of the Apple screen based upon application focus is something that confuses new users more than you realize. Additionally, with the screen real estate available on modern computers, there is no need to save the 25-30 pixels for each DOCUMENT to have its own menu for THAT DOCUMENT. I completely disagree with the 'universal' menu bar, it breaks many portions of the Document Centric UI Model.
This is really an in-depth theory and I wish I could help you more with it. I just don't have the time, but if I ever do a book or video I will look up your post and send you a free copy, I promise.
Keep up the spirit and take care of yourself, The Net Avenger
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
afantee
·
· Score: 1
This is going to be my last reply on the subject. It's a reasonably fruitful discussion, and it's obvious that you and I have lots of common ground as well as a fair bit of differences.
>> There are a lot of things you just don't know of UI design and the reasons behind them. I don't have the time to explain them here.
I actually know more about UI design than you think, having developed quite a few real GUI application on various platforms over the years.
>> The MDI application is a thing and concept of the past.
This should surprise no one, because the MS version of MDI is a POS in the first place.
>> As for your statement about closing IE and 'all its Windows' - Just right click on it on the taskbar and hit 'Close Group'. It will close all the document IE Windows.
Where is the consistency then? Why can you quit Word or Excel from the menu bar, but not IE?
>> This is a part of the 'new' theories of UI design, a real document centric model, instead of an application centric model, which by what you say is all you are accustomed to having.
The document centric model is neither new nor superior. Remember the ill-fated Apple / IBM project called OpenDoc?
>> The real world does not work like the application model. In the real world, documents are INDEPENDANT of the tools you use to create and modify them, and this is also how it should be on computers as well. This is how Windows has operated and been moving application developers since 1995.
But the actual fact is most people do care about applicationsm, and there is nothing wrong with that. Take plain text documents for instance, some prefer vi, others use Emacs or Notepad or Word. The document centric view is just one of many doctrines, not a universal law.
>> This is really an in-depth theory and I wish I could help you more with it. I just don't have the time, but if I ever do a book or video I will look up your post and send you a free copy, I promise.
I will be waiting for that.
Re:MS just hypes and hypes
by
TheNetAvenger
·
· Score: 1
Why can you quit Word or Excel from the menu bar, but not IE?... The document centric model is neither new nor superior. Remember the ill-fated Apple / IBM project called OpenDoc?
Word and Excel work the same way as IE. Each document opens in its OWN window, and closing just the document, does not Exit the application. So the other documents are still left open as well.
This is how Windows software development has been migrating for years.
Word and Excel still have options to turn on and off MDI for old time users, but it is not the modern model.
As for UI design, I wasn't implying that you knew nothing, but developing applications for a GUI and actually designing the aspects of a GUI and UI Model are two different things, and this is where our backgrounds fork.
I have not only been an application developer but worked on the front roads of UI design and theory for many years. My background in this field stems from working with the XWindows project over 10 years ago to working with side ventures of new UI models to actually participating with Microsoft in UI design.
I have also taught UI design and theory for several years. I am not just a developer that has worked on these OSes, but I and my tech team have literally ripped apart the UI models of most GUIs and their CUI for study, how to get the best usage out of them, and for providing input on improving them.
There is also a big difference between OpenDoc and the document centric UI model. OpenDoc was a communication mechanism for transferring information between applications; it was NOT in any way related to a document centric UI model.
OpenDoc was a competing technology to OLE(ActiveX) technologies and did fail because of the power struggle of the companies trying to bring it to fruition. It also had serious overhead problems when compared to OLE.
OLE and ActiveX are still very much a part of Windows, which is why it is so easy to drag a chunk of text from a Word Document to your desktop and create a scrap, or drag a chart from Excel into CorelDraw, or drag a picture or URL from IE into Word or almost any other application. These are all OLE/ActiveX technology uses.
However even though OLE/ActiveX play a part in the Document Centric UI model, they are not what the Document Centric Model is about, they are just pieces that are used to help the concepts of Document/Application interoperability.
PS - Microsoft Word was the first application in history to support the concept of picking up text and dragging and dropping it to another location. This is something that you probably use on your Mac everyday and is also something that is a part of almost every word processor today. Hence, once again Microsoft does innovate; they just don't always get the credit for it.
The Net Avenger
Apple.com #1 hardware site - 50% more hits than HP
by
afantee
·
· Score: 1
"Apple Computer Inc.?s Apple.com led all computer hardware sites in number of shoppers for the week that ended May 11, according to Nielsen/NetRatings? AdRelevance report. Apple.com logged 3.75 million unique visitors, 73.7% of all visitors to hardware sites, which hosted 5.09 million shoppers for the week.
