Slashdot Mirror
MS Hires The Salesman Who Won Munich For SUSE
ron_ivi writes "In a move reminiscent of the 1997 MSFT/Borland Lawsuits, Microsoft has hired the SUSE sales guy who won Munich for SUSE.
So if you want a job in this tough job market, just be wildly successful at your current job and Microsoft will come recruit you. (Another interesting Microsoft hire is the chair of the ISO C++ standards body as their VisualC++.NET architect.) Personally I think it's great that they recognize talented individuals and reward them well."
I think it's great that they recognize talented individuals and reward them well.
... and steal their souls. The Nazis hired some talented individuals as well. Speaking of which, I'm looking for a talented aluminum engineer to build a better protective cap... anyone?
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
You mean that town which ran Linux boxes only to end up running VMWare on them anyway to run Windows? I thought it was all a bit weird.
If, as you say, they are so grand at "weeding out the chaff," then how come with all these talented super-geniuses do their products tend to be so flawed? That would indicate a desire to make some really bad shit.
Now, don't get me wrong -- while i primarily use my iBook G4 12" (800Mhz, 256MB of RAM), I actually rather like Windows 2000 Professional. It was more or less "done right" for what Windows is intended for. All the DRM ramblings aside in their new products, why does XP suck so much? Seriously. And why were Windows 95, 98, and as I hear (i never used it myself), ME such abismal failures (unless you count success in $billions, which as a product is true; as software is not true)?
According to that Bob Cringly documentary from a few years back, Gates had intended to surround himself with only the best and brightest who were most capible. Reading Slashdot you would think they are all morons or evil. I doubt either is true. Bugs or not, no code is perfect. Windows is incredbily complex and is bound to have even a few hundred bugs in so many millions of lines of code. That is to be expected. But many of the "bugs" are such gapeing holes and bad design decisions that one must conculde that either they are in fact idiots, or are involved in some sort of evil master plan. I am sure that Slashdot readers will be more than willing to select "evil master plan" as their most popular choice, but i am not so sure. I suspect it to be a mystery that we cannot solve from such distance. Maybe if we were to infiltrate Redmond and discover who, in fact, these people really are...
What's so inherently secure about Linux? GNU, Debian, Gnome, Gentoo, and more have all been hacked in the last six months. That's pretty embarrassing, and don't think people didn't notice.
It's all about the admin. Not the OS.
It's SUSE not SuSE, you clod.
The design is more secure. Look at BSD, OS X, etc, in addition to Linux. When everything doesn't run as root you have a significantly more difficult time hacking a system.
No system is perfect, but starting with a shitty foundation like MS software has, tends to make security an after thought more than a design component.
That is what makes Linux/etc inherently more secure than Windows.
You really have no clue about how the standards body works do you?
Maybe not. I do know that those standards will be taken less seriously if the process that decides on them is corrupt. As a Microsoft employee one must assume that Mr. Sutter will support their proposed extensions. But for what reasons? Purely on merit, or because it is in his company's best interest? The conflict of interest is brazen and obvious, except to you of course. I guess you have to know how "standards bodies work" to rationalize it.
an ill wind that blows no good