Slashdot Mirror
Why Doesn't Microsoft Have A Cult Religion?
rs232 writes "'Apple has one. So does the Java community, Oracle, IBM, and Google. Lord knows anyone who uses Linux or free and open source software is dedicated to spreading the gospel of St. Linus Torvalds and St. Richard Stallman. But does anyone really worship the Gods of Redmond?' While many Microsoft employees are pumped to work there, article author Michael Singer explores why even enthusiastic Microsoft-watchers acknowledge that customers and product developers are unenthusiastic about the software giant. He theorizes that it comes down to passion: Microsoft lost that a long time ago, he says, and so passionate people gravitate to other projects and products."
Microsoft is like America. The biggest, the baddest, and the best. And everyone hates them for it.
Part of the definition of "cult" is (from Wikipedia): ..., term designating a cohesive group of people..., devoted to
beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society
considers to be outside the mainstream . In that
context it would seem self-fulfilling Microsoft not have a
cult... like it or not (I don't), Microsoft is mainstream.
As for the question,
I don't recall anyone ever worshipping the GoR. Heck I even worked there, and it was about being smart, it was about being competitive, but I don't ever remember it about being about customers. Microsoft's idea about good products has typically been:These attributes are hostile for creating cult followings, there is hardly anything there -- just a juggernaut of an industry bully.
This is the stupidest fucking summary I've read since I've been at slashdot.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
I assume the author has never had any experience with a small ISP attempting to sell microsoft small business server. In that market you will find the people that worship the juggernaut.
Here ya go.
True, it's not for Windows, but you take what you can get.
Ask why AT&T don't have a cult following. Ask that about any monopoly.
but it is a Hate Cult.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I know plenty of really passionate Microsoft fanbois. In fact they are the only people I know who have copies of Vista Ultimate.
Microsoft does have a cult religion, it just doesn't involve glorifying Microsoft. Look at the billg borg icon for this article, for example. Microsoft:Slashdot::Satan:Christianity.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
I, for one, have a passion for Microsoft.
A passionate HATRED! HAHAHA
Of course people worship at the altar of Microsoft. It is a very large secular religion, too large to even be a cult, its one of the big religions! Next, Eddie Izzard will be making jokes about the teachings of cathol and the gospel of Bill Gates.
Even Satan has devoted followers. Perhaps Satan is lesser Evil :')
It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
The answer is obvious: Microsoft isn't the underdog and Microsoft doesn't require a positive choice.
Chances are you're running OS X, Linux, Solaris, etc. because you made a decision to do so.
They called it MSCE. You got one, and you got yourself a $20+/hr job. Then the suits engineered a surplus of techs and outsourced every job they could, and that $20+/hr job became a $9.50 an hour job, and low and behold people weren't so happy with Microsoft anymore. Especially since a lot of them where still making payments on student loans.
Yeah, some of the blame goes to paper MSCEs, But not nearly as much as you think. And besides, paper MSCEs don't really care enough to bother proselytizing. OTOH, those ninnies do drive down the value of real techs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...but you dont see them on slashdot because whenever one of them mentions Microsoft in a good light on here or goes against the group think, they get modded to oblivion and/or called a paid corporate shill (because its against the laws of physics to have a good opinion of Microsoft).
When He extended a Noodly Appendage to Bless Microsoft with his Divine Wisdom an unbeliever cut it off and shaped it into the form of Clippy, the Anti Christ.
One day He will Overcome the Satanic Forces at work by dripping his Holy Meatball Sauce onto Clippy, softening what was once hard and Unyileding. And Lo, Microsoft shall become as like IBM and One True Followers of the Way.
Thus it is written.
Beep beep.
"Fervor is the weapon of choice of the impotent."
Slasdot is obsessed with MS, everything they do or say is subjected to unending speculation here, albeit negative. Outside of Slashdot I dont know a soul who really gives a rats ass what MS do and would never in a million years even consider discussing MS in the sort of emotive language used here.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Because they suck?
I considered replying with a snide "Gee, I wonder..." comment.
But in a way, MS does have a cult-like following. Not the company itself, but some of the products. Consider:
Its not the kind of company worship that Apple or Google have, but from where I sit it is a cult-like following.
MS is a massive company with a lot of different projects. There are cult followings for some products, but not so much for the company as a whole. I think its analagous to Sony, there are people who are members of the cult of Playstation, but there is no cult of sony. Companies like Apple and Google have a much more narrow focus, so its not much of a leap to go from being a google search fanboy to being a google fanboy.
The open source thing mentioned in summary is a little different, it isnt a single company that people are loyal to.
That being said I think there is a lack of passion at MS. It seems like everyone who goes there to work as Program Manager (the folks who control the direction of the companies products) isnt tremdously passionate about technology or knowledgable, they tend to be the more 'good at playing big corporate politics' type. They have got a ton of great engineers who are very passionate, but those arent really the guys who control whats going on. Personally, I have always thought that PMs should be mostly made up of engineering types, those guys just seem to be more passionate about the technology in general.
Bill Gates killed a potential hobbyist movement pro-Microsoft on its very beginning, just look at his open letter to hobbyists. Apple and Linux, on other hand, since their foundation had a big appeal with the amateur/hobbyist audience. The first place Woz showed his first machine was a Homebrew Computer Club, and Linus posted his newborn kernel in a newsgroup, for public evaluation.
That's how you get cult followers, appeal to the hobbyists, coders, enthusiasts, people that understand what is going on behind the scene.
Dunno about that. I happily USE open source stuff because it generally means I never have to PAY the poor souls who spent lifetimes developing all the free and open source software I use for fun and profit. I'm happy to see other people work for me for free, but I can't say I'd ever try it the other way around.
bad products. Elite products have fan boys like Tivo and Macs. People don't worship products that they get stuck with. Most of the people who use Windows use it because it is what came with there computers, they frankly don't care.
You cant need a "cult" when you are the dominant entity by far. There is no function for that sort of entity to the current "winners".
It's also true in religion. The only reason the major religions arent called cults is they have established themselves at high enough #'s. Still same religion, ideology, etc. The only difference? #'s.
So, the massively dominant group of people that run windows/MS products sort of "are" the cult... but have already reached critical mass.
In some other reality where apple became dominant... then you could see a MS cult. But not happening... most of apples success if playing to the idea they are somehow an underdog little comapny that is cool.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Microsoft is like Christianity. It's been around for a long time - though there are older religions that are much more revered. It has its own quirks, its not without fallacies though the head proponents like to believe otherwise, and its almost a fashion for 'educated public' to poke holes into it and blame everything on it - although many of the very same people refuse to switch to a new religion when given the opportunity. In spite of its wide and well known drawbacks, it continues to be the most popular religion by far.
Above all, the most striking resemblance is that blind faith seems to be only thing that's holding it up.
My sig has been answered.
of course the honeymoon is over.......
a group can only be giddy about being a part of things until the leviathan has so clearly become a festering boil of a corporation that has clearly attempted to screw over every other business and every user in every possible way.
M$ has become a member of the elite group that has all-encompassingly screwed everybody over and by and large gotten away with it.
I believe in the afterlife. I believe satan gets the kind of wood that makes diamond feel inadequate as a material whenever he imagines what he will do with billy when he gets there.
Once absorbed into the corpus of Microsoft, the need for religion is extinguished. The only goal is to assimilate.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The only comparable thing i could think of as well spread in its sector like windows, office and exchange (in enterprise) is cola in the sector of drinks. Probably the same reason why drinks like single malt, champagne etc have a much better fan following than cola. Everyone consumes cola but no one i know swears by them.
They are not the benign god of apple that people worship for their beauty and good effect on their life (freya, Venus etc...) they are the vengeful hatefull god which is capricious (loki, cthulhu, satan, my cat, just kidding for the last one) you know, the one you hope never look at you and ignore you compeltly. "please do not blue screen please do not blue screen" or "please do not make an error while i save my word document with my thesis" or even "oh pretty please, play what I jsut brought without an "exception"" or even "please do not eat my first born" etc...etc... In other word Microsoft is prayed at, every seconds at this moment. Although maaybe not in a nice way.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Uhhh ... you've never been to a PDC (Professional Developers Conference)???
... it's too negative. If you want to find the faithful throngs, go right to the developers.
You've never heard a gillion programmers chanting "cool"?
"Cult" isn't quite the right word
I was a Microsoft fan when I was young, but a decade of uncouth behavior and poor products has removed the veneer on the company's reputation. People are passionate for companies like Apple and Google because they're pushing the envelope and leading the industry to new things, and that's an exciting thing to be passionate about.
In fact, I used to feel the same way about Linux until nothing ever came of the "year of Linux on the desktop" claims every year.
"Sufferin' succotash."
That's the best you could find? Then consider what MSN's store is selling. NOW you know why nobody talks about it... ...if they know what's good for them.... Bwahahahahahahaha!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
To gauge the number of people committed the cult GoR, look at the number of people waiting this time for Vista, at midnight at Best Buy's.
Compare that to the number of people waiting outside stores for XP and '95.
A diminishing cult at that.
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
Surely, you must mean Devil worshippers.
slashdot wonders aloud why there is no cult of microsoft, undoing a decade of stereotypes and prejudice as to the many "obvious" reasons why microsoft is the devil
news at 11
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ever notice how those that have religion are very weak about their belief in it? It's as if a word spoken against it so threatens them that they must defend it vocally and almost violently. In fact, some get very violent about it. Their religion apparently cannot stand up on its own, it always needs the believers to prop it up.
Religionists want their religion to change their world, and they want to change the world to force it to accept their religion.
Many religions have missionaries. Most of them, the missionaries are as obnoxious, if not more so, than the religion itself. And, in many cases, the religion seems to survive in spite of their missionaries.
Now, that was about the OS wars. But, the same could be said about the theological religions as well.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
You don't have a cult of something you need to pay 100$ for every software they make.
Also, you don't have a cult for something which isn't better then others.
Also, You don't have a cult for a company which isn't for the open source community which is by far the people's interest.
Take all of the above, and think why Google has a cult, and you'll see all of the above are the opposite answers when we're comparing Microsoft and Google
Read and Comment at my BLOG
!!!
..and here is its lone adherent.
If you ever came across an underground blackhat site where malware and crackware authors collaborate and exchange information about the internals of Windows and reverse engineering, it's actually pretty cult-like. These sites have the stereotypical white or phosphorous text over black background design.
You can find such site by Googling for keywords like softice OR disassembly tutorial. Search terms like dll hook tutorial also returns several underground sites because it's an essential technique used by spyware authors.
I once had a signature.
That shit was hot! Nice little coochie she has got there.
Yummy.
"that's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft." see http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/06/142322 3
Apparatchiks everywhere seem unenthused about the Soviet giant. Could it be that he has lost his mojo?
In other news, how does Bill Gates maintain his good looks?
Bill Gates Centerfold.
I know that Microsoft owns bungie, and xbox- they have a cult following, and i can't think of any others off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure, quite a few subsidiaries of microsoft have cults, just not really under the name MicroIAMEVILIWANTTOKILLYOURCHILDRENsoft ;)
> In fact, I used to feel the same way about Linux until nothing ever came of the "year of Linux on the desktop" claims every year.
Linux got on my desktop a couple of years back.
Dell (the company that always only ever sell Windows to get better contracts with Microsoft) are now selling Linux to home users.
Last Thursday Uruguay started distributing Linux computers to kids.
So when will your Linux on the desktop be?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
At the risk of sounding like a troll, it comes down to: fanboy cults develop around the underdog, not around the big 800 pound gorilla who is winning anyway. Or rather, fanboys/zealots/cultists seem to have this need to, pretty much, save the world. Or at least they need something to defend, some cause to champion against all odds, some us-vs-them theme where "them" can be perceived as a credible threat. They have to be the (messiah of the) minority, even in a perverse minority-inside-a-minority way, or at least the unsung defenders against the barbarian hordes. They have to feel persecuted, looked down upon, but know in their heart that they're the Luke Skywalker against the might of the Empire, or one of the outnumbered hoplites at Thermopilae against the Persian hordes.
This isn't just about tech fanboys, but a more general phenomenon. You don't get many zealots when you're the one religion, you get them when it's 12 apostles vs the whole world. When it's the mainstream religion _and_ under no credible threat, you just get sheep and wolves in sheep skin. To get people all worked up there has to be a threat, a battle against all odds, where they're the few saving the world from a(n imaginary) threat it doesn't even acknowledge.
You can see that in Christianity too. Most of the spark it retained past a point was not because it was already the winner, but because it fragmented and ended up its own enemy. Arians vs Catholics vs Nestorians, Orthodox vs Catholic, Catholic vs Cathar, Catholic vs Protestant, and protestant factions against each other. That's what got people rallying to be the bleating champions of it: the credible us-vs-them setup, where "them" might just win if someone doesn't gather a (self-)righteous mob against it. When it didn't have such a challenger, it just ended up a court intrigues game where noone really gave a damn about the church. And occasionally it had to invent its own challenge, e.g., the Crusades.
It may sound like rehashing your first paragraph, but it's not. The definition of cult you give, is pretty much cult as opposed to religion. You're a cult if you're non-mainstream, you're a religion if it's mainstream. That's really all that that definition says.
But look at it this way: all mainstream religions got there by first being a cult. You don't get a religion directly formed around the mainstream thing in the first place. If something is already the undisputed 800 pound gorilla without a credible challenger, it already lost the chance of getting its own army of zealots. That's what I'm saying.
And Microsoft simply happens to be at that point, really. Apple is an underdog, it gets zealots. AMD used to be a major underdog, and it had some very rabid zealots, but then it became mainstream and now noone cares. Intel was always the big dog in CPUs, and it pretty much never really had zealots, it at most had some mild fans. IBM didn't use to have zealots either as long as it was _the_ big gorilla. Microsot is _the_ big gorilla and it has no zealots. Whop-de-do, big surprise there.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Oh, and kudos on thinking up "winDOS" and "M$" -- BRILLIANT!! Man, that really shows those bastards whos boss!
I've known some MS cultists. Hard to believe that a /. submitter wouldn't have encountered them.
you had me at #!
So flambaiting trolls can ask idiotic questions like the OP did.
have a historical reputation for fleeing battles once things start getting ugly. I believe this was cited as a significant factor in early American wars where oponents employed German mercenaries, but it has been a while since I studied all that.
As a developer who primarily targets MS platforms I can tell you that most of my peers are in it for the money just like the mercenaries. More tellingly, I know many MS developers who get as far away from tech as possible during their weekends/time off. Doesn't sound like a recipe for inspiration or the creation of products that inspire cultish fandom.
As for me? I am into MS because I am a niche programmer, and most all of my customers are locked in with proprietary niche market apps. They couldn't just switch accounting systems and migrate to Linux... they would have to identify and migrate to numerous small specialty apps to match their current level of functionality.
BTW, I was really pissed about the mudslinging directed toward the Mono project on a recent thread. There are plenty of us out here who want to see Linux make inroads in small markets where MS has ruled for years, and Mono is the best hope we have.
Regards.
The M$ practices are uniformly considered dated, wrong, dangerous and anything but mainstream.
Can you name any fully-featured file systems for Unix that provide transparent compression? How 'bout any Unix that provides transactional file system behavior? Alternate streams/extended attributes that can be read and written as files?
How many versions of Unix have case insensitive file systems? (Personally, I feel that case sensitive file systems should be considered a dated practice.)
MS didn't get all of this right; their implementation of streams and extended attributes I think is lacking from just the FS point of view, and even moreso from the UI point of view, and I could go on a bit of a rant about that. Reiser4 provides what I think is a much better model for how to handle that sort of thing.
But the others are things that I wish that Linux had. And that's just looking at the file system.
No Microsoft cult? Rubbish!! What about all the shareholders?
We have a Microsoft cult right here in Slashdot. Wait until there is a story about a vulnerability in Linux.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I know plenty of really passionate Microsoft fanbois. In fact they are the only people I know who have copies of Vista Ultimate.
I know lots of less passionate Microsoft fanboys. They are like drunk people who don't know they are drunk. The very idea of anything but M$ on their networks is unpossible to them. They don't know how anyone can get along without M$ and treat them suspiciously like a witch or nija. Because M$ is closed source, you have to take it on faith, but they confuse M$ with science. Their OS and software choice is a constant source of irritation and dissaster for them but they refuse to seek alternatives. They consider themselves perfectly rational and normal. These are more dangerous than those who realize their own passions and irrationality.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It just felt similar
Microsoft is the kind of cult that ends in mass suicide.