Next behind Apple was Hewlett-Packard Co.?s HP.com at 2.47 million visitors; Dell Computer Corp., at 1.94 million; Gateway Inc. at 312,000; and Toshiba.com at 157,000."
For those who claim that Apple doesn't have a server OS, apple.com is powered by Mac OS X Server.
The customers are clearly benefiting from this...
by
stormeagle
·
· Score: 1
and this is something that the OSS community lacks.
I dont know if the biggest distro's have capital to support something like this, but the article seems to guarantee that customers who walk into that testing centre walk out with a license...
Perhaps a cross distro centre would be a good idea, funded in part by the FSF.
Re:Interesting article, but not really about testi
by
boots@work
·
· Score: 1
One tiny thing I've always wondered about is whether Microsoft people use diffs to the same extent as open source people. In that kind of build-fix model I'd be inclined as a developer to pass around a patch that I thought fixed the problem. But there doesn't seem to be the same awareness of patch/diff as tools.
Are they still using Perforce, or something more tricky? 5000 developers is a hell of a SCM problem.
Imagine testing an Xwindows application to configure networking while the kernel is changing, the networking core is changing, Xwindows is changing, the shell is changing, the compiler is changing, your application is changing, and the tools you use to test with are changing. It is a challenging job.
I want to say "don't do that then"...
Re:Text of the article
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You should put it up as an Ask Slashdot question, or perhaps as a poll. I'm sure there would be many interesting suggestions.
Re:Interesting article, but not really about testi
by
deranged+unix+nut
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft doesn't really use diffs much, when everyone is on 100 megabit networks and physically grouped together by product and technology, it doesn't make sense to make a diff of a 200kb file so that the guy across the hall can toss is on the test bench and run regression tests.
The Windows team uses a custom in-house SCM. Yes, it is rather tricky, and no, it isn't Perforce.
Re:Interesting article, but not really about testi
by
boots@work
·
· Score: 1
Ah, interesting. That's more or less the reply I expected.
Saving bandwidth is the least important reason why open source people use diffs. It's more about being able to see what the intended change to the file is, being able to quote and discuss it in email client, and being able to merge simultaneous changes easily (or know that they conflict).
I suppose if everyone had a sufficiently good SCM system then you might be able to check your thing in on a private branch (or whatever) and allow the other guy to see it that way. I think open source projects refrain from that because it would generate too many little branches that don't really need to be stored in the long term, but with a system good enough to hide them except from the people who need them it'd be OK. Come to think of it Subversion would support that way of working pretty well.
Re:Interesting article, but not really about testi
by
deranged+unix+nut
·
· Score: 1
Oh, sorry, I was thinking just binaries...as a tester, that is what I usually deal with.
Yes, diffs are used on an hourly basis all over the place. The SCM system and other tools that everyone uses constantly have both traditional unix-like diffs, and colored graphical side by side diffs, etc.
Developers are frequently working on a dozen little changes, a few large changes, and working on service pack fixes for two or three different products in a given day...they would go nuts if they couldn't compare the changes that they made, track and visualize previous changes, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess you have to make sure those "features" work correctly
QA Engineer 1: "Does it compile?"
QA Engineer 2: "Yup."
QA Engineer 1: "Okay, I'm declaring it GM and releasing it to manufacturing."
QA Engineer 2: "It's 'Miller Time'!"
But wasn't it supposed to be Not Tested?
1. They test it??? lololololol!
2. M$ sucks. Use Linux - it's tested by millions worldwide.
3. Teh QA is bribed!
Did I miss any other particularly obvious comments?
1) Test open source software for bugs
2) ???
3) Profit!!
"Testing? What's that? If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect." - Linus Torvalds
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
(whoops! forgot to format it - in a post on testing - the irony ;))
So yet another double post (almost as bad as 'Taco):
MS Exec: How long does the "Applying Security Policy" phase last?
Engineer: 3 seconds
MS Exec: Shit! We can't sell that
Engineer: OK (sits down, types in "sleep 60000")
Engineer: Now takes 60 secs
MS Exec: Great!
>> There you go: MS' guide to testing
microsoft? testing? consumer input? sounds like corperate lies to me...
From the article (not kidding!):
Originally, the KDE worked to upgrade its infrastructure to Windows 2000 on its own. But after spending 18 months evaluating and testing, Cornett realized they'd need some help. The department contacted Microsoft Consulting Services (MCS) to ask about architectural guidance, and hired a full-time technical account manager from Microsoft's Enterprise Services group. Eventually, the KDE joined Windows Server 2003 Rapid Adoption Program (RAP), which allowed them to begin working with the product early in its development process.
(ok, so when you look into it you're likely to realize that it's the Kentucky Dept of Education, but when skimming the article it caught my eye and I was really confused!)
Wow... how long did that one take you? It seems you make a karmic career out of unfunny MS bashing.
"Surely not even the RIAA is mad enough to trust Microsoft with the security of its' music? Oh wait..."
Sound familiar? Huh, Chauncey?!?
It starts off with a room. a huge room... the largest one you've ever seen...
The camera flies down, zooming in & out, between dozens of the ten million monkeys at ten million PCs, and back up to a control desk manned by straw-chewing yokels.
A screen flashes red
"Sir! Monkey number Y435A23J has come up with something that boots!"
The camera pans around to Bill Gates' face
"I call it... Windows 2008. Release it"
or something
You know you're on slashdot when a post begins
Windows Server 2003: The Road To Gold
Part Three: Testing Windows
and ends
Can anyone recommend a way to get my cat off heroin? It would be much appreciated.
All jokes aside, the amount of testing and the build process for NT is one of the most tightly organized and comprehensive testing methodologies in existence.
Rather than take 'miller time' pot shots at Microsoft, the real takeaway is the understanding that, no matter how rigorous the testing and build process, there is a complexity limit where a unified one-organization nightly fix-build-test model simply can't provide a product of suitable quality.
Better to acknowledge the best-of-breed methodology Microsoft uses to test their OSes, and conclude that while this breed works okay for applications, a world-class operating system needs peer review and distributed open source development to create a quality, secure product.
Kevin Fox
No way this article is about software testing. This is about an evaluation lab where customers bring in their applications to show to Microsoft. It's a marketing puff-piece, that's all.
Where is the description of the test methodologies used? The bug escalation and change control systems? What sort of configuration control is used?
Great, thanks for reformating it. Now I can see the true comedic genius that you are.
Again thanks.
I thought they tested it by putting the encoded CD-ROM in a bucket of water overnight....
O.K., can anyone here tell me why Microsoft is spending an order of magnatude more $$'s to develop Windows than Apple is spending on developing OS X? It can't be testing because the Apple products appear so much more refined.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Why doesn't MS just fix their bug versus spending their $$$ pumping crap stories like this out.
Testing is a vital part of programming. Tests should always be written PRIOR to the programming. This allows you to think of problems before they arise. In some sense it seems as if MS is avoiding this by having someone "come over to fix the problem within 20 minutes." HHowever, given the diverse environments there does not seem to be a direct solution for them. The EEC seems to be a huge step forward to finding where code breaks for a given customer but it doesnt solve any security holes (which should have been addressed pre-coding when you come up w/ tests for your software). As for all the joking about MS programmers in this forum so far, i find it kinda rediculous that people do that. People that laugh at the products MS produces really do have to look hard at how THEY would manage and TEST 50 MILLION lines of code. With 50 million lines of code you're looking at virtually an infinate number of tests to run, which is obviously impossible to do. Thus you either have to roll out a product that hasn't been 100% tested because of its size or keep testing and never make money. Since its all about the money you obviously roll out the product and try to patch it as fast as you can when somone does find a bug that got by Q&A and the testers. You need to find a balance between testing a product completely and releasing a product to make money. Its a fine line and MS has done a fairly good job given the size of their code base and the pressure on them from the comsumer to get new products out in a timely way.
Man, that's a good one...
> and hired a full-time technical account manager
oh, this will help doing actual work won't it?
The real joke is that this post got +2 informative.
I used to do driver development for NT4.0. As such, I had a "victim" machine and a "debugging" machine, linked via a serial cable. The victim runs my driver, and I do my development and debug using the debugging machine to access the kernel debugger on the victim.
A normal cycle of development went something like this:
Note: this was a fresh install of NT4.0 debugging, with SP4. No third party apps (other than my own) installed. This was using Microsoft's WinDBG.
Now, I don't know about Microsoft's developers, but I regard an assertion failure as a failure - i.e. a bug to be fixed. Having HUNDREDS of them in released code is just unacceptable. Using an ASSERT() as a debugging printf() is wrong.
So either a) the MS developers have a different view of things than I do, or b) the MS developers were allowing hundreds of easily identified problems to go into release.
Now, EVERY non-trivial software project's lead engineer must make a decision at every release - "Do I fix these bugs and slip the release, or fix these bugs in the next release?" And EVERY lead will allow some bugs to slip. Usually, those bugs are deemed minor - spelin mestaches (sic), layout errors, things like that.