---- I have nothing more to add.
Windows fans should cheer Linux and Apple, that's their best chance to get better prices from Microsoft and potentially better support while Linux and Apple fans want more people to use their systems in order to have more 3rd parties support their favorite OS (it's not like Microsoft fans are afraid that vendors and manufacturers will stop supporting Windows anytime soon)
So it's different interest for different groups of people, nothing more, nothing less.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Many Microsoft users won't even consider non-Microsoft solutions. That is, when you think about it, a lot more fanatic than the Apple or Free Software users who can usually tell you (to annoyingly great length) why they prefer their choice over the alternatives.
The fanatic Microsoft users don't constitute a cult, of course, since a cult per definition can not be mainstream.
Can you name any fully-featured file systems for Unix that provide transparent compression?
Knoppix has been using such a file system for years. The Linux kernel also has built in support for encrypted file systems.
I feel that case sensitive file systems should be considered a dated practice.
I can't think of a less mainstream idea. Thanks, you made my day.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Microsoft lost that a long time ago, he says, and so passionate people gravitate to other projects and products.""
Passionate people also get laid.
People like No_axe_to_grind or John Zern (heck, most of ZDNet)? The hoards on here who love anything MS and hate anything not MS (ZDNet's stance and the constant "ABM" waved around caused me to come up with the term NBM Nobody But Microsoft: it seems to have taken off...) would cound as far as I can tell a "Cult of MS".
Sophistry: define cult so that MS doesn't have one and then ask why MS doesn't have a cult...
till they started doing Windows... DOS was my everything and i was a real cultist.... until windows came... then i became a Microsoft hater...
It's like Christianity fitting the definition of a cult, but nobody calls it that. It's "normal". Perhaps in some countries it's a minority thing to take note of, but in a lot of western cultures it's nothing to care about if a person is or not. MS has so many customers that it's gone way beyond a cult thing. Nothing to worry about it going away, having trouble finding compatible parts if things break, etc. It's everywhere. It's mainstream. Everybody uses it. You don't have a huge ignorant population not using it, so there's no need top obsessively evangelize it or whatever. There's no one to "save" from being an infidel because everyone already belongs. OK, a few people don't use Windows at all, but that's a very small minority in the grand scheme of things, small enough that the larger group can not worry about being overthrown or anything by some large rival group intent to convert everyone not them to their ways. They either use a MS based PC or they have to figure things out for themselves because no one else knows anythign else to help them, and they don't want to be bothered themselves. Take it to the computer store and have them deal with things.
:)
I think only minority groups and up with cult-like mentalities. I'm in the remaining tiny nanoscopic Amiga community. We're crazy, obsessive, evangelical, and all about "Amiga does X and you don't" stuff about features nobody else cares about. My parents and friends know I have an Amiga, but they don't know why or what it is. My family knows there's something called a Mac out there, but have never seen one or know what it is.
And my comment is redicuous. It's a rediculous question which I suppose only deserves rediculous answers. But coming from the Amiga realm, I'm quite accustomed to rediculous. Thanks for making me so comfortable here.
Hell, I'll be glad to start a cult for MS. All you have to do to join is drink a big glass of our special Jim Jones kool-aid. Step right up!
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
In most areas of life, the better you know something, the better you get at doing it, the more you like it. Like learning to drive a car: When you start, it's hard to notice everything on the road, but as you get better, driving usually becomes fun.
I've observed that Microsoft products usually go the other way around: "Common" users like Windows and Office, more or less. Most of them are scared of anything that works differently. However, as you progress in your level of usage (Get to know the internals of the system, tweak settings, etc.), and use more advanced MS products (Like Windows Server, Exchange, MOM, etc.), and hate Microsoft more, because you notice all the crazy stuff their products do, and the insane complexities and inconsistencies that are hidden in corners of the code, the UI, the data generated, and so on.
That may be why there is no "cult like following" - The users who would be enthusiastic enough to have that attitude, just hate the MS products (that they may be experts on) too much.
I, myself, am an MCP and a Windows network admin, and so are many of my friends, and I noticed that phenomenon in most of them, as well as in many teachers (MCTs!) in courses I've taken, consultants, etc.
Having been a java developer for nearly a decade I never knew there was a Java cult. I wonder if I am a member unbeknownst to myself?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Because us Amiga zealots took 'em out behind the barn and "Old-Yellowed" them 20 years ago with pre-emptive multitasking, amazing graphics, and low-overhead. Poor bastards were gone before they could even get a good start. Though rumor has it that their zombified bodies helped flesh out Microsoft's initial Marketing department.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Knoppix has been using such a file system for years.
Really? Does it support writing?
I can't think of a less mainstream idea. Thanks, you made my day.
I bet if you carried out a survey of users you would find that case insensitivity is *exactly* mainstream.
For added evidence, I point you to OS X, which despite having some of its roots in Unix, still keeps case insensitivity by defeault.
expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I know why Microsoft...err Windows does not have a cult. It is because there is no community. No group of people where everyone knows your name and who you are. Everyone's PCs are too different. And too many people use Windows. It is the STANDARD OS for computers right now.
Cult's start small and grow large.
\
Looking at the premise of the article seriously, there is something here. The author quotes Rob Enderle saying it was there "up until 1995". Well, 1995 is when the legal troubles started and culminated in Gates essentially stepping aside and handing things over to Ballmer. Anyone who's tracked closely I think will agree that it's pretty clear that the legal troubles made things "not fun" anymore for Gates and so the passion that he injected into everything disappeared. Enter Ballmer. Despite his jumping and other foolish antics, Ballmer doesn't inspire passion. And, his stated image for the company is to make it like GE. There's another company that entirely lacks any sort of passion around it. They're everywhere but I defy you to find a "GE fan". So, really, it's by design.
It's easy really. MS is about making profit through sw development (ok, ok, hw and console and etc but you get the point). The FOSS "movement" if I may call it this way has been built around a philosophy, a way of thinking about freedom, freedom to develop, to share, to distribute, to think, and it's much more than "just" Linux (Linux is just a part of it). Today it's lost most of the early juice since many greenhorns join the party who just don't care about the old ideology, but the core ideas are still there, it's just hard to see and sometimes hard to promote without being dismissed. It's partly this which is the cause many would like to "companize" and "enterprise"-ize (see, I'm good at this :))) Linux so as to loose the ideology and even preach that closed development is just as good or better, don't even talk about the "religion" behind FOSS, I suppose it'd be uncomfortable and awkward.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Even at Microsoft itself, a lot of people aren't zealots. A bunch of them dislike/bash/hate/use the software as much as everyone else, but then again I think its cause I work with the IT guys and not the programmers.
Solaris.
Mac OS X.
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
It would appear that an MCSE is worth rather more - sometimes much more - than $10/HR:
Median Salary by Job - MSCE
Median Hourly Rate by Job - MCSE [Both updated May 3, 2007]
They're faithfull are called "businessmen".
They worship Bill Gates as their prophet.
When your company is part of the Microsoft Developers Network, you get to have the Microsoft project management bible, which tells you how to run your agrarian bronze-age village... er, I mean your Inoformation Technology business.
You can't take the sky from me...
I find all these answers surprising, suggesting all sorts of reason why they can't ever qualify as a cult. Isn't the obvious answer (not even trying to be funny here) that everybody hates them?
Property is theft.
The only problem with that hobby is:
- the products are mostly inferior in every category
- the market share is shored up by illegal practices, lies and astroturf
- the corporate ethos of insane greed and blithe, criminal arrogance is clearly trickledown from the crooks at the top
- the resulting monoculture is causing untold direct costs to the industry in security incidents and waste
- lockin is not a valid business strategy (but they never thought of another one)
- the field of computing has subsequently been tyrannised by low expectations
Religion or not, the revolution of open source owes its success in largest part to the indefensible ethics and execution of proprietary vendors - of whom M******** is the poster child. 'Dislike' doesn't seem to cover it.
One way or another, everything will be redressed. Sell your MSFT now.
you had me at #!
Clearly the author has never worked at a company whose IT department gets taken over by a Windows-only chief who outlaws all other OS's because he doesn't want to learn or support them.
Jory
Microsoft isn't the underdog and Microsoft doesn't require a positive choice.
As a managed desktop it's a bad and irrational choice. The exercise of this irrationality is the hallmark of a cult.
Similar things can and have been said by M$ executives about major vendors and software developers. M$ is less under the spell of their own marketing and said back in 2002 that it was in Dell's best interest to sell and promote GNU/LInux. M$ also routinely misleads their developers, considering them "Pawns" and "One night stands" to be lied to and fucked over.
A billion dollars a month in marketing, the trading of secrets for power, lying to and robbing those who trust you ... there are lots of parallels between M$ and any other evil cult. Their adherents promote a immoral code of "sharp business", laugh at "do no evil" and openly advocate anti-social practices. What further evidence do you need?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I got to disagree with the idea that Microsoft never produce anything really good.
Excel might be an exception as its interface at least used to be considered very good.
2 years ago at least one HCI researcher at kth.se admired Excel wrt her field.
I am using OO Spreadsheet nowadays as it is good enough and comes with Ubuntu, but it is still not as good as Excel was 10 years ago.
But then, I guess, 10 years ago there existed more of a Microsoft cult.
I use linux for several things at work and at home. BSD for most others. Windows when I have to.
I'm the last linux user that will ever recommend any free software to anyone else. Quite frankly, the support situation sucks if you're not a company or a nerd willing to spend hours troubleshooting and setting things up. Since I don't want to fix everyone else's computers, I'll tell them to use Windows or OSX and call tech support if they have problems. When Linux and BSD can offer the level of support for home users that Apple and MS can, then and only then will I start recommending them.
I also disagree with Stallman on most things, and I sure as hell do not worship the ground he walks on.
Lord knows anyone who uses Linux or free and open source software is dedicated to spreading the gospel of St. Linus Torvalds and St. Richard Stallman.
I don't particularly like or respect Linus as a person or as a technologist. I also find Stallman's proselytizing off-putting and don't particular subscribe to his grand philosophy.
I think a lot of open source users and developers are like me. So, you're way off when you're implying that people support open source because of some religious zeal. People support open source because it works better and costs less than other stuff.
Paul Thurrott.
http://www.winsupersite.com/
O rly?
What about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the indigenous people of several continents?
I take it history was not your best subject.
Caveat Utilitor
Richard Stallman is a man deeply committed to his principles, who has produced a large ecosystem of extremely useful software, and Linus produced a massively important component of that ecosystem. I respect them both for their technical skills, and also for their passion for their causes, but there is much that both (but especially Richard Stallman) have said which I disagree with.
I know people who are fanatically positive and negative about Linux, Microsoft, Apple, Sony, America, the EU, you name it. I have good arguments with them all. Why? The world isn't black and white (well, mine is a bit as I'm a Newcastle United fan). Deal with it.
Since when? I don't see anyone creaming their panties over the latest release of Pro*C or Siebel point release. Ditto IBM, except when it collaborates with Open Source. Even the Google fanboys have taken on a decidedly muted look ever since their shenanigans w.r.t privacy and data mining have come to light.
Apple and Open Source have a loud, whiny fanboy community that's impervious to logic. They're welcome to it. Most of the rest of us just use the right tool for the job and move on.
Go somewhere random
Mammon.
Computers, pretty much like cars are merely a tool for most of the people out there. Of course they are many car enthusiasts but most of the people are not.
They managed to spread their OS and make (even force due to the inertial force of their big user base) people to use it. They just don't need to be praised, and certainly they're not.
Which OS would someone choose if...
-they never read Slashdot (the Bible)
-weren't interested in being converted by OS preachers (prostlytizing)
-and just wanted a tool that was reasonably priced and worked (secular bottom line)
I should add that cults are often obsessed with creating images of their sacred idols.
You really don't hear about many Satanists today just about people who do evil things for their own gain. In the Church of GNU Microsoft is Satan and many people use there evil products for their own gain.
In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god, and bill gates looked at it and said it was good.
MCSEs! Several of these people have shown some weird cultishness. It's sort of a technical thing, but it reeks of a marketing thing too. It's like they're trained to deploy (or at least suggest) Microsoft products in situations where it just doesn't make any sense at all. No one else has seen this?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Down in the trenches, the guys go "man, I hate this crap, why do we have to use it?". Up above, where corporate greed rules, they fully understand what Microsoft is and approve, it reinforces and legitimizes their own notions that they too should be able to utterly dominate whatever business they are in. They dig it, it's the same mindset. Want to see the cult members? The rich guys in the black suits who call all the shots, they are all in the cult of excessive greed. It's hardwired in their DNA. Everyone here remembers those kinds of kids back in gradeschool, there was always a few standouts, kids who no matter what just had to have everything, by whatever means possible.
Those kids grow up. Stupider ones get caught up in petty crimes, they become lower level predators, a lot of the smarter ones go into business to become one of those topdogs. Not to make a living, but to be able to dominate their surroundings. Business or politics (it's the same really), the ones who get to the top in the power structure *really* want and almost need to be there. and nothing that goes wrong is ever their fault-one of the power perqs of being dominate, and you are allowed to be batsquat crazy enough to believe it and not get called on it by society, because the other batsquat crazies are the ones in charge over there as well. See: history of wars and crazed rulers. Nations don't really go to war, a few crazies at the top get in a tiff with each other-but they call the shots because they are dominate and got into that position of power so all their herd animals must obey and "go to war".
MS and how they have always done business is an inspiration to these guys, they are champions to them, invincible. They think you can only get big or "be successful", by being the topdog, by being the most ruthless predator out there. Business is war to them, it's no rules combat, it's not just about making a living, all of them are WAY beyond being rich enough to survive and be most comfortable, so what's left? Power, dominance, never being satisfied, got to have more, more, MORE, and if you can't have it, you have to destroy what you can't have.
"Can you name any fully-featured file systems for Unix that provide transparent compression?"
ZFS on Solaris10
"How 'bout any Unix that provides transactional file system behavior?"
ZFS on Solaris10, again
"Alternate streams/extended attributes that can be read and written as files?"
Do you work for Sun or something? ZFS... it does that.
"How many versions of Unix have case insensitive file systems? (Personally, I feel that case sensitive file systems should be considered a dated practice.)"
All of them can use FAT32, but case-sensitivity is eminently useful, and only ancient operating systems ignore case, so we keep it.
All that, plus it's open-source
Human Sacrifice
load "$",8,1
Slasdot is obsessed with MS, everything they do or say is subjected to unending speculation here, albeit negative.
and mostly correct, because M$ is evil.
Outside of Slashdot I dont know a soul who really gives a rats ass what MS do ...
That's because they don't know what M$ does. They know that their computer sucks life more than anything else in their life but they don't know why or that things could be different.
One of the main reasons "normal" people don't know anything different is because people like you, practitioners of the M$ cult. Did you even realize that you were a member of a cult?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft does have a cult. A very large one that contains most technologically illiterate CXOs and a horde of IT professionals that wouldn't have a clue what to do with a shell. Also, I know of plenty of programmers that are passionate about .Net and think Silverlight is the future. Seriously! I can't believe it either, but there are a bunch of them. Just because in your circles no one is in this category doesn't mean they aren't around. I run into them way too often.
With the BSA as the Spanish Inquisition?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Can you name any fully-featured file systems for Unix that provide transparent compression? How 'bout any Unix that provides transactional file system behavior? Alternate streams/extended attributes that can be read and written as files?
You're looking for ZFS. It's in OpenSolaris, BSD 7.x, and Mac OS X 10.5. Linux has a FUSE port, but until the kernel devs get over their 'rampant layering violation' buggywhip-thought Linux doesn't/won't really have it.
How many versions of Unix have case insensitive file systems? (Personally, I feel that case sensitive file systems should be considered a dated practice.)
All I know about is HFS+, on linux and Mac OS X and ext3ci from fellow Slashdotter Bill Herrin, but that's because I haven't looked to hard. JFS has it too, I think.
Reiser4 provides what I think is a much better model for how to handle that sort of thing.