But to have a) hundreds of assertion failures, which give you file and line number of the error, and b) a memory leak in your debugger bad enough that you can WATCH it leak away hundreds of megabytes of memory each time, and to allow that to go out? Ugh.
Now I am sure that MS Q/A found those errors - if not they are far more incompetent that I am willing to assume they are. So clearly Q/A was overruled by management - "We don't care, ship it anyway!"
And that is the central problem to ANY Q/A department - if management overrules them, and forces a shipment anyway, then how do you blame Q/A?
I've said this before, and I shall say it again now: this is one of the places a real ISO-9000 standard can be useful. If the spec sayth "Lo, and the release candidate code shall have no bugs open against it in the bug tracking system, and any bugs that exist shall be clearly targeted to later revisions, and Q/A shall findth no undocumented bugs in the code, or the release shall be slipped, and the bugs corrected, AMEN!" then Q/A can say "OK, if you want to throw our ISO-9000 cert out the door, then by all means override us and ship."
(Yes, that won't prevent management from simply targeting all bugs to a later revision and shipping, but it at least forces some consideration of the consequences to me made."
www.eFax.com are spammers
"Eventually, the KDE joined Windows Server 2003 Rapid Adoption Program (RAP), which allowed them to begin working with the product early in its development process."
Add an "E" to the RAP program (Express) and you're closer to the truth.
Who cares how bad the jokes are, as long as there are mods mad enough to mod them up, I'll keep posting.
But perhaps there is one already, and the output from stuff like this is the ASCII cow art. Or, Heaven forbid, goatse.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
The annoying thing about NT (4.0), is that now that it is almost rock-solid, MS no longer support it.
:)
Those years of public beta testing certainly paid off.
\\ Mitch
Its about Windows Server 2003.
*thank you*
I needed that.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
And that would be Linux, I suppose? Because no bugs ever creep into Linux, and there's never been a security flaw found. Except if you read Bugtraq, of course.
This wasn't even the point of the article -- though it might have been more interesting if it had been -- and yet still someone comes in here and starts making out that Microsoft have bad QA and the open source model is vastly superior. How sad.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
>>Before the KDE left the EEC, Microsoft backed
>>up their environment so that they could put it
>>back online and test it if the department ran
>>into any problems when they did the production
>>rollout.
Are there any licensing issues with Microsoft backing up software that is non-Microsoft and keeping it to be restored for use at a later time? They specifically mentioned DB2 but also said "any" software even third party.
There is a very interesting presentation on the design and development of windows NT/2000 presented on USENIX here (google HTML rendition here). I love to bash Microsoft too, but reading it, there are at least some decisions that I think they did right.
1) CVS checkout the latest net stuff from freebsd.org
2) Look at code and scratch head until "A-ha!"; enlightenment.
3) Merge code into Windows source
4) GOTO 1
5) Profit!!!
"On the day I attended, one feature group had four of its bugs punted to Longhorn because they had failed to shown up for War Room. When someone argued that they should be given another day, Wanke simply said, "F#$% 'em. If it was that important, they would have been here. It's in Longhorn. Next bug."
"We're hoping to get a long-term lifespan out of Windows Server 2003 without having to do major upgrading."
These guys obviously aren't students of "Licensing 6.0".
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
from the article:
Testing at the EEC isn't confined to a single Microsoft product running against a customer's environment. The company asks customers ahead of time which software products they'd like to test, including their own proprietary solutions, and competitor's software and hardware.
1. release buggy crap
2. charge for it
3. offer testing lab for said crap
4. charge for it
5. gain insight on customer's and "competitor's" solutions
6. charge for it (this is 4. again)
7. profit!!!
I'll try posting something original as opposed to the MS-bashing and the MS-bashing-bashing whilst remaining at least a little ontopic.
.NET and the like) in order to keep sales high. Unfortunately I think that in terms of features and UI they can't push the boundary too much further for the next few years (though obvious beyond that there will no doubt be new ideas).
I think Microsoft would do well to test more and make less. Each incarnation of Windows seems to have brought disproportionately large improvements (or hindrances if you like) in the user interface, features, and resource consumption. Whilst a gradual accumulation of features and a slow increase in resource use is inevitable for any operating system I think Microsoft has been making their systems grow too much too quickly.
Microsoft seems to be running out of some new features to add to each new version of Windows to entice consumers are resorting to making their own features (notably,
As such I feel that MS would benefit from focusing on testing instead of adding new things. Consolidation is often just as helpful as (if not better than) augmentation, particularly for larger systems. I feel that sales would remain high if Windows had no new features or UI but could genuinely be considered as stable as alternatives.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
We need more posts like this to highlight the geniuses who read Slashdot. Maybe we could do a VH1 special, "Behind t3h Slashdot."
Parent joke was very funny actually.. never thought about this :)
And despite this, embarassments like the server security problems STILL get out. This is no substitute for good programming practices.
The real advantage to Micro$soft is that it lets them lock in the customer while the software is still in beta.
So how is Microsoft NT testing done vs Linux or Freebsd or open source project done?
97% of the comments reguarding this article show the ignorance and childishness of the linux community. Read through the posts and you will see why linux will never make it past infancy. You guys cant even discuss something as real and important as the way the competition does software testing without cracking the same lame shitty joke 1,000 times over. The 3% of serious people are the only thing keeping this community alive. The rest of you are jerkoffs.
I cite examples:
Microsoft has testing procedures? (Score:5, Funny)
1. They test it??? lololololol!
"Sir! Monkey number Y435A23J has come up with something that boots!"
I thought they tested it by putting the encoded CD-ROM in a bucket of water overnight....
and all this time i just thought microsoft 'winged' it through testing.
Hey buddy, c'mere, I'm going to give you the inside skinny of how testing really works inside Microsoft
The customers are STILL doing the troubleshooting!
....MS Exec: Shit! We can't sell that...
But wasn't it supposed to be Not Tested?
microsoft? testing? consumer input? sounds like corperate lies to me...
I want to see pictures of the legal lab. The one where a bunch of people sit around the table and discuss ways to alter the EULA for each and every update and software inclusion.
I particularily like the one where with 2003, if you're a service provider, application hosting provider, ISP or web hoster that you no longer can really use their software. You are now bound under their SPLA, or "Service Provider Licensing Agreement". It's really no different except that you have to pay outrageous licensing fees *and* have two certificed Microsoft Professionals on staff. Oh, and if you upgrade, well, that SPLA is *retroactive*.
Yeah, and you people thought the Sopranos lived in New Jersey! Uh-uh, they live in Redmond.
Having a monolithic kernel + garbage, monolithic reigstery, no way to control the revisions of DLLs, worse than RPM package management etc is what NT is all about. The UNIX model is making small highly useable tools that you understand perfectly, and making them work together. In win32, if you cant work with an API, you make a new API, and we now have several generations of APIs to deal with just to access the screen, resources, widgets etc in windows. You have a standard API that has worked for over a decade for most UNIXen, and the ones that do change their API purge the last version and replace it with a similar system.... think sysv vs BSD, Solaris sysctls vs Linux sysctls.
Thats why the win32 system spirals into complexity, no matter how much money is pumped into development or testing. Of course one of the best things about windows is also one of the worst, that vendors developing their own drivers for their hardware might make incompatible or bad drivers, or ones that step on the feet of other installed drivers in the system. In the Linux kernel, all the drivers are present before the testers and are considered while any major change takes place.. such as the VM or switching to 64-bit cpu. This is true for most other UNIXen where drivers are sent to the unix vendor for testing as well, but thats not as efficient as the Linux model.
And then the number of eyeballs testing Linux and FreeBSD is a phenomenon Microsoft cant copy. The free software community does not work for a paycheck, but theres more sincerity towards the software than there would be for a proprietary software. Free Software can be a matter of ego and gives a sense of competition with Microsoft. You cant buy that. This I believe is the biggest reason why colossal manhours are poured into free software development, while some of these developers work the rest of their days as data entry or office clerks, even mcdonalds.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
For a small slice of how Microsoft actually tests software:
The lifecycle of a software bug in the Windows Division
1) The bug is found, reported in a bug tracking system, and assigned to the developer.
2) The bug is evaluated by managers for severity and triaged in a daily "war" meeting. At this point, the bug may be postponed until the next cycle, or marked to be addressed in the current cycle.
3) For all open bugs in the current cycle, the developer investigates and creates a fix, frequently running a few tests before marking it as ready for test.
4) Testers make sure the bug is fixed, look for any additional problems, look for related issues, and frequently even run a regression test pass to make sure that the developer didn't accidentally break something else while making the fix. If there are additional problems, the bug goes back to the developer to make a better fix, otherwise the bug is marked as okay to check in.
5) The developer then code reviews the changes with another developer, builds the changes for all platforms to catch any possible compile breaks, and then checks in the changes.
6) The build lab picks up the changes for the day and starts to compile.
7) If a compile break occurs, usually because someone was in a hurry and didn't follow the rules, an on-call developer triages and fixes so that the compile can continue.
8) When the build finishes, it is installed on a set of machines, and a series of build verification tests are run to ensure that the build is at least good enough to run some tests.
9) When the build verification tests finish, then the testers install that build and double check that the bug is still fixed, and mark the bug as such.