Agreed, Reiser4 is awesome from this regard. I'm not sure if ZFS is that advanced or not, especially in the realm of semantics.
But the others are things that I wish that Linux had. And that's just looking at the file system.
Would it be too rude for me to say, "look harder"? At a minimum I'm glad you posted the question here before giving up. Have fun!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Back in the old days, there were enough fans to carry a 'cult' sign.
But now, they just suck. Few want to be associated with them beyond 'I get paid to support their software'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...mostly corporate developers who are very happy that there are so many easy-to-use (albeit unstable) tools to develop apps on. They don't pay the costs directly, so they think it's great. I've always been happy to develop on the MS platform, as long as someone else absorbed the financial burden.
Quite frankly, MS is very developer friendly, if you are willing to pay for the privilege.
Thanks,
Mike
Welcome to Slashdot, where the boundaries of reality are subject to the necessities of making exaggerated points about fairly meaningless topics.
Hell, for that matter, welcome to the internet. Here is your guidebook: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
and St. Richard Stallman
The name is St. Ignucius!
Xbox(360)
The general feeling among consumers is that software costs too much, and doesn't offer a significantly enhanced featureset with each new release to warrant the additional cost. Additionally, the software runs slowly, is bloated and is full of security holes which could easily be fixed -- but the simplest fixes run counter to MSFT business strategy and are therefore ignored.
In a nutshell: The very simple problem with Microsoft is an overwhelming consumer opinion that they place their business interests well before the interests of their customers.
Passion? Quite honestly I could give a crap. What I (we) would like to see is well built products at reasonable prices which don't come along with draconian contracts and "security holes cum business models".
My two cents.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It's gotta be an obscure, little known cult then...
Hey, I'm posting this from my Powerbook. Though I could have posted it from my FreeBSD computer as well. No microsoft here, so I'm afraid I'm not one of those rabid MS evangelists you seem worried about.
:-)
The derision/sarcasm is real though
You need to have a vision to have cult worship. Microsoft has no vision. All they do is buy competitors out and sell unnecessary upgrades that aren't backwards compatible. Who would worship that?
Wait until there is a story about a vulnerability in Linux.
Nothing amuses me quite like M$ predictions of OS X and GNU/Linux security doom. M$ fanboys are starting to believe in the free software rapture, where vendors, companies and individual users will be embraced and empowered by free software and M$ falls off the face of the Earth. They project their own version of hell past that rapture however, so that they will never be tempted beyond what they know. All of the unfaithful shall suffer worms, trojans ad servers, poor performance and all the other crap users of Winblows put up with now.
The main article of M$ faith is that M$ is "good enough" and that everything else must suck as hard as M$ does. It is followed blindly, without trial and against all evidence.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft has fan boys all over the place. Many sysadmins will preach the up sides of microsoft all day long to those who will listen to them. From my experience, their cult following is as large as Linux's.
Lord knows anyone who uses Linux or free and open source software is dedicated to spreading the gospel
This is such bull. For every Linux fanboy there are 10 regular joes using Linux to just get stuff done so they can go home and play with their kids. The zelots just draw more attention to themselves.
In fact, it is my experience that the guys spreading Linux / OSS religion know LESS than the guy just getting stuff done. They don't work in large environments where Linux is really put to work. They know nothing of Kerberos or pxe booting or anything like that. They take one look at KDE and declare Windoze obsolete but have never worked in an environment where you need to manage 20,000 desktops.
They do have a cult. I've seen several ms-only-and-proud-of-it software shops, worked in one of them. Once you're there the cult is very visible.
Umm..can I borrow your computer? My two sisters are a major PITA!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
ZFS on Solaris10
ZFS is another file system that gets it right.
I'm not saying that NO Unix has these features, just that they are few and far between. (I will admit to not knowing that ZFS had transactions though.)
but case-sensitivity is eminently useful, and only ancient operating systems ignore case, so we keep it
Useful for what?
Every company I've worked in over the last 20 years has had a Microsoft cult; those same cults clamour for the homogeneous platform, certification, tools, ad nauseum. I've fought with so many of these cults to the detriment of projects its made me loose my passion for technology.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Passion and money can coexist for a time, but one eventually kills the other.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
their called pc gamers.
You, and the idiots that marked you 'funny,' should die in a fire. If this is what passes for comedic wit in your community, let me man the nuclear armaments now.
Someone joked 'because they suck', but it was incorrectly modded Funny. Seriously: It isn't hard to see why. Their products are at best uninspired. They take their users for granted. They don't respect or even pretend care about their customers. Let's look at their portfolio:
Windows Vista: No one asked for this. Slow, DRM-heavy, UAC slapdown. Our only choice is not to upgrade.
Office: It's a word processor and spread sheet. How sexy can that get? After '95 nothing more to add.
Visual Studio: This is slower than the old Borland Turbo C++! Incremental compiles aren't. In 2003 had a huge bug that *really* slowed the linker, which they never fixed. http://www.workspacewhiz.com/OtherAddins.html
SharePoint: It's hard to get excited about redundant software with this sort of PR drivel: "Create powerful solution applications on the SharePoint platform to enhance your productivity and deliver rich-looking sites." Zzzzzzz
SQL Server: Early versions were a buggy dog. Did it get better? Who cares. We use MySQL, Firebird or Oracle instead.
IE: Compare Firefox to IE. The only people using IE are the lamers who don't know about spyware, malware and trojan horses. MS only updated IE when Firefox cocked their leg on them. How lazy is that?
ActiveX: Any barely awake geek could tell this was a bad idea when they first heard of it. Yet Microsoft blundered off and did it anyway.
Zune: Small, brown and fits in the palm of your hand. Much like taking Fido for a walk.
MSN Microsoft Search: Google does it so much better.
DirectX: Version 10 won't be supported with XP. Way to leave us hanging. Use OpenGL instead.
Older OSes: XP is the exception: wasn't bad. ME was a disgrace. 95 was a ripoff, but a pretty one.
Every time Bill gets on the tube and declares he has something new and "COOL", the "COOL" part has always that he'll make more money. When Steve Jobs says something is "COOL", it usually is. Jobs is printing money, but he at least cares about quality and delivering to his customers. Same can be said of companies that do have a Tech Cult. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't care about us, so why should we care about it?
Jobs was right: "Microsoft has no taste."
People use Microsoft products because they have to.
People use Apple and Linux because they want to.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Many religions have missionaries. Most of them, the missionaries are as obnoxious, if not more so, than the religion itself. And, in many cases, the religion seems to survive in spite of their missionaries.
Sometimes they are - sometimes they're happy to convince others by living a virtuous life. I'm unlikely to be convinced by either, but I'd be happy to have lunch with the latter type, but not the former.
Here's a memorial blog post about a friend of mine who recently passed who could have been considered an Apple missionary, of the latter type. In that post I asked many of the same questions that the OP did, and there's a nice picture of plates of six-colored Apple cookies that friends made in her honor. Windows users, at that.
Interestingly, along your line of inquiry, keeping up with the latest Apple news and products seemed to offer her comfort as her health declined, not unlike some people use religion.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Can we re-instate Microsoft-free Fridays again? This last week has had way too many fluff pieces on the cult. We need a break at least one day a week.
Just a guess but since the mid to late 80s, there really hasn't been anything to get excited about coming out of Microsoft. Sure, some people( Miguel ) get excited about copying others but most developers get 'religion' when amazing things are laid out before them and they get the feeling they are paving the way to the future. At Microsoft, it's gotta feel like RE-paving the way to yesterday. What's to get excited about? IMO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
20 years of first participating in, then avoiding in disgust, and finally observing with amusement the platform flame-wars tells you (at least) one thing: all sides have their share of zealots, who are the minority of their respective herds.
I follow Grand Inquisitor de Raadt!
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
M$ is like a good drug: it makes you lose all touch with reality.
There's not much "good" in the M$ nightmare these lost souls consider reality.
If they were actually on drugs, the good and bad experiences would at least come from within.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I work at a university where those responsible for computing technology don't even seem to consider non-Microsoft solutions. Every embrance and extend technology that comes out of Redmond is rolled out as soon as possible. The people in charge seem quite like a cult of Microsoft to me.
...but it slowly vanished after 1995. We just didn't get anything in return, there always were lot of promises but they never make it to the final product.
They are not a allmighty superior being wich only wants us to belive in it... they do want our hard earned money and they require us to upgrade our perfectly working hardware (= even more of our hard earned money) just to use the new version wich btw. is not the version they promised because cruicial features just didn't make it in time... and so the belivers are now just slaves, this situation reminds me btw. of the false gods in Stargate.
I have abandoned the false god in Redmond (and now he has btw. left his church)...
...and do worship the great Penguin now.
--
Wake up, Neo... The Matrix has You...
If they don't, what the heck was all that .NET crap? I think it depends on location... I am certainly surrounded by the cult of Microsoft at my job.
The Admin and the Engineer
Doubling the number of possible file names within, of course! Everyone knows that the easiest and most mnemonic way to have two separate but similar files is to change the case of one or more characters in the file name. Numbers are for sissies.
Seriously though, it was of extreme importance when files could only have names n characters long, but since modern file systems allow file and folder names to be of virtually infinite length, it serves very little use except to those few who prefer it to sequential numbering or are so accustomed to it as to be uncomfortable without it. Oh, that and to make it harder to remember the names of files, and increase the rate of errors due to typing error.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
I believe that is to preserve backwards compatibility with old programs that assume case insensitivity from the pre-OS X days.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Because PenIsland and PenisLand are two very different ideas that should not be confused.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
The obvious answer is that it doesn't have a cult because it is a cult.
Hear me out. If there were a passionate windows following, they would be screaming bloody murder about every little minute detail that didn't approve of. Rather fortunate for MS is their products are an integral fact of life for business around the world. Passion is not healthy for this, you need stability, calm, rational thought, and the ability to plan into the future. It may be wonderfully dramatic when Stevie J enveils the new anti-aliased cursor for thundercat V10.8.3.6.2, but third parties that create software need to not be caught off guard when functions change. Microsoft operates in a very friendly way to third party devs, enterprise infrastructure planners, and CIOs. These are dispassionate people, people that use a computer to do something productive.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
From the political arena. The USA is bashed constantly. As the 800 pound guerrilla it's expected and faults are highlighted and the good stuff rapidly forgotten or intentionally ignored. I imagine bashing the British Empire was fashionable in it's day.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? Nothing!
Because PenIsland and PenisLand are two very different ideas that should not be confused.
;-)
Actually... that's a pretty good response.
Still, I argue that this is merely an argument for case preserving file systems rather than case sensitive ones.
Yes, but you sorta just illustrate my point. I was talking about zealots rushing to woship the gorilla, which mostly won't happen. You're talking about zealots rushing to bash the gorilla, which, yeah, happens all the time.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Mac OS X.
You can use case-sensitive HFS+ too.
XNA is similarly amazing and liberating if you've been slogging along in game development in C++ for far too long.
AMiGA Forever!
// instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
Can you name any fully-featured file systems for Unix that provide transparent compression?
For writing: None, since it is a pretty bad idea with regard to performance, fragmentation and reliability. For reading, there are several. One is used by Knoppix for example. Also note that the Linux kernel is usually loaded in compressed form.
How 'bout any Unix that provides transactional file system behavior?
Again a very bad idea. If you need that, use a database, not a filesystem.
Alternate streams/extended attributes that can be read and written as files?
And again, a very bad idea. In fact extended attributes are a bad idea, since they break compatibility.
How many versions of Unix have case insensitive file systems? (Personally, I feel that case sensitive file systems should be considered a dated practice.)
So the filesystem should understand case semantics? Very, very bad idea. Especially if you allow Unicode filenames.
I think these features were though about by the Unix and Linux crowd numerous times and rejected every time because they are dangerous and break more than they fix.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I do respect the very young Bill Gates. I picked up a copy of Fire in the Valley (I highly recommend it) and learned that young Mr. Gates was actually a hacker by the true definition of the word. When he was in high school; Bill and Paul Allen worked after school debugging software that ran on DEC machines. In fact, they found so many bugs - they were redirected because the computer owners got a service discount for every bug found. Bill also was challenged by CDCnet which claimed it was unbreakable (Larry - pay attention here) and he broke into CDCnet in a very short period of time to prove a point: not to be overtly malicious. I very much respect and admire *that person* - the one who mixed CP/M with a little Xenix; I am non too fond of . . .
Uhm.. You get more than double. aabbcc != Aabbcc != AAbbcc etc.
For writing: None, since it is a pretty bad idea with regard to performance, fragmentation and reliability.
Yes, thank your for making the value judgment for me about what weight I want to place on each of these.
As it is, the fact that NTFS supports transparent compression made it possible to do some things I was working on my laptop without either jumping through big hoops or destroying the Linux partition. (Or buying a new drive.)
Again a very bad idea. If you need that, use a database, not a filesystem.
What if you just want files?
For instance, take Subversion. SVN supports both a file system repository database, and one using Berkeley DB. For a while, the Berkeley DB was the only one it supported. Then they added the file system one, and later made the file system database version the default option when creating a new repository. The file system's chief advantage? Berkeley DB repositories aren't portable from one system to another. Now, think about how much code and how much thinking probably went into making SVN's transactional support correct. Now, think about how much would have been needed if they could rely on a transactional file system.
Besides, what's the difference between a file system and a database?
And again, a very bad idea. In fact extended attributes are a bad idea, since they break compatibility.
The problem with not doing something because it will break compatibility is that we'll never make progress. Extended attributes/streams could be used for a whole host of useful things if they could be used nicely.
(As it is there are still enough useful things you can do without suffering compatibility problems that they would be a useful feature.)
So the filesystem should understand case semantics? Very, very bad idea. Especially if you allow Unicode filenames.
Yes, it makes the implementation more difficult. However, I think it makes the end user's experience better. And it's THAT we should be designing to, not how difficult it is to code.
isn't the "cult of dead cows" a cult for microsoft? who said microsoft does not have it's own culture?
?
"But does anyone really worship the Gods of Redmond?"
Quite a lot of us do! All hail Satoru Iwata and Reggie Phil-Amis!
Oh, you mean that campus down the street. Nevermind.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198321&cid=162 64293
I walked into the local CompUSA last weekend, three days before it closed. About all that was left were optical media, cables, 500VA UPS's and Zunes - mind you they were even selling the shelving. Kinda reminds me of when Dell tried to get into the 'iPod' market.
True, but it's more complex.
1. Note my mentioning a credible threat. The us-vs-them in sports is never that sure. Each game could at least theoretically be lost. It might take a miracle, but it happens to every team. So even if you're on top, it _could_ happen that you get a bad day, your best player has a flu, and the next best sprains his ankle in the first 5 minutes. Whatever. This basically is what keeps fan rallied around that team.
By comparison, the corporate world moves very very slowly. Even if someone hired the best 10,000 geniuses, it would be a long time before MS even starts to feel the pressure. It's just not the same scenario.
If you will, the former scenario is the gorilla which _could_ lose even the next game, the latter is the gorilla which after a whole decade is just sorta moving from total supremacy to sorta only massive superiority in the market in some domains. The former maybe could use some encouragement just in case, the latter, well, obviously doesn't need any defending yet.
2. I wasn't talking about fans, but about die-hard fanboys. There's a subtle difference between fan and fanboy. The fan might just be obsessed with his team and spend a lot of time and money on that. The fanboy thinks his idol is the saviour (from whatever threats he perceives) and that you're either a brainwashed idiot and/or part of the enemy if you as little as see some merits at all in another team.
I mean, look at religion, look at Slashdot, read some console gaming forum. It's not just people who just happen to think religion X is cool, or OS Y is really good, or console Z has these neat games, you know. It's people who believe that the whole bloody future is at stake and _depends_ on their converting everyone to their cult. If you don't switch to Apple/Linux/PS3/AMD/whatever, we're all _doomed_. Monoculture disasters waiting to happen, stiffling innovation, fascism, bla, bla, bla, you're guilty of all that and more if you even consider an alternative.
Sad to say, by comparison, most sports fans seem pretty sane. Well, ok, maybe "sane" isn't the word, since some idiots do go to a soccer game just to riot and beat each other up afterwards. But even those, you know, do it because they want to get in a fist fight, not because they genuinely believe that the whole future depends on defeating the other team.
3. Fandom (and fanboyism) is by and large a social phenomenon too. Note that I didn't say that mainstream religions don't get fans. I said they don't get fanboys. What they do get in copious quantities however are, well, sheep. People who stick to the bandwagon just because it's the bandwagon, and it's fashionable among their peers to be seen on it.
These are basically people who go to church on sunday, because (they think) the rest of the city expects to see them there. Or rant about sports just because (they think) everyone else in their group is nuts about that team, and it doesn't pay to be the odd missfit. Or chest-thump about bringing democracy to Iraq, just because they think it would be a faux pas to be heard saying what (they imagine) their neighbours wouldn't want to hear. Etc.
Briefly, it's a lot of groupthink and show business. And you can get them to enact any behaviour imaginable, if you can get everyone in a group of N people to think that the other N-1 do the same and want to see the same. Including making an ass of themselves in the name of spectator sports.
These aren't however, the people who'll prozelitize and go on crusades/jihads. What for?
So in the same vein, the "followers" of Redmond are really just a bunch of people who don't really give a damn, and won't go on a jihad for the glory of Windows. They're just doing the mainstream thing, same as everyone else. And at most they'll put up the kind of behaviour that they (imagine they) see everyone doing about it. Unfortunately that doesn't mean chest thumping like in sports, but being equally jaded and clueless as the neighbour. (And I don't mean "clueless" as in "window
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I totally disagree. Why does it always come down to bashing the innovation of others. People talk about Microsoft intentionally breaking standards or being some evil software giant. what a narrow minded and backward way of thinking. Microsoft has pioneered and made popular many of today's technologies. They have been crucial in the role of incorporating a computer into more and more of our daily lives. Yes they have made mistakes. And yes they are a giant so it makes those mistakes look bigger. Instead of always pointing out what MS is doing wrong, talk about where they can improve. They spend millions developing products that people just sit around and complain about because they can't do it better, but wish they could. At least MS is trying and if they are able to pocket some cash in the process good for them.
Now I know what most are thinking, "oh so there really are die hard MS fans" well I am not one of them. I am a fan of development period. Windows rocks when it comes to my everyday life and makes managing my office and other machines very easy, but I am a die-hard open source fan. Linux is my favorite development platform and will probably remain so for a long time.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Semantic flexibility. If you want you can design an application which uses filenames such that "foobar" means something different to "FooBar" which is different again to "FOOBAR".
Developers have been using this idea for years. In C++, for instance, FOOBAR is (by convention) a macro constant value, FooBar a class name, and foobar a variable, Nor is it entirely unheard of to use all three valiants in one context: FooBar foobar = FOOBAR; You use the same name with different capitalisation to show that the three tokens are related to one another.
The thing is, I don't see anyone criticising Visual C++ for being primitive because it supports case sensitivity. So why is it that you think reducing the expressiveness of a system is a good idea in the case of filesystems? It's not like ANDing a string against 0x20 is particularly difficuly; even in these days of unicode, it still can't be that hard to downshift a file name. So what's the big deal?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
...loves microsoft. he's even blocked users from typing words such as "linux" and "apple". one guy even brought a macbook in with him one day and the Free Thinking alarms went off. shortly afterwards he was dragged out of the room by guards armed with vista's UAC. we haven't seen him since.
You're aware that it's 2007 now, right? And that the two posts you linked to are from 2002? If you still hold all of the opinions you held five years ago, then I wonder if you've bothered using your brain at all in the intervening period.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
But with all of the BSODs, it is a suicide cult.
Why Doesn't Microsoft Have A Cult Religion?
That's like asking "Why doesn't the US have a cult religion".
Why doesn't *anyone* who is the biggest, meanest, most aggressive entity on the block have a fan club?
The answer would be obvious to everyone, one would think.
You know it's the truth. Mod this down all you want.
The answer is simple: Microsoft has no taste. They never have. Presumably, this reflects the limitations of its founder. Even when Microsoft produces the only product that does exactly what they need to do, and you'd think that people would be grateful, they swear at it, because they can't help thinking, "This is great, but it would have been so much better it it had been done by almost anybody else." Microsoft has always been rather good at envisioning useful features, but absolutely dreadful at implementing them in such a way that they are actually useful. Their programs are ugly, operations are implemented in an awkward way, with strange, non-obvious limitations that invariably crop up when you are in a hurry. User interface features are almost always cribbed from somewhere else, and even when the concept is good, they are often implemented in such an clumsy way that it is obvious that Microsoft never really understood them in the first place. These simply are not things that inspire affection.
Huh? 90% of people will simply NOT USE software that is non-Microsoft. Give them a choice between Linux, MacOS and Windows, and 90% of them choose Windows. This is not a "by default" decision: they know that alternatives exist, but when it comes to the crunch, they actively choose Windows.
If you write applications that run on Windows, you will probably find yourself doomed if you try to compete with a Microsoft product. 90% of people will even PAY for a Microsoft product when a FREE alternative exists.
I don't know why this is, but it's clear to me the Microsoft is MASSIVELY POPULAR. In fact, to make the religious comparison, Microsoft is even more dominant of the computer world than Christianity is in the United States.
Ah yes, posts from 2002 and 2003...let's see, the current year is...2007?...last time I checked :-P My powerbook is right now about 3 years old (that would be since 2004) and it's been my main computer since then. I DO still use XP at work, and my FreeBSD desktop CAN--should the need arise--dualboot. you got me there!! I'm crazy and rabid!
. gif
;)
Referencing a Penny Arcade comic followed by a wink emoticon is rabid to you? That's scaaaaary!! http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020722h
p.s. if you were curious, my powerbook uptime is 16 days at the moment, and a freebsd server i manage is currently at 212 days! w0000!111!1one!11 -- bragging (sarcasm in case it wasn't obvious..
You know--you've done background searches on me, analyzed past posts, etc--who in this situation TRULY looks rabid?
One of the largest Invision Power Board installs on the net is Neowin, a Windows user community. And yes, they mostly like the OS. Maybe all aren't fans, but many are. Then you have AeroXP, IEXBeta, and many, many other such sites! The author needs to do his research! Heck, even Digg article comments often have a MS bias.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
inspire the troops. MS acted like bullies, that doesn't win you friends. They also didn't really design for the user. That is why Apple has such a following. Apple's look was soft, pastel and rounded. MS's look was primary colors and sharp edges.
Since XP they have paid attention to the look of the interface, but it looks cartoonish. Ugly and annoying is not a good marketing strategy. Kudos to them for trying rid Windows of the ugly interface. They still need to work on the annoying.
Here's an article that spells out Apple's design philosophy:
from Technology Review
photosMy Photostream
Which experts are you referring to? I think you'd have a hard time finding any unbiased experts willing to bless any OS in wide use today as a model for optimal architecture and design.
It's precisely because Windows was originally kludged from DOS that made it so popular. Likewise, it's the quaint 1970's "small is beautiful" philosophy preserved for backwards compatibility that makes Unix and its clones so popular.
If Linus had set out to make the best original OS following all the best practices of the day without worrying about it running Unix applications, we would never have heard of him.
Gates of course became the world's richest man by trashing the potential of semicondoctors through their greatest increase of price/performance by occupying a monopoly position -- and he hasn't done anything to fix the bug in society that he exploited to do that. He's far worse than any black hat hacker no matter how much he donates to "worthy causes".
Seastead this.
Kill many and you are a conquerer
Kill them all and you are a god
95% of the world eats sleeps and breathes MS. 95% of the world worships MS. Their domination is so complete that you don't even realize how much of a zealot you really are.
As an IT person who just attempted to introduce Sun to our environent I can tell you that the followers of MS are just as fanatical as the most extreme Mac user.
This is nothing new and I'm surprised the question was even asked.
"Ask why AT&T don't have a cult following. Ask that about any monopoly"
I don't know: millions of people paying good money to mumble into your orifice sounds kind of culty to me.
I have a different idea. There is no cult because Microsoft hasn't done anything new that is pervasive for the average computer user in how many years? Making new and unexciting changes to its movie player, office suite, and slowing down the Operating System for us doesn't elicit fanboyism. Look at Google, Google Earth, Google e-mail, google news, being able to IM without downloading a client. Not to mention they brought a new more consumer friendly philosophy to the mainstream. MS is trying to play catch-up but it stopped coming up with new ideas of its own. Apple gave us the iPod, iTunes, a beautiful and stylish OS and computers. What has MS done recently that is innovative?
Nobody likes the incumbent. Everyone loves an underdog. It's not that hard.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
One problem is that Microsoft's best leaders (the ones getting the work done) tend to stay out of the limelight and not generate any kind of cult following. And the visible ones have failed to inspire, except for maybe Bach.
For example Gates bailed (probably got tired of being killed in the media for being evil), Ballmer is used up and was always more of a sales guy (i.e. no cred), Kevin Turner seems to be a hick shopkeeper who is little loved in MSFT (hiring him is starting to look like Balmer's biggest mistake), and Ray Ozzie, who MS put a lot of hope into, has disappeared for years and no one has a clue what he is doing.
OTOH the machine keeps cranking out products that dominate their market; their revenue and profits have accordingly doubled in the last 5 years. Hard to see the failure really. I have been told by Microserfs that they do not consider Linux or Apple to be a threat anymore, and are concentrating solely on Google, with a wary eye on a resurgent Oracle.
twitter, in case you have not noticed, you're describing yourself here. Remember? Including your sockpuppet account, those are just a very few limited examples among almost eight thousand posts you've made to Slashdot.
I'm actually curious - in your opinion what exactly separates this behavior you're describing from your own? I'm not even going to contest that your claims are valid (or even not exaggerated for the sake of making a ridiculous emotional argument), but instead I just want to know if you realize you are basically describing what you do here on Slashdot.
As to your idea of a cult, well, that merits a response all of its own.
I'm not going to try to explain it, but he's wrong. He's so wrong. The reason these other companies have cult followings is that there are a lot of really sick people in the US. That much is all too certain.
For as long as you're willing to have egg on your face, I'm guessing. Or perhaps you were making a yolk of yourself.
Yes, as a matter of fact, Windows back when it used DOS as a kernel was considered an ugly kludge. WinNT has a rather nice well formed kernel, and I do indeed know people who are fans of it!
.NET stuff), they are generally easy to use and have a much nicer, more modern orthogonal feel to them. Well except in places that they are forced to fall back on conventions set by older APIs, and then things get ugly.
I also know people who hate the NT kernel and love Unix-ish kernels, and people who hate Unix-ish kernels.
Now the APIs that are built on top of the kernel, yah, that is very ugly at times, but you are comparing an API that was largely designed in the 80's and early 90's to what? A modern API like KDE? Instead compare it to something of the same vintage. The original X16 API is not exactly a work of art either, simpler at least, but doing anything complex with it... well, that is why KDE was made! KDE is a lot newer than the most heavily used of Microsoft's APIs, and thus is a lot nicer to use.
If you use any of Microsoft's newer APIs (Windows Forms, the
Backwards compatibility comes at a price.
Are there particular niggles that piss people off? Yah. But in general, MS software undergoes a ton of usability testing, and their UI is amazing in the places it is used most often. You don't even need a mouse to use Windows, everything is keyboard accessible. This includes mandating a key that is used for "right click" operations. I have used a fair variety of other systems where developers occasionally just forget to include a key sequence that allows for a feature to be accessed! Or they don't put an element in the tab ordering at all, or make one of any other million UI design mistakes.
I would argue that Windows ME (and to an extent XP, until you beat it upside the head and restore things to their proper place) are regressive in terms of usability, but Windows 2000 is wonderful. Though violating Fitt's law in terms of button and menu placement is annoying...
Nice blanket statement.
Some departments at MS needed to have their heads beat in (and I think by now that they have!), others have done an excellent job on security. It is not like open source doesn't have similar stories. I recall a certain widely used compression library awhile back... not to mention the 1000 and 1 BIND vulnerabilities...
When the internet sprung into popularity, MS was horribly unprepared, and did some stupid things, but on the flip side, they have ACLs, easy to setup security rules for a system, and easy to configure user auditing.
MS has two primary file systems. FAT, which served its original purpose very well (and I might add that the majority of other Microcomputer OS vendors used a similar type of lazy file system!), and NTFS, which is a very reliable file system with decent performance that can stand up to user stupidity quite well.
:-D MS never has been able to make a good file system based search engine, which is funny, because a dozen companies have released good search engines for Windows, you figure Microsoft would just buy one of them up and release the damn thing! :)
As for search, yah, you got that one right.
Read your history. Unix is the original "good enough" OS.
You mean aside from making PCs usable for everyone? Aside from making
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
what brings people to apple and linux is the figurehead, and bill gates was never the figurehead that cults are made of. Bill Gates represents the things that drive people away, his is running a big business, like a businessman, he sells spreatsheets, not new designs, or the promise of a free tomorrow, he is the anti-jobs. :)
There was an unknown error in the submission.
In C++, for instance, FOOBAR is (by convention) a macro constant value, FooBar a class name, and foobar a variable
It's interesting you bring this up, because in the case of the macro, I think it's a flaw in C and C++ that macros have to be so distinguished from other constructs. But that's another debate. (In your example I also think that the macro should be named something like FOOBAR_INIT. For instance, consider the PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER macro in pthreads.)
There is also a much more established convention in programming. For instance, the reason that your example works is because of exactly the conventions you name. Without those conventions, I would think that case sensitivity in programming languages is also a bad idea. Can you think of ANY similar conventions for file names? The fact that I don't think there are any means that when you have to come up with a file name, you have to remember the case. It means that if you're telling someone the path of a file, you have to convey the case too. It means that if you're typing a file name, there is another typo you can make per character. None of these are terribly insurmountable issues, but at the same time, it's just one more thing that makes Unix/Linux slightly annoying.
It's not like ANDing a string against 0x20 is particularly difficuly; even in these days of unicode, it still can't be that hard to downshift a file name.
First, keep in mind that it's not *just* anding against 0x20, you also have to check if it's in the proper range first. Using naive instruction selection on x86, you've added 5 instructions per letter comparison. (Two cmps, two branches, and the and.) It's *possible* that in 1970, this was a noticeable operation and we've stuck with it for compatibility reasons. (Both compatibility of older software and compatibility in the minds of both programming and Unix folks who tend to think that case sensitivity is the right way to do things.)
Also, under Unicode it does get rather more complicated. Things can vary because of locale. Some Unicode characters would be written out as two characters without it, for instance ß (hopefully that came out right; unicode 0x00DF) represents "ss". The capital version is "SS"; this means that capitalizing strings might change the length of the string. It also brings up things like policy questions that have to be answered, for instance if "ß" and "ss" should compare the same.
I strongly suspect that there is a "right" way to do case insensitive matching, and I think that it's well worth it to figure out what it is then do it.
I'll answer briefly without quoting too much:
1) If you happen to benefit well from compresed writes, nice. I am convinced that most people pay dearly in performance though. And, you know, you can ompress files in the application or as a step in a pileline. KISS applies.
2) Besides, what's the difference between a file system and a database?
Simple: Different expectations and a different performance profile. Let one thing do one job and do it well. A filesystem stores files and should do so fast and lean and mean. A database keeps and protects data. It cannot be as fast and lean as a filesystem. It is more complicated to implement. It needs more resources. KISS applies.
3) A filesystem without extended attributes does it's job well. Why break that? And, yes, we can have progress witout adding features. Take paper for example: The basic interface has remaned the same for ages. KISS applies.
4) No, case-insensitivity is not a problem because it makes implementing it harder. It is a problem because the semantics of case it not universal and may be entirely different in an other language. As soon as you put semantics into a byte-string, you put in some cultural prejudices. On the other hand, filesystems do not care about name semantics, just name uniqueness. Why add some transformation to the mix when there is zero need for it, but a significant danger in doing so? KISS applies rather strongly.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
FYI - here's two examples of case-insensitive filesystems available for UNIX systems:
y stem_2_(JFS2)
Last time I checked, IBM's JFS can operate in a "case preserving" mode (the closest you can get to case-insensitive operation and still preserve basic UNIX-like concepts... There's a better explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-preserving). JFS is available on Linux, AIX, and OS/2. I think that the case-preserving option exists for backward-compatibility with OS/2. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Journaled_File_S
Also, Apple's HFS-Plus is "case preserving", and is available on OSX and (I think) Linux. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS_Plus
And, you know, you can ompress files in the application or as a step in a pileline.