10) Finally, the tester adds a regression test to their test plan, and automates that test so that it will at least be run before the end of every major cycle, sometimes every minor cycle, every week, every build, or for some issues even as part of the build verification tests.
Major cycles are for betas, and final releases, minor cycles are for releases to be deployed internally, builds tend to come out daily. At the start of a cycle, and in early cycles, the bar is fairly low, almost any bug can be fixed and added to the build. Near the end of each cycle, and at later cycles, the requirements are increased so that only changes that are absolutely necessary are taken, reducing the risk of introducing new problems that won't be discovered until after the product is released. At some point in every major cycle, the bugs and test plans are reviewed to find areas that need improvement.
Additionally, instrumented code to measure test coverage, quality standards in a number of areas like accessibility, reliability, scalability, globalization, localization, integration, interoperability, are measured for improvement, usability studies are performed, code profiling tools are used, code scanning tools look for code execution paths that could result in problems and automatically file bugs, testers bash on other components, and anything else anyone can think of to find the problems early.
However, the pace is incredible and problems can come from anywhere. Imagine testing an Xwindows application to configure networking while the kernel is changing, the networking core is changing, Xwindows is changing, the shell is changing, the compiler is changing, your application is changing, and the tools you use to test with are changing. It is a challenging job.
If you want to bash Microsoft, that's fine, I used to...hence my handle, but now that I have seen inside the "beast", it's just a business, most of the rumors are very off base, and most of the people there are just normal people who want to do the right thing.
...something comes along and makes me want to install another Gentoo box.
I see MS take positive steps with their approaches, and I am encouraged. I see them pull PR stunts like this, though, and they make me want to run X on my desktop.
When will they learn?
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
speaking from experience, their onsite support could never come up with a sollution in a matter of hours/days. when i had to deal with then, at the workplace, it takes them forever to give you an answer, and you have to beat them with a stick to get that answer. and most of the time they will fix it for you and not tell you what they did. so you are sitting there for a few more days trying to figure out what they did to fix the problem. thats my 2 cents on this subject. im going to go and puke now. its sickening.
Lizard "Never let them set limits on your mind!"
>> There simply are no deployments of the type talked about in the article, with hundreds of domain servers needing to be migrated.
I am not so sure about that. In a recent survey of hardware site, apple.com is the #1 site with about 3.5 mln unique visitors, while hp.com is a distant second with 2.7 mln. Apple Store is probably the best online store with annual sale in billions of dollars, Apple also host the most popular QuickTime movie trailers, and iTunes Music Store sell over a mln songs a week.
In fact, I haven't found another Web site with the combination of e-commerce, movie trailer and music download anywhere near the sophistication of apple.com. And guess what, apple.com is powered by Mac OS X Server.
Now I know why our MS account rep wanted us to visit their lab.
The problem is that I disagree with the practical value of this idea.
It's great in theory. Thousands of people all around the world can look over the source code to Linux, and submit their patches and so on. The same goes for any other popular open source project, be it Mozilla, OpenOffice, or whatever.
The problem is that in practice, it doesn't work this way. The vast majority of development work on most big open source projects is actually done by paid professionals, whether they work for Red Hat, or Sun, or IBM, or whoever. You don't really get hundreds of pairs of eyes looking over each line of code that gets submitted. In most cases, even if you have review and super-review on a project, you still may only get a handful of people.
I actually had some personal experiences to help formulate this view. I'm a professional developer, and I use both OO and Moz regularly at home. There were two particular bugs, one in each product, that were really annoying me, nothing spectacular, just little irritations. I decided I'd look around the source to see if I could fix them. I spent most of an afternoon looking around the source code to Moz, and it was still completely incomprehensible to me. It's not that it would be a problem given the time, but as exactly the kind of "opportunistic" helper constantly advocated by the open source world, I just didn't have the time or enthusiasm to invest days in learning my way around. I put up with the bug until the next release instead. And given how much of my spare time I spend keeping sharp and helping out the on-line programming community in other ways, if I gave up, I'd bet that the vast majority of others in my position would too.
The whole "anyone can review and fix it" argument for open source is a great big con, and always has been. It's true in theory, but in practice the barriers to entry are so high that few except for professionals and long-standing volunteers actually do it. Just check the changelogs for your favourite large scale project and see how many different names come up. If the theory is right, there should be hundreds of small contributions by Joe Developers all over the place. Usually, what you actually get is a whole load of things by the same few people.