Doesn't help me if I can't modify the application.
A filesystem stores files and should do so fast and lean and mean. A database keeps and protects data.
Interesting, I want my file system to keep and protect data.
Perhaps someone should design a file system interface to a database. That would be fine with me.
I'm not saying that EVERY file system has to have all of these features, but it would be nice to have at least one that does that comes with Linux and is pretty much standard, and people who care about the tiny bit of extra performance can use the leaner version. (The time taken processing the transactional stuff is going to be dwarfed by the time spent going to disk when there's a buffer cache miss anyway.)
A filesystem without extended attributes does it's job well. Why break that?
Because good extended attributes adds quite a lot.
Take paper for example: The basic interface has remaned the same for ages
Post-it notes were invented in 1968. Think of them as a real-world example of extended attributes.
On the other hand, filesystems do not care about name semantics, just name uniqueness. Why add some transformation to the mix when there is zero need for it, but a significant danger in doing so?
Again, I disagree with your "zero need".
I don't think I have really ever said "man, I wish that Windows had case sensitive file systems" or "man, I'm really glad Linux has case sensitive file systems." OTOH, I *know* I have said, on multiple occasions, "damn case sensitivity."
The salesmen at my work tend to worship anything they can sell. They worship everything I've come to hate. RedHat, Microsoft. Anything that they can sell really.
Use of the words "worship" and "religion" is flamebait. Nobody worships Linus, or IBM, or Sun. WTF is up with this incindiary prose?
This FA is flamebait (RTFFA?) here's how It would have read if I were Information Week's editor:
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I am convinced that most people pay dearly in performance though.
Also, this will become less and less true, at least until solid state memory becomes common. Hard drive performance is not changing all that much; bandwith grows with density, but seek times more or less don't change.
Meanwhile, processors are getting more cores than application programmers typically know how to use, which means there is plenty of time for compression. Thus if you can save a seek or two by compressing files, you might actually see increased performance. This is especially true for really small files if you have a layout like NTFS where if a file is short enough it will appear entirely within NTFS's equivalent of the directory entry and inode block combined, because files that are too big to fit in there without compression but do fit with compression will lose a seek.
You can probably also gain a big advantage if you only compress files that you almost never use. If you never use them then there is no performance hit, but you get the space. For this reason having the compression support at or above the file system level (yet still providing the same file system interface to programs) as opposed to between the file system and disk can be extremely valuable.
Or to use OS X's approach, which is to have a case-insensitive Finder layered on a case-sensitive FS. Typical users gets the simplicity of the former for all their day-to-day interactions, and the
evaned@gmail.com, I think you really need to consider actually reading up a bit on computers before you fucking talk like you're an expert on them. It's clear you don't have a concise understanding of the subject material.
I have met someone who was a microsoft fanatic. The guy loved anything from Redmond, including ActiveX, .Net, Hotmail, you name it... I think he was
one of a kind. He also used to use Linux (!!).
So, by virtue of my counter-example, it appears that MS does have a (small) cult following. Never forget, though, that it takes a lot of marketing to make "mainstream" appear "cool". I mean, everyone uses Windows XP. How cool can that make you look? Then again, I don't know much about marketing, so...
P.Sure, their products are "good enough" for the average joe to do the average workload in his average job.
Sure, their products are full of features that seemingly cover all bases - until you try to do something that Microsoft either doesn't want you to do, or didn't foresee you trying to do. Then you're screwed. They're by no means cutting edge in terms of getting jobs done.
Linux has religious nuts raving about it because the features it provides are driven by real-world needs, and not a spec-sheet full of tickboxes determined by the marketing dept.
Also, the unix/linux way focuses on providing many small apps that can be linked together through pipes and used as building blocks to perform tasks that even the original programmer may not have envisioned. Try doing that sort of thing with Windows. The Microsoft way is to sell you one big monolithic app. If it doesn't do what you want, you pay the upgrade fee for that feature next year.
Apple has religious nuts because it generally "just works", looks pretty and now also has many of the unix nuts behind it as well (with the underlying Darwin platform).
And to top it off.... virtually *everyone* has been supremely pissed at Windows/Microsoft before due to the dreaded BSOD, viruses, spyware, etc. Having a machine hosed by spyware tends to leave a bitter taste in one's mouth.
Sure, there are solutions to those problems, but the difference between say Linux and Microsoft in that respect is that Windows will supposedly install and work correctly up until the point where it breaks/becomes unmaintainable (example: Exchange message stores, SQL memory leaks, etc). Linux (generally) either doesn't work from the outset (you don't waste as much time betting the farm on it), or does what you expect it to do for the most part.
Those are my thoughts, after dealing with Microsoft stuff since the early 90s, and Linux/free software since the mid 90s.
Note: I use what works for the task at hand. For my home desktop PC, those tasks are gaming, light web browsing and connecting to work. Hence, it usually runs Vista at the moment. Check my posting history, i've been sticking up for vista a bit lately, but will certainly acknowledge it's shortcomings with regards to "stuff microsoft doesn't want you to do" like any other microsoft product. I've put around 60+ Linux/FreeBSD machines into production in various environments, and as far as administration goes, I much prefer to admin Linux/BSD than Active Directory/Exchange, etc.
Ignoring security/reliability for the moment, to use the old car analogy... Microsoft is like the Toyota Corolla of the software world. Gets you from a to b with a minimum of fuss, but doesn't do anything particularly well. If you want to use it for something it's not designed for (eg drag racing) it's just not going to work very well.
OS/X is like a Honda Accord Euro. Slightly more powerful, more luxurious, etc.
Linux/BSD is like a Toyota Supra. Fairly bulletproof, can be tweaked for extreme performance, but if you want to use it to get groceries in then it's just not going to work very well. Also, getting those extreme levels of performance require a little more work and specialised knowledge - out of the box it's not that special... and like any highly modified car, can be temperamental when something isn't quite right - with no manufacturer warranty :D
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
But it's trivial to do a uc(SomEthIng) or the equivalent in whatever language you use to strip out case. Perl even has its "i" tag for regexes
/. crowd can use the sophistication of the latter as they see fit.
Huh?
The point is that if I'm at a shell and make a mistake about the case, either because I'm remembering it wrong or I make a typo, I have to go fix it. What do you want me to do, go rewrite the shell so that it explicitly will perform a case insensitive search and correct things if I'm wrong?
Going the other direction, however, is impossible - the file system didn't retain the necessary information to begin with.
I'm not arguing for file systems to discard case. I think file systems should be case-preserving, which means that it remembers what case you used.
Or to use OS X's approach, which is to have a case-insensitive Finder layered on a case-sensitive FS. Typical users gets the simplicity of the former for all their day-to-day interactions, and the
I'm not sure how to make that work well, though I haven't used OS X. I know how Windows does it, that that prohibits ANY traditional Windows program from using case-sensitive file names. (And, as implemented, Windows's approach to mixing case sensitivity and insensitivity its bad and a security risk. Surprise...)
Can you expand on what OS X does? I know it has an option to enable disable case sensitivity, but I don't know what you mean about it layering an insensitive layer on top of a sensitive layer.
I agree, Excel _is_ good. On the other I think Word is the worst piece of software ever written except for crappy 1990's VB shareware and Lotus Notes, which is the worst piece of software ever made by man (and that includes the Melissa virus).
I haven't tried the latest version, but at least up until now, Word has been a usability nightmare, and since it stopped getting more useful and powerful 10 years ago, there's been nothing but but bloat added to it since. A bunch of tick marks on some marketing drone's list. No one respects bloat. No one could ever be a fanboy of bloat. How many Netscape zealots were there after 4 came out?
Microsoft does some really neat things, especially Microsoft Research, but they are far overshadowed by its vast amount of mediocre and bad things. But even still, MS has software that could be worthy of cult-status, if they weren't a huge monopolistic bully that will do anything to succeed in business _except_ compete. Like was said above, cults grow up around the underdogs, but cults can also grow up around something large and tyrannical, like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany. Microsoft does have a lot of fanboys and dedicated diehard customers, but I suspect that most of them are not technical users. Cults can also grow up around innovators, and Microsoft hasn't innovated anything in a decade or more. They've done some good things, but none of it was innovative. Anything innovative that they could do is released years earlier by Apple or the open source world. Microsoft has invested so much energy, effort and resources into being a monopoly they don't have any other way to compete. And that's a company that won't attract a "cult".
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
crusades started way before than any major sect in christianity - around 1150 or so. whereas first standing and major sect get up around 1450 or so ?
Read radical news here
The most obvious microsoft cultists I know of is the boys at CAD and if microsoft isnt funding that show i cant imagine who is, every week its a new microsoft toy/game or an upgrade to the xbox inspired robot even the 3 finger salute as its namesake. Now dont get me wrong the comic is pretty damn funny, but did i miss something, are we supposed to think its not pure microsoft advertising, its about ALL video brands?
http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
If you use a two button mouse GTFO
If you still use Internet Explorer GTFO
If you spell Mac with a 'k' GTFO
If you have an XBox 360 GTFO
If your refrigerator consists of anything besides blue apples GTFO
If you refer to Apple as Apple Computers GTFO
If you refer to the dock as the taskbar GTFO
If you do not work in an Apple store GTFO
If you do not refer to Steve Jobs as "the iLeader" GTFO
If you...uh..um...PSYCHE! I'm not the "Attention switcheurs" guy. I was just having some fun.
Disclaimer: no Windows PC's crashed during the making of this post.
-1, Offtopic--JINX!!!
Microsoft does have followers/fans, and I'm one of them. So, the article & comments that folks like me don't exist is just wrong. Folks are just not looking in the right places. I founded and run the New York [Microsoft] Exchange User Group http://www.nyexug.com/ . It's over 2 yrs old as well. We meet monthly at Microsoft's NYC office, have about 175 people on the mailing list and all we talk about is Exchange Server. Yes, Microsoft Exchange Server. We are not alone. The same night there's a Microsoft Excel User Group. Yes, you heard that right, Excel! I couldn't handle one of those meetings, so I would consider that a cult of Excel. There's also Small Business Server and Enterprise Windows User Groups. See NYPC for more information on those other groups. http://nypc.org/sigs.php So, there are Microsoft fans out there, you just need to know where to look.
My bio-dad is one. Jackass insists on MSI files to distribute the price quoting software I'm supposed to use for his business, rather than simple .exe files that I'd be able to use with WINE. And I had one classmate who spent more time presenting how he was using Virtual PC for his presentation than he spent presenting the SQL Server installation he was supposed to demo the installation of.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
What is the difference between case preserving and case sensitive ? I can't think of any at the filesystem level.
.zshrc file : zstyle ':completion:*' matcher-list 'm:{a-z}={A-Z}'
The problem is not to have a cave sensitive filesystem, but to have applications allowing some case insensitive behaviour when it is useful.
For example, my zsh shell has completion semi case insensitive (lowercase letter matches lowercase and uppercase, while uppercase matches only uppercase). I find it very useful.
Here is the line you have to put in your
What is the difference between case preserving and case sensitive ? I can't think of any at the filesystem level.
.zshrc file : zstyle ':completion:*' matcher-list 'm:{a-z}={A-Z}'
.cshrc/.bashrc file...
The difference is that in a FS that isn't case preserving, if I create a file "PenIsland.html" and ask for a directory listing, it may return "PENISLAND.HTML". FAT under MS-DOS was this way.
A case preserving file system that is still case insensitive will remember what case I used, so will return "PenIsland.html", but when I say "cat penisland.html" it will give me the contents of "PenIsland.html".
A case sensitive file system will give a "file not found" error in the latter case.
In other words, not preserving, preserving but insensitive, and sensitive form an ordering; it is possible to emulate ones earlier in the list with ones later in the list, but not vice versa.
The problem is not to have a cave sensitive filesystem, but to have applications allowing some case insensitive behaviour when it is useful.
I would be okay with this at a high level, but I think it should be a much stronger statement: the sensitivity should be lost by or at the usual API level. For instance, if a program calls open("Foo.txt") and there is a "foo.txt", I think that it should match the existing file unless it also uses another flag, like O_CASESENSITIVE or something. This would mean that, in general, you could issue a command like "cmd Foo.txt" and have it work (what is IMO) "correctly".
Here is the line you have to put in your
One more reason to use zsh... one of these days I'll have to switch, even though I can't set my login shell to zsh. Maybe put a line to automatically start it in my
Twitter, you're the own who is being rabid here. You're attacking a guy for making factually correct posts from five years ago! You're giving the rest of us Linux/FOSS supporters a bad name. Please stop it.
From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
If you don't think Microsoft has a cult, then you've never known anyone who went to work there as a full time employee (aka FTE or "Blue Badge"). They all drink the kool-aid eventually.
I know one woman who has worked there more than once. Before she worked there, and in between her first and current stints she was reasonably objective about the nature of the beast, but while she's there she's got the gleam in her eye and the blinders on.
Stock options probably have something to do with it, but I think it's really about the immersion in a group of otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people who live in a well established reality distortion field.
Cmon, I know you need the hyperbola to get comments, but most of the Linux users I know of believe the Linux is growing IN SPITE of Linus, not because of.
If you want to see respect try the Stallman followers. He does not have the charisma, and he is not marketed, but if people follow him it is because they have grown to appreciate what his vision has accomplished, and that he is right so many times it makes him look almost god like.
The people that like Microsoft aren't as crazy as the Apple/Google/Whatever fanboys.
They see Microsoft for what it is and what it has done. They do not need to gather and speak of how another company is blah blah.
Blah.
Yes.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You don't worship real gods. Only false gods are worshiped. Real gods are respected, and taken for granted like everything else. That's Microsoft. I have great respect for everything Microsoft. It's all there. And because it's not an escape from other problems, it's work. Microsoft facilitates a great load of wonderful work.
Those people who worship linux as a cult do so because tehy see linux as an escape from the problems of Microsoft. Those are the same people who don't realize that linux has problems of its own. They don't notice those problems because they are too caught up in the escape from the Microsoft problems.
Works with people too. Many run into bad relationships when they run away from others. Alcoholics do it too. Of course, so does slamming your hand in a door. It works very well. But it takes a special kind of superior intelligence to realize that slamming your hand in a door, and being drunk, are merely distractions and not solutions.
I was actively discouraged from buying Novell's SuSe Linux 9.2 some time back by a rep of best buys. Now the store is MS this MS that and I refuse to shop there again if i can help it.
Just like wal mart they carried Mandrake for a spell they too abandoned putting it on the shelf for customers to buy.
Hardware is so cheap now not a lot of folks will even build to order a PC for you much anymore with out having to pay MS for it's software.
It is a sorry state of affairs in retail industry. Oh MS this Oh mS that the cult of the sheeple are resistant to change and refuse to try something new this is why Linux will never replace MS.
This mono culture makes me sick!!
AT&T, RIAA, MPAA, Oil Co. and cable co. all make it possible.
The consumers do not get to choose they get to select how big their bill is and thats it.
Oh well enough ranting.
Has a number of MS people been caught chasing little boys?
All so called technology cult religions all have one thing in common, what is that? They are all formed around hatred of Microsoft. Apple, Java, IBM, Google, you name it, they all have a strong driving force because of hatred for Microsoft. A Microsoft Cult would be an oxymoron.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
Satanists worship Gates and Microsoft, even if they don't know it. Silly satanists. Everyone knows the real hell is MVS.
--
make install -not war
Nothing quite like burning screaming young women alive to get a foreign populace to believe that you mean fucking business and submit to your theological tyrrany!
This means that, from the shell, if you do:
touch foo
touch Foo
you will get a single file named "foo".
However, if you want to, you can format a volume to have a truly case-sensitve filesystem, using the Disk Utility app.
Each of the instances metioned have a large base of customer interaction.
In the case of Linux, anyone who has it, can start writing code,
In the case of Apple, they're almost the only thing the company cares about: making and keeping customers happy. It's also why, though I find their interfaces child-like, you won't hear me demeaning Apple, because they make good hardware and keep users happy.
Microsoft rules by brute force; new computers on the shelf are cheaper than Apple, there are repair depos everywhere, so they are the default, so they rule. Most people grow up on Mom and Dad's computer and feel they've conquered something, so they're not likely to give that up. Then, the masrketting kicks in. When they write "standard" things (Like TCP, for example) they support it in a way that makes THEM look good, and anything non-Microsoft look lame. This is the nature of this beast.
No other alternative can do this; it's a fraction of the market from the start- whatever's different isn't going to grow, in percent of market, very fast. Linux is making huge strides in this direction, and is probably the only thing that can "make it" as a real competitor; it has no one company to be bought, not single man to be killed, and people see it grow fanstastically over time. And, let's face it: when you don't waste 30% of your time fighting viruses and holes intentionally left in the system, you can get a lot more done.
No, Microsoft doesn't have a cult following; just a following of the brainwashed and those not willing to try anything new. Linux, especially Ubuntu's Dapper Drake, is easier to install, easier to install packages on, and the only time it seems to give you trouble is when there's a genuine problem- not every month, in hopes of you paying someone.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
(see: http://www.ilovemymacthesong.com/index.html)
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
Not just old programs. Try formatting & setting up a boot drive as a case-sensitive HFS+ partition. You'll be amazed at how many things suddenly stop working, how many errors get spewed into logs. Apple moved NeXTStep into a case-insensitive world, and both internal and external developers haven't looked back.
The HFS+ Case Sensitive filesystem is for users to format additional drives/partitions, so they can mount them wherever their poorly written program needs them to be.
Case sensitivity is retarded. Linux will have to overcome this liability if they ever want to make any reasonable progress into the desktop market.
All of them can use FAT32, but case-sensitivity is eminently useful, and only ancient operating systems ignore case, so we keep it.
I think it would be truer to say "it would be really hard to make a case-insensitive filesystem".
Can I make two files with the same name? Is "i" the same file as "I"? What if I speak a language where it isn't the same letter? Would you require people to assign a language to a filesystem when it's created? Or assume that everybody is speaking American English? Or would what files you can create depend on what locale you've logged in under? What if two people log in with different locales and want to make files on a shared disk?
There don't seem to be any easy answers to how to make a case-insensitive filesystem. Until some genius can come up with The Right Way, sticking with case-sensitive filenames sounds like a good plan to me. Nothing is stopping userland tools from doing case-insensitive searches, given a locale.
Just look at all the fools who wasted money on the XBox or XBox 2.
A lineup that consists of little except fifth rate titles written in the third world by developers who can't even speak English, and a legion of fanboys proclaiming the equivalent of "Uruguay SoccerFest 2007" as the best game ever made. And if they yell loudly enough, maybe they'll even convince themselves of the lies they've told.
Moof!
O.K. Honesty time... I'm pretty much locked in to MS development technologies and I'd describe it as a love-hate relationship. I think .NET, VS2005, and some other tools are the greatest. They've made me look good with minimal effort on many an occasion. But then... MS has created a lot of crap over the years to satisfy marketing schedules too. It's a long list. And then there's the fact that their business practices are blatantly evil. (This is what keeps many of us from being MS fanboys.) I have to segment off the part of my brain that has a problem with that. I consider myself very principled otherwise, but baby's got to eat.
Ask me about my sig!
Obviously, he also knows next to nothing about computers.
I, for one, am an avowed linux fanboi. I have been almost as long as Linux has been around. I liked it then for a lot of reasons that would not be meaningful for you. I like it now much more because it's simply better than Windows.
I do know about pxe booting. I usually use pxelinux and tftpd for that -- usually with ghost for imaging, whatever OS is called for for thin client. Yes, I can use many of the various other ways to do the same thing, including Windows RIS. A tool's a tool. You use what works today and keep your eyes open for better tools tomorrow.
I don't know much about Kereberos except that it's an open standard with a reference implementation available for many platforms from MIT. What I don't know is how this pertains to general technical proficiency or Windows. That dealing with K is not my corner of the computer world does not mean I am ignorant -- my company has specialists that handle that. The IT world is broad and nobody can be everything. I do servers too, quite a lot of them and I dare say in more depth than most.
I do and have worked in environments where you need to manage 20,000 desktops. The stuff I get paid to do on the desktop involves Windows almost exclusively. Dealing with the SVCHOST.EXE bug caused by Windows' patches for the past few months has been quite profitable. Am I happy about making my living helping my customers overcome their crippled architecture instead of helping them activate their potential? In a word, no.
I'm telling you this so you can understand -- Supporting Windows is where my money comes from today and I am quite proficient at it. The world is what it is, and a guy's got to make a living. That doesn't mean I have to be a fan of this pathetically insecure, ridiculously unreliable system with its impossibly arcane interface. I know better stuff is available, and I am confident eventually the better stuff will prevail. Between now and then I have to tread the fine line between the straight answer (you know, linux and mac users don't have this "spyware/virus/shutdown/whatever" problem) and the political one (a hardware firewall, software firewall, patch management system, license management system, ready backup, manually type hyperlinks only to known good sites policy... might mitigate the problem until those dastardly bad guys find another 0-day remote admin exploit).
When the day comes, that Intel AMT 2.0 technology we're talking about over in the opinion center will be quite handy for eradicating Windows from the face of your enterprise overnight. Use it to update the desktops in a pilot project and then once you've got the migration details set up you can command all the clients in the enterprise to download whatever version of linux you choose, no-touch, from a single console, with the requisite per-site, per-client and per-user customizations. The benefits are obvious to anyone who isn't clue immune. On that fine day a lot of MCSEs are going to be out of work -- but not me.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I think Ballmer started that one rolling all by himself. In fact, I still see the odd chair throwing comment here on Slashdot...oh wait
Things with cult followings are things that fringe members of society fall in love with. Microsoft, when given a choice of being understandable by 9 out of 10, or convenient and highly useful to that other 1 out of 10, has chosen the 9 out of 10 consistently, over and over again. Since the cult follower candidates always seem to lie in that other 1 out of 10, there is no cult following.
Ironically, they in turn lose the "simple and elegant crowd" because even though they try to make each individual feature simple, they include too many features to really have a simple design. It also obviously doesn't help that they are an overdog.
Alternatively, case sensitivity is the difference between "I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off a horse."
MS has simply focused its Scientology efforts at the exec level, which is IMHO a smart move because only they decide what IT should buy and thus suffer. Buy enough product and you may see Xenu (sorry, Gates) on your next free golfing trip!
MS doesn't worry about the other cults because they don't matter. It's only when they get in the way they'll start harassing them with prosecution and chair throwing sessions.
Doesn't Ballmer look like he's got something slightly wrong with him?
I tell you, it's the suit..
Okay, this is the impression I was under. Then "or to use OS X's approach, which is to have a case-insensitive Finder layered on a case-sensitive FS" isn't really a description of what OS X does, right?
I believe it's called "Satanism".
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I think Microsoft attracts not-so-technical crowds who are not interested in their products except for using those products to get things done. These are the people who will not form a cult following as they see Microsoft as a means to the end. On the other hand, Microsoft products does not lead in any significant ways. Technically, they tends to "borrow" existing technologies and often corrupting these technologies for their own marketing benefits. In terms of user interface, they are also lagging and have to "borrow" from other companies. In short, Microsoft just does not have cutting edge in any fields even though they manage to merge existing ideas into money making products. So I don't see how can a microsoft cult following be established?
Case Sensitivity...
The difference between "I helped my uncle Jack off the horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off the horse".
In contrast to Linux/FOSS, most of the people I know who use Windows just use it to get work done, and haven't any emotional attachment to it. In my field of study, which has nothing to do with computers, almost everyone uses Windows, but I haven't met a single person who's fanatical about it. There's usually a bit of grumbling about Windows from time to time, but everyone who's tried an alternative (including me) has come back to it, simply because it's the best tool for getting our work done. We don't love it, any more than we love pencils and pads of paper, but we recognise that we can get our work done more effectively with Windows, and Office, than with the alternatives.
You seem to imply that people *would* care if they knew what Microsoft does. So, why don't you back up what you say with the following experiment? It is inexpensive, and relatively quick. Most anyone can pull it off.
1. Go to bar on a Friday night.
2. Find a mate that looks attractive. Buy them a drink, and start talking.
3. Once it is your turn to speak, shift the conversation towards Microsoft. Be sure to talk about everything bad they've done. I'm sure you know all of it: antitrust, poor design, Ignore subconscious cues they give, as they should be suspected to be a cult member ("normal people...[are] practitioners of the M$ cult"), and is still under the influence. But, I have already accounted for that. The drink should loosen the Evil Empire's Force Grip on them momentarily, at which point, you swoop in, like Luke Skywalker, for the saving of their technological soul!
4. Let us know how it goes. And be sure to pack a LiveCD!
I'll be looking forward to the results. I hope you realize the seriousness of this matter. By your own admission, M$ is alongside communism in terms of damage it has done. Shirking this moral obligation in the name of social norms or your own fear of rejection is gravely irresponsible, and tantamount to heresy. YOU alone must put a stop to this threat through a grassroots movement.
May the Force be with you.
You're looking for ZFS. It's in OpenSolaris, BSD 7.x, and Mac OS X 10.5.
1. Let's see here... BSD proper only got as far as version 4.4, at which point it split off into various trunks. You might be referring to FreeBSD, however, which is looking to integrate ZFS into Version 7.
2. So far, ZFS on Mac OS X 10.5 is mentioned on rumor sites; granted, I understand that Apple must be slipping them into their developer builds for the rumor sites to be as hungry as they are, but that's no guarantee it's going to make an appearance in the final product.
My point here is that, in the process of listing systems that are ZFS-capable, you managed to throw out one OS that only exists on paper (FreeBSD 7) and an OS that won't be publicly available until October and which may or may not have ZFS support, depending on the whims of Steve Jobs.
Please keep in mind that I'm not knocking ZFS. From what information I've picked up, it looks great. However, it's a little hypocritical when people here knock Microsoft on their vaporware database-driven filesystem and then proceed to say that you can get a really good file system on operating systems that don't exist, especially when you could've stopped at "OpenSolaris" and saved a whole truckload of credibility right there.
That's Pen Island.
Is always a bad trip
It's not a religion and it's nothing to get all excited about. 97% of the people on the planet are not zealots and will use whatever OS or hardware suits their needs, the other 3% use Mac's only.
If you need a tool to get the job done does it really matter who makes it if the tool works correctly? It's not like MS grinds up the bones of stillborn babies to oil their war machines. Apple, Sun, etc. are just as evil(capitalistic) as MS, they are just not quite as good at it.
In linguisting terms, in the English language, a change in capitalisation doesn't change the meaning of a word, so case sensitivity within the UI is completely counter-intuitive, and only a Unix/Linux geek (who's effectively been trained to find this counter-intuitive situation normal) could think otherwise. The only thing going for it is that it's simpler to implement, which is probably why Unix used it in the first place. However, it's long past its sell-by date, and Unix/Linux users really ought to start moving towards a case-preserving but case-insensitive environment. If Linux ever catches on, the version that does will probably follow the example of Mac OS X, and make case insensitivity the default.
Microsoft is the equivalent of Catholocism. ;)
;)
Interesting(?) fact... up until a year or two ago, there was a Church of Scientology prominently situated on the corner of 156th and Bel-Red road -- right next to Microsoft's main campus in Redmond. Since then though, it has shut down and the building is now home to a pawn shop.
Maybe after several years of failed attempts at recruiting Bill G., the Scientologists finally gave up? I don't really know... but I'm sure you guys can draw your own conclusions
- SEAL
The first example that springs to my mind is Makefiles. The first letter is capitalized by convention because it makes it show up first in an 'ls'.
In English, the primary use of capitalisation is to indicate the start of a sentence. In these cases, it has no impact on the meaning, as in the following:
Photos of my class are in this folder.
I keep photos of my class in this folder.
The choice of "Photos" or "photos" is entirely one of grammar, with no impact on the meaning of the word. For a label, then, depending on the title case used, it could be "Class photos", "Class Photos", "Photos of my class", "Photos of my Class", etc. To the extent that this is the normal situation, and examples such as "my uncle [Jj]ack off the horse" are extremely rare, it follows that case insensitivity should be the default behaviour.
This doesn't entirely solve the problem, in that to a typical user, "Class photos" and "Photos of my class" mean the same thing, so would ideally refer to the same folder. However, this is arguably too complex and user-dependent for an operating system to get right, at least with today's technology. The assumed equivalence of "Class photos" and "Class Photos", however, is easy enough for an operating system to handle, even if it might have been considered a waste of scarce resources in the 1960s/70s, when Unix was being developed.
In the longer run, search technology, which tends to be case-insensitive by default, may improve to the point where a user can easily ask the machine for "photos of my class", and get the right result, perhaps without even using the notion of "folders" at all. Today's technology, however, isn't quite there yet.
Don't use macros. Macros are evil. A roving band of them kidnapped my parents when I was young.
But that's another debate.We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
They command the legions of really bad and useless "Microsfot Certified System Engineers". Even a bad UNIX admin puts those fools to shame.
In general, computer programmers who are writing in C/C++ are used to different naming conventions to those used by computer users deciding what to call a file or directory. To a C/C++ programmer, it may seem intuitive to use differences in case to distinguish amongst similar but related files, and also to avoid spaces and other special characters. To the average user, however, such practices would be very counter-intuitive indeed.
You know, real file system support spaces :-P
I've never understood why people would want resource forks or alternate streams. In what way is this different than having a directory contain several files, and having applications treat a directory as their typical operating unit instead of files? From the on-disk and access model, I cannot see any useful difference. It just looks like a goofy namespace convention to distinguish a special kind of "leaf directory" from the other nesting directories.
On the other hand, extended attributes to store basic metadata such as checksums, application-specific policies, or auxilliary timestamps makes sense to me. It seems so unfortunate that NFSv4 applied the term extended attributes to mean alternate streams, instead of just putting a silly bit-marker on the regular directory access protocol and fiddling with the file namespace.
Right. As far as I can tell, Mac OS X does exactly the same thing as Windows by default, i.e. it preserves case when creating a file, but ignores it when matching the name of existing files. It seems to be the best compromise in terms of usability.
Nope. Christianity had sects all along, and major theological debates to establish who's right and who's wrong. Most of the original sects were extinct by then, or nearly extinct, yes, but they had existed. I even mentioned some of them by name in the original message, but let's elaborate a bit on the time of each and provide some quick Wikipedia links:
;) was founding his own heresy loosely based on Christianity. It produced a shitload of scrolls which reused the biblical characters loosely for their own purposes.
- Gnosticism. Hardly a century had passed since Christ, and already Simon Magus (literally, don't laugh, Simon The Sorcerer
- Arianism, being the teachings of Arius, who lived between 250 AD and 336 AD. Conflicted pretty badly with the Catholic doctrine, or at least the Council of Nicaea thought so. Also had quite a following, with whole people following his doctrines. E.g., the Vandals actively proselitised Arianism and persecuted those following the Nicene Creed, i.e., the catholic version.
- Nestorianism, being the doctrine of Nestorius, who lived between 386 and 451 AD, and at some point managed to become Patriarch of Constantinople. (Think, sorta the eastern pope.) It produced quite the schism too, with at least one branch of the church splitting irreversibly over this issue.
- Cathar. To quote from Wikipedia, "The first known Occitan Cathars appeared in Limousin between 1012 and 1020. Several were discovered and put to death at Toulouse in 1022. The synods of Charroux (Vienne) (1028) and Toulouse (1056) condemned the growing sect. Preachers were summoned to the districts of the Agenais and the Toulousain to combat the Cathar doctrine in the 1100s."
- Eastern Orthodoxy involved _centuries_ of growing schism and dispute between the Byzantines and Rome over such issues as iconoclasty in the east and the Filioque clause used by catholics. The rift became irreversible and the two churches split their ways in 1054, when each of the two heads of the churches proclaimed an anathema on the other. (Pretty much excomunicated each other.)
And that's just skimming over a millenium of schism and heresy. So, basically, there you go. There _were_ sects before Jan Hus and John Wycliffe.
Admittedly, they're not much taught in schools nowadays, while the hussite wars and the 30 year war are. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
All of them can use FAT32, but case-sensitivity is eminently useful, and only ancient operating systems ignore case, so we keep it.
you need to be clear about what you mean by "ignoring" case. HFS is case-preserving - it just isn't case-sensitive. That's not quite the same thing as "ignoring" case.