I would suggest, quite seriously, that procedurally code is often more reviewed in a good commercial outfit with a solid QA set-up than in the open source world. I submit that most of the best open source projects are of the high quality that they are because of the quality of individual developers they attract, in both skill and attitude, and not because of any mass appeal and wide-scale code review.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's probably because MS keep copying and stealing ideas from Apple and other companies without real insight or understanding, which make it hard fro them to integrate with their own typically bad design.
.NET Server 2003 for marketing reason - what a waste of human intelligence.
Despite the author's infinite admiration for MS, his description of War Room in part 2 is a clear indication that the Redmond Beast lives in a mad house.
I feel particularly sorry for the poor developers who suddenly were asked to fix the tens of thousands of "branding bugs" after MS had decided to drop the stupid ".NET" from Windows
For 6 days a week, hundreds of unlucky people have to be at the War Room meeting at 9:30 am shouting and cursing each other to pass bugs around, after housands of more unlucky guys begins the same process at 8:30 am. Programmers are supposed to be on duty 24 hours a day, and some are called back at 3 am to fix bugs!
The real in depth testing of Win NT was done by six monkeys in England, after which the six monkeys started work on Windows 2003 server. Each monkey is now MSCE certified. This greatly improves the level of support for Windows Server, as now there are more monkeys working on it than ever.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
If what you get has a problem with your hardware, it
is cheaper to buy different hardware than get a software fix. The whole premise of Microsoft is bad. The OS becomes overburdened by added hardware command structures that cause through put restrictions.
Good example is the print server limitations caused by print drivers. Gives my wife fits on their NT system everytime a new printer needs to be included or excluded from the routing.
If it wasn't for the fact that Microsoft has hardware companies squeezed by the balls, Microsoft would very quickly lose the majority of its buisiness. Their server software sucks, because of the use of too many hardware drivers.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
"We've tapped into that 40 billion dollar cash reserve we have, and decided that spending a couple percent on QA testing might be a good marketing investment"
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I thought NT stood for Never Tested! Who knew? But then again why bother to pay people to test it when you can get real user feedback and fix it with a patch later. =P
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
The article would be much longer if it would discuss about the Microsoft software testing procedures outside Microsoft.
In the 1950s and 1960s the automobile manufacturers in USA (and to some degree in western europe) built bigger and bigger cars. Then in the 1970s the oil crisis struck, making these big and gasoline-hungry cars way too expensive to the avarage joe.
Now lets look at the software industry. Microsoft are making their systems bigger and bigger, each version being bigger and more bug-ridden. Then suddeenly comes Open Source seemingly from nowhere! While Microsoft isn't down yet (they do have bigger market penetration than the big cars had), they are now struggling if not for their life, at least to keep a good market share.
Oh, and while talking about SUVs, who the heel need a jeep with four wheel drive to go from a house in the suburb to the mall (probably in the same suburb)?
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
But, this article IS about MS' testing methodolgy: they put out a product, let customers pay to test for bugs, and whatever they find is fixed in the next OS version. Brilliant.
You are confused about device drivers with the OS. A modern microkernel OS like Mac OS X and Win 2k should just provide a plug-in architecture capable of supporting any number of devices - without coding device-specific logic in the OS.
.NET Server and Longhorn? After all those noisy and expensive ballyhoos, now they called it Windows Server 2003 (which adds tens of thousands of "branding bugs" for their own programmers), and Longhorn is at least 2 years away. Ever heard about the revolutionary file system WinFS (Windows Future Storage) to be introduced with Longhorn? No, that's just a joke as well, according the latest MS thinking. How about the latest and greatest invention NGSCB (Next Generation Secure Computing Base)? We shall wait and see, but whoever came up with the stupid moniker deserves death sentence in my court. What about DRM or Passport? Well, MS is asking the manufacturers of MP3 players and other digital devices to build an internal clock so that Windows can check the expiration dates and prevent people from playing songs or videos once they stop paying the monthly fees. But fortunately, Apple has beaten MS again with FairPlay and iTunes Music Store - over a million songs per week just for US Mac OS X users - more sales in a week than all the existing music sites have managed in a year or so - just imagine the figure when iTMS is available before the end of this year.. Once again, Apple delivers with no hypes or fusses.
.NET which costs more than $3000, all programming tools on Mac OS X are free, and there are dozens of them. Further more, these tools are more powerful and better than anything I have used on Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, IBM AIX.
Mac OS X provides low-level support for industry standards like USB, FireWire, BlueTooth and so on. It's totally upto the device makers to write the device-specific stuff and do most of the testing. It's my experiences that plug-n-play works much better on Mac than on PCs. My Cannon digital camera just works on Mac OS X without any installation, but the same camera requires lengthy installation on Win XP.