When they focussed on creating a locked in marketplace and stifling competition - ie a quasi-monopoly - they also killed their own creativity and any sense of "good engineering".
Capitalism as based around competition and innovation; the reason communism failed wasn't because it was restrictive and unpleasant (though it was); it was because it was a monopoly (that happened to be government run). Corporate US is trying create post-capitalist monopolies driven laws like by IP and DMCA.
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
Well, they don't have to be so distinguished. They do need to be lexically distinct, or else the macro processor will operate over tokens that you didn't intend, but you can use any sort of captialisation you liek for your macro names. We tend to spell constants all in caps because that's a good way to remind ourselves that something is a constant value. But you can make your #defs look just like normal variables or functions if you like, and in the case of pseudo-functions, people often do. But yes, that's another debate.
From a user's perspective, perhaps. From a progammer's perspective, you just write the app to organise its internal data directory along the lines of the convention you set out. Certainly there are other ways to achieve the same end - but I don't think that's a good reason to cripple a file system. I mean just because you can drive from A to B, that's not a good reason to take away your car. Or your feet, for that matter. It's useful to have the option.
Yeah yeah yeah Hardly rocket science, is it? If you're using Java or
Agreed. And I think what you're really looking for is not a case insensitive file system. I think all you need are tools to navigate the file system that are case insensitive by default. In unix terms, you could set an environment variable somewhere such that "vi Readme" and "vi readme" would both open the same file. You'd need something to disambiguate cases where there was a clash, a but like the way zsh prompts you for misspelled commands.
Then again, most people who want case insensitive file systems tend to use GUI file managers anyway. So what you really want is case insensitive search, and that's old news.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Of course not. I'm jsut pointing out that there are cases where you can use the same word, differently captialised to represent related concepts. I don't even think it's the best way to solve the problem in a file system, since directories would seem better suited. But that doesn't mean we should remove the capability from our file systems.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
Soft Wares
Episode I
The Microsoft Menace
The evil Emperor Gates and his
dark minion Darth Ballmer have a
stranglehold over the Earth Empire.
Millions of people suffer from the
tyranny of bug ridden Windows
The rebel Jedi Master, Linus Torvalds
must confront his fears and destroy the
Emperor, releasing the Earth from
oppression and tyranny...
As I understand it, the Unix subsystem on Windows can operate in either case-preserving mode, like Win32, or case-sensitive mode, like other Unix systems. The Win32 subsystem, however, only operates in case-preserving mode, which means Unix processes can create files that Win32 processes are unable to access. Since the underlying NT APIs used by the Unix and Win32 subsystems are the same, allowing Win32 to operate in case-sensitive mode too would probably be a simple matter of modifying an argument passed to the NT API by the Win32 call. However, I don't expect it to happen, since the only people who really want full case sensitivity probably come from Unix backgrounds anyway, and can get it via the Unix subsystem.
On the whole, then, I agree with you that people don't really want the file system itself to be case insensitive, they just want the layer above it to be case insensitive, like Win32, or at least offer case insensitivity as an option, like the Unix subsystem on Windows, but perhaps with finer granularity than a global setting.
Don't use macros. Macros are evil.
Yeah, that's a very nice theory.
Here's my suggested rule: "Macros are evil. Don't use macros, unless you're in an existing project that uses them already, or you're writing in C, or you're doing something that can't be done any other way."
People use MS products cause it makes sense for them to do so.
They will keep doing so until someone provides them with an alternative with a genuine, tangible advantage.
Why do they need to form a cult for that?
As I understand it, the Unix subsystem on Windows can operate in either case-preserving mode, like Win32, or case-sensitive mode, like other Unix systems. The Win32 subsystem, however, only operates in case-preserving mode, which means Unix processes can create files that Win32 processes are unable to access.
This is correct.
Ladies and gentlemen, can you say, "security hole"?
The fact that the Windows subsystem cannot access certain files is not a necessary byproduct of the overall approach NT takes, and is instead just a byproduct of the way NTFS does case-insensitive matching. I consider this a bug in NTFS.
On the whole, then, I agree with you that people don't really want the file system itself to be case insensitive, they just want the layer above it to be case insensitive, like Win32, or at least offer case insensitivity as an option, like the Unix subsystem on Windows, but perhaps with finer granularity than a global setting.
I'll agree with you on the second, that the option of (in)sensitivity is useful (I don't think that it should be taken away; I think OS X is closest to being "right" of any OS I know), but I disagree wit the first statement, especially if it's implemented as poorly as it is in Windows/NTFS.
The whole thing needs some usability testing.
Well, they don't have to be so distinguished. They do need to be lexically distinct, or else the macro processor will operate over tokens that you didn't intend, but you can use any sort of captialisation you liek for your macro names.
Right. But, doing something different (say, making a macro named "current") will sometimes cause someone 15 frustrating minutes at trying to figure out what the heck the absolutely nonsensical error messages that GCC is outputting are supposed to mean.
It's useful to have the option.
I agree with this statement as I quoted it (i.e. out of context), but I think I disagree about what it means. I think it should be the user's option whether their FS operates in a case-sensitive or case-insensitive manner, but that applications should be written to deal with either.
This may mean using a different convention for the layout for your internal organization. Or you could use some sort of archive file (like TAR) that remembers case, and route your file requests through that.
Then again, most people who want case insensitive file systems tend to use GUI file managers anyway.
I guess I'm just one of those weirdos then. In fact, it's exactly when I'm using command line stuff that it'd almost be most useFUL to have a case-insensitive file system, because it means that I'm very likely to be typing file names. If I'm in a GUI program, I'm more likely to be just selecting files using the mouse, which means I don't care about sensitivity.
Microsoft's "culture" can be summed up in one word: money. That is the bottom line and the motivation behind everything it does; which is why it has become the most successful software company ever.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Overall, I'm not sure I consider it a security hole per se, just confusing behaviour that can be a security hole if you enable it without understanding it, keeping in mind that the default behaviour is not to enable it. I do understand it, so the only way I'll end up with a file I can't access from a Win32 process is if I deliberately create it in a Unix process. It may be I've missed something, but as long as I know what my Unix and Win32 processes are doing, I don't see a problem.
No, I agree, it's not a necessary byproduct, since Win32 could just as easily not pass the case-insensitive flag to the NT APIs it calls. However, it's clearly a deliberate choice, and I can't see how it really has anything to do with NTFS. I mean, I think all you have to do to change the behaviour is change the flags CreateFileW (Win32) passes to NtCreateFile (NT). How is its approach different to Windows? Isn't it a global setting of either case-preserving or case-sensitive?I've never understood why people would want resource forks or alternate streams. In what way is this different than having a directory contain several files, and having applications treat a directory as their typical operating unit instead of files?
If you're saying what I think you're saying (that you should be able to treat a "file" as a traditional file and a directory at the same time), this is exactly what Reiser4 does, and is potentially a better way of thinking about how these should operate. (Reiser4 terms these "files as directories")
The problem with this approach is that you need to either break POSIX compliance or take the chance of breaking a lot of existing programs. One of the things in the stat structure tells what sort of entity is being queried; is it a directory or a file or a pipe or a special file etc. Currently normal files are marked by S_IFREG. My understanding from reading a bigass thread on the LKML from a couple years ago ("silent semantic changes with reiser4") is that returning S_IFREG for files that act as containers like this breaks POSIX compliance. I forget the exact reason, and there's a possibility that the abstract idea is okay and it's just Reiser4's approach. (Though if it's the latter case, it's very possible that it's not fixable without adding a new system call. Or changing open(2), but Unix doesn't have the same degree of luxury of changing system calls that Windows has, especially if they want to maintain binary compatibility.)
But I suspect that a lot of programs would break if you stop returning S_IFREG for regular files, which means that you "need" to use that flag for files that are also containers. (I'm envisioning that if these features could be used reliably that a large percentage of your files very well may have streams, though they may be used for only short things that extended attributes are used for now.) So that sort of sticks implementors of this between a rock and a hard place. They have to decide between breaking POSIX compliance on something that seems pretty basic, or very possibly breaking a good deal of existing applications.
Or use the Native API explicitly.
This behavior however means that, say, a virus scanner built on top of the Windows API can miss files; the following loop breaks: Of course, that loop already breaks because of NTFS streams, but that's another issue...
No, I agree, it's not a necessary byproduct, since Win32 could just as easily not pass the case-insensitive flag to the NT APIs it calls. However, it's clearly a deliberate choice, and I can't see how it really has anything to do with NTFS.
The root of the problem I think is actually different than that. Let's say that I create "foo.txt" and "FOO.TXT" in the same directory, either through NativeAPI calls or through the POSIX subsystem Interix.
I then go into a program in the Windows subsystem and call CreateFile("foo.txt"). This goes through and calls NtCreateFile("foo.txt"), traps into the kernel, and is passed down to the file system driver (FSD) which eventually gets a call to its CreateFile major function. At this point, the NTFS FSD still gets a request for "foo.txt".
If the program calls CreateFile("FOO.TXT"), that name also reaches the NTFS FSD. In other words, we haven't lost information.
However, as an artifact of its matching algorithm, NTFS will pick the same file in both situations. (In this case, by my very limited experiments, almost certainly "foo.txt".)
It would be very possible to return the "correct" file in each instance. In other words, the search algorithm could go something like: (1) if a file with an exact case match exists, open that file, else (2) open some canonical file. Currently NTFS drops the first step, and this is entirely a "mistake" in the NTFS file name search.
In other words, the Windows subsystem could continue to not pass down SL_CASE_SENSITIVE* and be able to open any file; it just wouldn't be able to create aliases.
(* Windows subsystems need to explicitly ask for case sensitivity, as opposed to asking for case insensitivity.)
How is its approach different to Windows? Isn't it a global setting of either case-preserving or case-sensitive?
The approaches would be very similar if you could choose whether you wanted the Windows subsystem to be case sensitive or not. The fact that you can't means that 99.99% of the time you can't have case sensitivity, since everything uses the Windows subsystem.
Which is of course why the convention evolved. It's not necessary, but it is useful. Which was rather my point in the first place.
mmm... but so long as programmers create filenames based on externally supplied strings, then mapping mixed case text onto a case insensitive filesystem is an accident waiting to happen. Don't you think?Of course, you could encode all file names jsut to make sure there were no case issues, but then you have debug problems. Whereas if the filesystem handles the full charset for file names then the problem just goes away.
Now if you could abolish the notion of case throughout the computing world, I could maybe see your point. You might even find some support for the notion among the "OMG!!! WTF!?!" set.
That may well be the case, but that's not a name I'm calling you :)
In which case, I'd expect you to be more interested in the part of my message you didn't quote; the part where I talked about case-insensitivity in shells and command line tools rather than the file system itself. I think you're trying to fix this problem at the wrong level.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
To some extent I'm tempted to agree with your point about matching, i.e. that 'FOO' should match 'FOO', whether or not 'foo' also exists. However, you then run into a situation where the matching isn't actually case-insensitive. This means that two calls which are documented to have the same effect, e.g. open("foo") and open("FOO"), will actually have different results, so you've just exchanged one problem for another. On the whole, I think I'd actually lean towards having the same file always returned, if case insensitivity is enabled.
The reason for doing this on OS X is for compatibility with Unix software, which Windows does via its Unix subsystem, and which also offers either mode of operation. There are also, again, problems with either choice. If you allow the choice of case-preserving or case-sensitive, as on OS X or the Unix subsystem on Windows, you'll have software that will run one way on some systems and another way on others. Is that a good trade-off? Maybe, but the answer is far from obvious. Conversely, if you don't allow the choice, as with Win32, you'll have consistent behaviour, but problems of interoperability with other environments, e.g. non-Win32 processes creating files that Win32 processes can't access.On both Windows and OS X, if you enable case sensitivity, you're going to potentially run into problems, because your system will behave differently to the default configuration. On OS X, this includes Mac applications that assume case insensitivity in file name matching, but are suddenly faced with case sensitivity (e.g. the case used in hard-coded paths, configuration files, etc. will suddenly matter). On Windows, you're going to run into problems with files created in one subsystem being inaccessible to processes in another. I'm not sure which is worse.
Apple has a cult. Linux has a cult. Microsoft is the equivalent of Catholocism. ;)
No, it's far closer to Satanism. All other faiths know Microsoft exists, but they are loathed rather than revered. Microsoft's worshipers are few and despised, who seek to improve their worldly position by dark pacts with an unholy power.
Sign here in blood. In triplicate, if you please.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Remember - Capitalisation is the difference between 'I had to help my Uncle Jack off a horse' and 'I had to help my uncle jack off a horse'...
I came to this thread late but this guy has more Microsoft fan sites than any Apple fanboy. How about this, or this, or this? He's a one man Microsoft-love flash mob! Or how about Rob Enderle? Yes, Virginia, there are enthusiastic Softie fans out there!
Someone has never read the comments in Activewin.com !
'talk of these subjects on the internet when they are completely off topic is flamebait and trolling, pure and simple'
..' Rob Enderle
.. these people are like virtual suicide car bombers ' Laura DiDio
`There are only two industries who use the term users computers and drugs' Darl McBride
`I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists ' Rob Enderle
`I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions' Rob Enderle
`I wrote that I was having trouble differentiating between terrorists and `the glowing example of humanity I call the Linux Zealot ' Rob Enderle
`The Linux folks can certainly argue, sometimes viciously, for their platform
`Assuming someone doesn't put a bomb under my car I'll be back with another column in a few weeks' Rob Enderle
`Within the open source community, there are a large percentage of tinkers and ankle biters
was Re:There goes my karma (flush)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Since disk-space is dirt-cheap and processor bandwidth is very expensive, having compressed file systems seems quite dated. Talk to me again if you get at least 10-to-1 compression on any file.
Compression belongs to the application space unless it's a read-only file system and disk bandwidth is a concern. It's easier (and more sensible) to compress a file during save and decompress it during reads. Compressing everything - including temporary files - just creates more overhead than it's worth.
How many versions of Unix have case insensitive file systems? (Personally, I feel that case sensitive file systems should be considered a dated practice.)I think Windows is case-insensitive more due to limitations of the original FAT file system than to any sensible architecture decision. MacOS was case-insensitive and its insensitiveness created some problems when it migrated to a Unix base. Again, case insensitiveness belongs to application space - it's the application that should deal with it. If you are talking about a command-line interface, case insensitiveness makes absolutely no sense. It also becomes a very thorny issue when you deal with non-ascii filenames, something that is clearly an afterthought in Windows.
MS didn't get all of this right; their implementation of streams and extended attributes I think is lacking from just the FS point of view, and even moreso from the UI point of view, and I could go on a bit of a rant about that. Reiser4 provides what I think is a much better model for how to handle that sort of thing.Multiple streams existed in the classic MacOS and are considered very bad practice because it creates a whole lot of difficulties when transporting the file to a different OS. IIRC, they were added to NT to make it easy/possible to serve files to MacOS clients. Extended attributes are, again, application, user and machine specific and it is very hard to do them right. When you do them wrong, they create the risk of improper information disclosure or loss. I call it bad practice too.
But the others are things that I wish that Linux had. And that's just looking at the file system.I think most people confuse what they want from a GUI for what they want from an OS - and it is typically a "Windows thing". There is not much I need from an OS than to be reliable and efficient. Having a GUI is not something I need from an OS.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
For those who say MS can't be a cult because it's dominant, how about iPod? It's dominant and it's a cult, or at least it has a large emotional following.
...yolk of oppression?
Those egg council creeps again? You'd better run, egg!
</stonecutters reference>
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
Yes, and case-insensitivity is where the stupid CowOrker misunderstanding came from, back then.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Go to any of there MS events, they are run exactly like any tent religeon. The lghting, the cramp spaces, the empolyess moving through the audience during the event.
AS someone who has gone to cult 'meetings', the MS meetings were very similiar.
WHy is that? because that's how you control a crowd and get them to sit there absorbing whatever it is you have people praising.
I have never been to an Apple presentation, or a Google one, and they may be the same way for all I know.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
you have missed my point - i said STANDING, mainstream. neither of those have been able to continue their existence in public in mainstream after the early middle ages. in that hussites maybe count, and they are early 15th century. lutherans i think can be said the first major, standing mainstream sect. note that most of the sects you mentioned date 500 AD and earlier, before council of nicea even, the only one appearing and getting squashed after 1000 AD are cathars. orthodoxy i think would not count as a "sect", its more like a different religion that is applicable to byzantine/eastern europe cultures.
Read radical news here
1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;
"Use only our products."
2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;
"Wait for the next patch. MS says that will be fixed, MSSQL server is as good as oracle."
3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
"We can't impliment that until MS has a product", "MS says SQL server is robust enough to handle that many transactions" "We don't have to do a comparison test, MS says it will work."
4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
MS always does this will all there competitors, espcially Open source.
5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;
Nuff said.
6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.
Ever read their 1000 year plan?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Still, I argue that this is merely an argument for case preserving file systems rather than case sensitive ones.
No No a million times NOOO!!!
Picture this situation. You're migrating your webserver from windows to *nix. You scan through all of your documents and find out that every link matches every file name perfectly. You go ahead with the migration and a raft of crap breaks because at least in the case of windows, "case preserving" means "I will store the file one way and fucking lie to you about how it's actually stored when you ask".
Any thing that causes your computer to flat out lie to you is not worth having.
The terms "worship" and "religion" have often been used to describe the level of fan boy enthusiasm with tech. products.
Talking about actual religion, and actual worship will may cause a problem, but not in this context.
There is a huge number of MS fanatics. NOt here, but they are out there. Very much like a cult. "We use MS because thats all there is." and the biggie: "Nobody gtes fired for buying MS."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
it's cuz the other freak cultish followers have no life
You can't be a cohesive clan of outsiders if you're a toady for the establishment.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I must say that I am a huge fan of Microsoft, and no I do not work for the company. Say what you will about the company, but they more money than most small countries. Additionally they provided a technology giving millions access to the power of the personel computer. Buying a Microsoft product is like buying a GM car; anyone can use it, it will last a 100,000 miles without a tune up, and you don't need a special shop to work on the darn thing. So yes, I do love Microsoft! Flame on~
Yeah.. oops :-P
This is absurd, the author has obviously never been to Redmond, or dealt with the hordes of Windows-only developers, or had a conversation with your average MCSE, et cetera. If you've ever spent time in an airport on a trip to Redmond and make the mistake of telling someone, you end up in a conversation with everyone from the Seattle area, who all, strangely enough, know Bill Gates life history, and then you get there and listen to everyone talk about how great Microsoft is, when you mention that Google maps led you astray, you get told you should've used MS Live instead.
Microsoft has a culture, and thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking.
When you are a member of the vast majority then you are, by some definitions, not
a member of a cult. There is a Microsoft cult that constitutes a small
minority of Microsoft users but that dwarfs the Mac and Linux cult membership.
The Microsoft fan club is even bigger.
Bear in mind that I would say similar things to what I say below about Linux and Mac cult members.
Everyone already knows these things about Linux and Mac cult members but I thought that it might
be useful to list some of them with specifics as they apply to the case of Microsoft cult
membership since many seem to be oblivious to the ugly reality of Microsoft cultdom.
Maybe its like the air we breath. In any case if you are a Microsoft
fan club member or cult member then don't be too offended. Just rewrite one of your
favorite anti-Linux or anti-Mac fanboy rants and post it in response. Better yet just take the paragraphs below
and change the names where appropriate.
There are a number of indicators that make it possible to detect Microsoft
core cult members with a fair amount of accuracy.
When someone is pointing out that someone else
is a, Linux geek-nerd, a Mac fan-boy, a Mac snob, a Mac coolaid drinker, or blinded by the
Steve Jobs reality-distortion-field etc. its likely that the
person pointing it out is a rabid Microsoft cult member.
Some other indicators are a.) pointing out that Bill Gates gratuitously personalized public display of charity
is reason for brand loyalty, b.) hatred of Steve Jobs, c.) assertions
that Bill Gates and Microsoft made inexpensive (the correct word is cheap) computing available to the masses,
d.) assertions that Microsoft is an innovator, e.) assertions and arguments to the effect that Windows is the
safest operating system out there, f.) assertions that periodic
reinstallation of Windows is not a problem, g.) remarks such as "I don't know what
people are complaining about I never have any problems with Windows", or
"I never have any problems with Word its a great product". There are many
more indicators but you get the general idea. These are all things that are
either orthogonal to reality or have nothing to do with the
of the actual product and are therefor indicative of other factors that are not
discussable in a rational dialog. Three of these indicators and you've got your
hands on the genuine item: Pays for and eats Microsoft excrement with gratitude and a smile.
At that point you can just chalk the interaction up to an entertaining experience.
If you get four or more of these indicators then try to change the subject while making
seemingly random positional adjustments in the direction of the door.
Most people don't know enough about computer technology to make
a good choice on their own so they go with the majority just be safe. If they see
someone doing or using something different then it can be
unsettling or even threatening. The more insecure cases become agressive and
form the jihadic core of the Microsoft fan club.
There is a critical market share or tipping point for Mac OS or Linux
(probably significantly less than 25% ) at which point the Microsoft fan club members and the less insecure
Microsoft cult members would convert in droves.
A cult has a true focus of being - everything is driven by devotion to the leader.
.. oops uh Vista LONGER than most products even last one released. And the actual product is nothing more than XP with a flack-jacket and a new look. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY they are charging MORE for the same crap - we'll see how this works out
The pervasivness of MS/Windows is all about producing HW + SW that is "cheaper for the initial investment" and gets the job done more ore less. All of this goes back to the '90s when WinTel was a reality: I worked at Inel as a PC designer in those days and Intel saw the way to control the market was to first create and drive specs for every part of the PC to favor Intel parts and second to force parts manufacturers to compete and drive down cost for a cheaper PC. On the MS side they sucked up companies / technologies or crushed those who would stand in the way of a WinTel solution --- meaning cheap cheap cheap. The masses and IT managers sucked this up like sugar water. These mind-less addicts of cheap-shit over look the high cost of over-head in security SW, continous security problems, and maintenance at the desktop level.
By the time we got to XP the true WinTel alliance was badly fractured and dysfunctional - but in the days since both companies have taken distinctly differnet paths:
- Intel aggresively (ok slowly at first) embraced Linux and open source, courted Apple to bring them into the x86 flock, and is now working on user issues and user friendly boxes. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY keeping their trend of more technology at the same or lower price.
- MS went into bunker mentality and worked on Longhorn
Its not the years, its the mileage
To be a cult you have to be marginal. That's why Christians consider Mormons and Scientologists to be members of cults, and never would consider Christianity to be a cult. Next question.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
If you've got malicious code running that's able to create files with arbitrary names on your local file system, and perhaps even enable case sensitivity, you've got bigger problems than the names that code decides to use. It sounds to me like one of the typical examples of complaining that a machine that's already been compromised by a virus can be attacked by it: well, naturally.
Eh, but this is a common assumption, that the attacker has access to the computer. It's not so outlandish, and is one of the common security models.
It's not so much that a machine that's compromised can be attacked, it's that this feature raises the bar* on what the detector has to do to find it. Virus writers seem to be a little less disinclined to use undocumented/unsupported APIs to do their work than people who write security software. (Though the latter group is more inclined to use them than just about any other software I know of.)
* In XP and older, this feature isn't alone; streams cause the same problem. In Server 2003, Windows API functions FindFirstStream and FindNextStream were added which allow programs to enumerate alternate streams. This means that in 2K3 and Vista, this case sensitivity thing is the only reason I know of why a virus scanner would have to drop to the Native API.
To some extent I'm tempted to agree with your point about matching, i.e. that 'FOO' should match 'FOO', whether or not 'foo' also exists. However, you then run into a situation where the matching isn't actually case-insensitive. This means that two calls which are documented to have the same effect, e.g. open("foo") and open("FOO"), will actually have different results, so you've just exchanged one problem for another. On the whole, I think I'd actually lean towards having the same file always returned, if case insensitivity is enabled.
It's a good argument and I guess some usability testing would be in order. (For instance, do programs depend on opening files with differing case to end up the same file, and if they do, does always returning the same one fix it?)
I tend to suspect the tradeoff would go the other way, but then again, I haven't done the testing.
Microsoft could have a cult religion if Balmer would stop throwing away all the pews.
Any thing that causes your computer to flat out lie to you is not worth having.
Hmm, that doesn't seem like a good argument to me.
First, whose to say that the problem you name isn't caused by Unix lying about whether "foo.html" and "Foo.html" are different files?
Second, your computer lies to you all the time. If you run a program, it's written in x86 instructions. But really you're executing microcode on uops. Should Intel go back and revamp their chips so that they are executing straight IA-32 without microcode?
Or open a calculator and type 3 + 4. Hey wait, the computer's lying to you! It can't actually add 3 and 4, it has to add 0000 0011 and 0000 1000 (or the word, dword, or qword version, or the floating point version). Should we say that those numbers are a lie, because they are actually stored in binary?
Or this text you're reading. It's actually stored and transmitted as ASCII numbers. Is it a lie to present a different view to you for ease of use?
Heck, the whole representation of binary in 0s and 1s is a lie. It's really just changes between voltage levels.
I think that we should have an interface to the computer where the output is a voltmeter and the input is you tapping the poles of a battery with a wire.
Where should the lies end? Why should they end with a case sensitive file system?
...where the cult leader has CDD (charisma deficit disorder)?
You know how Star trek 5 exists, but we just don't talk about it? Yep. M$Cult is like that.
The right question is, why Microsoft is pretty much the only software corporation that is hated and feared by both its competitors and larger parts of its end users alike. No other software corp. happens to be disliked like MS is.
1. Let's see here... BSD proper only got as far as version 4.4, at which point it split off into various trunks. You might be referring to FreeBSD, however, which is looking to integrate ZFS into Version 7.
Obviously. You could have just skipped the feigned confusion and made a polite addendum.
2. So far, ZFS on Mac OS X 10.5 is mentioned on rumor sites; granted, I understand that Apple must be slipping them into their developer builds for the rumor sites to be as hungry as they are, but that's no guarantee it's going to make an appearance in the final product.
That's true, they can pull it and go back to Time Machine on a separate partition if they want to, but I'll betcha $5 they don't. This could be part of the 6-month delay for the next release.
My point here is that, in the process of listing systems that are ZFS-capable, you managed to throw out one OS that only exists on paper (FreeBSD 7)
The code is checked in (has been for a couple weeks), you can get it if you want.
and an OS that won't be publicly available until October and which may or may not have ZFS support, depending on the whims of Steve Jobs.
Sometimes you have to play the odds to get anywhere in life. All evidence points to ZFS in Leopard. Obviously anything can happen - Linus can drop ext3 from the next kernel if he wants to - but I really doubt that will happen.
However, it's a little hypocritical when people here knock Microsoft on their vaporware database-driven filesystem
I didn't do that. I'd be surprised if they ever ship such a beast - the concept is passé.
and then proceed to say that you can get a really good file system on operating systems that don't exist
Wait now - 'don't exist', and 'can be bought in shrinkwrap' are two completely different things. I claim they do exist, based on all available data. You can check out the FreeBSD code and check that one yourself or buy a copy of Leopard for $499 and check that one out too, if you don't believe me or the entire web about that.
especially when you could've stopped at "OpenSolaris" and saved a whole truckload of credibility right there.
I don't think my credibility is on the line for referring to software products that are currently in development, and demonstrably so. You're pretending that they don't exist simply because it hasn't been covered by a marketing person - that's a position I find non-credible.
Besides, it does exist in Linux (FUSE) and Nexenta.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Right. It's the forgiveness in the underlying filesystem (by being case-preserving yet case-insensitive) that makes it friendlier for normal people who don't appreciate the "elegance" of case-sensitive file systems, and wouldn't know a character set semantic if they tripped over it.
First, whose to say that the problem you name isn't caused by Unix lying about whether "foo.html" and "Foo.html" are different files?
Because there was no unix system involved in that.
It was Windows explorer versus command line. The problems showed up when the files were copied to a unix system because the documents referenced in the links didn't match the actual file names.
Here's where the lie happened. I looked at files in explorer. I changed the name of a file from, say, FOO.html to foo.html.
Explorer told me it changed the name. It didn't.
Opening a command window and typing dir showed the *actual* name of the file.
move FOO.html foo.html *did* change the name.
That is badly broken behavior.
Where should the lies end? Why should they end with a case sensitive file system?
None of your examples are similar at all.
If it's not microsoft, not only is it wrong, he will smite you.
Seriously.
Cheers,
RM
Nobody's as dumb, as I appear to be
I looked at files in explorer. I changed the name of a file from, say, FOO.html to foo.html.
Explorer told me it changed the name. It didn't.
Opening a command window and typing dir showed the *actual* name of the file.
move FOO.html foo.html *did* change the name.
That is badly broken behavior.
Hmm, what you describe is broken. Any chance you can figure out how to reproduce this so I can see if I can figure out what's going on? Not that I'd be able to do anything about it of course, I'm just curious.
None of your examples are similar at all.
Why aren't they?
(Well, at least why aren't they similar to the difference between case sensitivity and insensitivity; I can see why they could be considered different from the problem you are describing.)
Sir, thank you muchly for a beautiful joke. May the Moderators be led by His Noodly Appendage to click "I like this!"
but they ruined... when i started college, just loved m$ (and feared ibm) but i also loved borland, apple and latter sun.
The more i learned the less i liked the m$ ways of doing bussines... their trap to intuit, their apps discrimination of dr-dos, their stealing of Borland talent, their killing of Apple visual object-pascal, etc.
For graduation i have lost most admiration for the company... 7 years later, after too many years wrestling with stupid os bugs, brain dead apis, dimished functionality updates, i just ended with a dislike of m$ aparently easy compatibility but so buggy that only works well on the simple uses
>>How many versions of Unix have case insensitive file systems? (Personally, I feel that case sensitive file systems should be considered a dated practice.)
>All of them can use FAT32, but case-sensitivity is eminently useful, and only ancient operating systems ignore case, so we keep it.
>
>All that, plus it's open-source
Actually, Mac OS X's HFS and HFS Plus filesystems* are case-conserving, case-insensitive filesystems, that exist in even today's version of Mac OS X. And you can find the source to the filesystem drivers in the Darwin source tree!
* not HFSX, which is actually a case-sensitive filesystem to replace the original NeXTStep UFS filesystem.
Darn those spell checkers!
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
if you were in possession of a few working brain cells you could have participated in the article about ballmer's patent troll against free software, which is a perfect example of where you could positively spend your energy. instead you're sitting there banging your head in the keyboard unable to post because of all the negative moderation you deservedly got for trying to ridicule the free software community by coming up with batshit insane FUD about microsoft that benefits no one.
hope you've learned your lesson this time. read the replies to your posts in this article. stop thinking everyone is a microsoft astroturfer dedicated to stalk you and understand why your sort is no longer welcome in this community.
Wow twitter, you really cleaned up on this one. Always painful to watch you crash and burn but also mildly amusing.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Hmm, what you describe is broken. Any chance you can figure out how to reproduce this so I can see if I can figure out what's going on? Not that I'd be able to do anything about it of course, I'm just curious.
It was as simple as I described it. Look at the name of something via explorer and via command line. Change the name via explorer and look at it again in both.
Now, this was some time ago...Might have been W2K, but I think it was most likely NT4. I've never tried it in a newer version.
(Well, at least why aren't they similar to the difference between case sensitivity and insensitivity; I can see why they could be considered different from the problem you are describing.)
Well, the issue I had was my only concern or point of reference, so I can see where your argument works in certain situations.
Alright, here's the story behind this outburst: I work on a protocol stack at work that was designed for an embedded system. A large portion on the code is written in C. A large portion of this is macros. The author thought it would be cute to spend most of his time exploring the use of ##. He also didn't think it was necessary to surround multi-line macros with any sort of block. I spend a lot of my time fixing bugs in macros because of this. Furthermore this stack also links with a C++ API, but the author knew very little about how to program in C++ (e.g. some classes inherit from what should be their children). This C++ API has constants defined using #define instead of actual constants, macros instead of inlines, etc. I could write an entire year's worth for WorseThanFailure with just this code. DO NOT WANT!
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.