Maybe Windows is not so well designed in this respect, which might explain the 50 mln lines of bloated code base. You people give too much credit to MS in this case, and too little to third parties. MS is a monoply and a known bully. They may give a little help to their big partners like HP or Dell, but smaller companies like nVidia and ATI have to pay MS and work really hard to get things certified by the Beast, and only fools are naive enough to believe that MS ever gives a damn about the tiny unknown fishes, let alone writing code for them.
In any case, to suggest that MS has to develop for "hundreds of thousands components" is just stupid. I will grant you hundreds or even thousands, but not hundreds of thousands.
Personally, I believe the average Windows crowd are just not intelligent enough to see through the MS smoke screen or to actively seek better alternatives.
MS is only good at two things: it imitates and hypes. Apple and IBM are the ones that inovate and deliver.
How many years have they been talking about Windows
I am a Unix geek with over 10 years C / C++ / Java experiences, and use Windows 2K and XP regularly. There is no doubt in my mind that Mac OS X is the superior OS in every way. Windows people don't realize that Mac OS X also comes more and much better quality software than any version of Windows. Take iPhoto as an example, it's a very smart and powerful photo database, while Windows XP only provides the My Pictures folder.
If you are a programmer, there is simply no better system than Mac OS X - Windows or anything else. Unlike Visual Studio
Don't just take my words, do a Google search and find out how many alpha geeks are switching to Mac OS X: James Gosling (Java inventor) and his Java team at Sun, James Duncan Davidson (original author of Apache Tomcat and Apache Ant), Tim Bray (XML inventor), Perl 6 core team, Tim O'Reilly (geek publisher), and 4 or 5 Slashdot editors including CmdrTaco himself.
According to a recent survey
http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNew s.asp?id=9361
"Apple Computer Inc.?s Apple.com led all computer hardware sites in number of shoppers for the week that ended May 11, according to Nielsen/NetRatings? AdRelevance report. Apple.com logged 3.75 million unique visitors, 73.7% of all visitors to hardware sites, which hosted 5.09 million shoppers for the week.
Next behind Apple was Hewlett-Packard Co.?s HP.com at 2.47 million visitors; Dell Computer Corp., at 1.94 million; Gateway Inc. at 312,000; and Toshiba.com at 157,000."
For those who claim that Apple doesn't have a server OS, apple.com is powered by Mac OS X Server.
and this is something that the OSS community lacks.
I dont know if the biggest distro's have capital to support something like this, but the article seems to guarantee that customers who walk into that testing centre walk out with a license...
Perhaps a cross distro centre would be a good idea, funded in part by the FSF.
One tiny thing I've always wondered about is whether Microsoft people use diffs to the same extent as open source people. In that kind of build-fix model I'd be inclined as a developer to pass around a patch that I thought fixed the problem. But there doesn't seem to be the same awareness of patch/diff as tools.
Are they still using Perforce, or something more tricky? 5000 developers is a hell of a SCM problem.
Imagine testing an Xwindows application to configure networking while the kernel is changing, the networking core is changing, Xwindows is changing, the shell is changing, the compiler is changing, your application is changing, and the tools you use to test with are changing. It is a challenging job.
I want to say "don't do that then"...
You should put it up as an Ask Slashdot question, or perhaps as a poll. I'm sure there would be many interesting suggestions.
Microsoft doesn't really use diffs much, when everyone is on 100 megabit networks and physically grouped together by product and technology, it doesn't make sense to make a diff of a 200kb file so that the guy across the hall can toss is on the test bench and run regression tests.
The Windows team uses a custom in-house SCM. Yes, it is rather tricky, and no, it isn't Perforce.
Ah, interesting. That's more or less the reply I expected.
Saving bandwidth is the least important reason why open source people use diffs. It's more about being able to see what the intended change to the file is, being able to quote and discuss it in email client, and being able to merge simultaneous changes easily (or know that they conflict).
I suppose if everyone had a sufficiently good SCM system then you might be able to check your thing in on a private branch (or whatever) and allow the other guy to see it that way. I think open source projects refrain from that because it would generate too many little branches that don't really need to be stored in the long term, but with a system good enough to hide them except from the people who need them it'd be OK. Come to think of it Subversion would support that way of working pretty well.
Oh, sorry, I was thinking just binaries...as a tester, that is what I usually deal with.
Yes, diffs are used on an hourly basis all over the place. The SCM system and other tools that everyone uses constantly have both traditional unix-like diffs, and colored graphical side by side diffs, etc.
Developers are frequently working on a dozen little changes, a few large changes, and working on service pack fixes for two or three different products in a given day...they would go nuts if they couldn't compare the changes that they made, track and visualize previous changes, etc.