What most of us want is an environment - and a life - where we're never reminded that Microsoft even exist, and to finally wake up one morning and hear on the news they no longer do.
Scroll Lock was used a lot in the early days of the PC. We used it quite a lot in our software packages. Yes, it was up to the ISV to implement, but basically meant you locked the scroll (DUH). Several editors we released had both read-only and edit modes, and working in character mode on the screen with only the keyboard to navigate, this made things easier (and quite good actually). If I am not incorrect, Kahn's SideKick used it too - for the same purpose.
Alt-Graph on a Sun workstation might try to do the same things as the comparative key on the PC: provide characters not found in the English language.
Funny you don't mention Linus a single time. Linux is what is on the move - not RMS. And what's this 'GNU vs. BSD'? It's LINUX - it's not GNU/Linux and it's not GNU. And that's what Linus said, and he's the man behind it - not RMS. Bash riots? It's over. No one dislikes Linus, and no one likes RMS, and we can all go home. Even YOU.
Ballmer can blame users all he wants. It comes down to Microsoft having a crappy security model and poor development practices.
Yes. But the blame does not belong farther down the organisation - the blame belongs at the top, with Ballmer and Gates, who have deliberately cultivated the corporate atmosphere that is causing all these problems today.
If they wanted excellence, they could have blown everyone out of the water. They have enough money. They simply do not want it. Period.
So stop hoping they'll improve, or hoping the Internet will be less hectic while they're still a major player. For it's not going to happen.
Proactive development cuts into profitability, as does the practice of hiring experienced developers instead of fresh-faced children just out of engineering school who are willing to work twice as hard (although not twice as smart) in exchange for a free mountain bike and occasional use of the game room.
Hear hear. And it might be added that the security experts are not the problem, as Thade has implied. Microsoft is the problem. No one wanted their Blaster patch because they'd crashed 600,000 two months earlier.
And why? The above quote tells all. Microsoft do not have a cult of excellence.
This is of course great news - for Halderman and everyone. Yes, one wonders how such a silly lawsuit would have went, and this can be the ultimate consideration of CEO Jacobs, as SunnComm gains little by playing hero.
But it doesn't really matter. If SunnComm stay out of this, then it is a victory, and maybe we will now see the end of all this foolish copy-prevention hype as Halderman predicted.
Do you think MS doesn't even use their own software?
I not only think they don't; I know it.
MS started using their own compiler for Windows with the "Visual" products - before that, what was left of the excellent compiler they'd bought from Lattice was a total load of crap. Up until then, they were selling their own compiler (which never worked - I mean it sometimes died at the command line, that's how bad it was) and for their own use licensing another compiler from an ISV to build Windows. The inside cover of the MSJ back then was taken by Borland, who had customer quotes about just how bad that MS compiler was.
There are certainly numerous other examples. After all, the Microsoft people might be incompetent, but they're not stupid.
Just what we needed. More evidence of why Gates is so loved world-wide. I hope those who think this little exercise will backfire are right, but looking back at MS's sordid history is not encouraging. The problem might be that ordinary people don't have the devious minds of Gates and his friends.
Sorry, but I think that's just a wee bit naive. Yes, on paper it looks reasonable - but let's be honest: Microsoft are never reasonable. And they're always up to something. Exactly what Microsoft's angle is may take a while to figure out, but one thing is for sure: It's not about playing fair.
I believe he is what is known as a 'finlandssvensk', that is to say, he may live in Finland, but his native (first) language will be Swedish. The western half of Finland, from Helsinki to Turku on the coast, is where the 'finlandssvenskar' live - street signs et al. in both languages.
Linux was honoured some years past by the Royal Technical Institute in Stockholm - I believe he received an honorary doctorate, but I might be wrong. It was at any rate the same body that gave GATES that doctor's hat the year after. The only difference is, Linux didn't drop a few cool million when he came to town...
And Stockholm is only a day's ferry ride from Linus's home town, so that's perhaps close enough...
This was a talking head article. What we don't need is more talking heads telling us and the world what programmers need. What we do need is a better understanding amongst programmers so that they take greater pride in their work. It is no coincidence that the software I represent is generally bug and vulnerability free and has been for years: The people who wrote it are dedicated and took great pride in it.
Writing good software is the same as writing secure software, said a good friend of mine who just happened to be the clever chap who nabbed the fellow behind Melissa and sent the Washington Post to Anaconda after ILOVEYOU. He's right.
A good programmer will never allow a buffer overflow. It's just not done. A good programmer will not assume his program is going to be used as advertised. An IT manager I used to work with began all his own reviews of software by banging on the keyboard with his fists and throwing the keyboard to the floor. The programs were not allowed to crash or do anything stupid. Several developers thought this was unfair, but of course it was not. It was just good thinking.
You have to perhaps develop a feeling for what can go wrong, but getting into particulars here is not what is needed. Good instincts are what is needed.
If you don't have the instincts, and the dedication, then all the advice of all the talking heads in the world will not help you. They'll still make money hand over fist selling their blather to the suckers, but software will still be leaky.
Windows more insecure by design? Bollocks! Who are these people making such sweeping statements? Talk about being clueless!
Look: Windows sucks, we all know that by now. But the Post wouldn't know a design if it hit them on the backside of the head.
What's wrong with Windows is that they're using some pretty mediocre programmers who have no formal training, at least not like what they should have, no discipline...
You have to make accuracy and stability a priority. In Redmond, writing cute AARD code counts higher. The jerk who wrote the GDI for Cutler in C++ was a gambling addict who wasted most of his time devising a system to beat the bank in Atlantic City.
It's not the system - it's the people, and the mentality surrounding them. MS act more like Nixon Watergate plumbers - they're not sensible programmers. Some of them may be OK individuals, but when they're working at a keyboard they lose it.
I have never seen so much bad code in my life as I have seen coming out of Redmond, and I am not making that up. I have thousands of CDs to prove it. Some of them shouldn't be programmers; others don't apply themselves. You have the same issues in every company. But MS go out after blood; they're fanatics, and stability and good programming are a low priority. With MS, it's worse - far worse.
'Insecure by design' is bollocks. What a waste of hot air...
Well duh so did Linus. And a lot of people were embarrassed about that guy from Redmond getting one. He paid good money for it, maybe he should have it, was a comment I heard.
Supposedly the Swedes have received a reply in blue laser last night. 'We like talking to you better, those SETI guys are too serious.'
Re:Burger King is finally going to beat a competit
on
Apple to Unveil .Mac Today
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple have only a few things going for them.
- Microsoft Office. The downside here is that MS Office is priced too highly to be attractive to most users.
- Photoshop and Adobe's dependency. With over 30% of their revenues coming from Mac users, Adobe needs Apple.
- A brand loyalty second to none. Mac users love their machines, and some users even want to marry them.
Apple stand to lose their most important asset, their brand loyalty, by pursuing this new policy. Currently only 10% or 2.5 million Mac users have upgraded to OS X. With 25 million Mac users all told, and with an iTools storage capacity - including e-mail and webspace - of 15MB per user, Apple can easily keep all of this 375MB on a single machine. If Mac e-mail users were limited to only 1MB, they could still store up to 1,000 text-only messages, while the capacity requirements would be trivial.
Apple may need additional cash flow, but going after their loyal customers is not the way to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
a customized HOSTS file
Sure. But the origin of this and the easiest way to do it is with this little gem:
ftp://radsoft.net/pub/bloatbusters/silencer.zip
the threat of viruses
I got it: MS products are more impervious to exploits than open source products. Yeah right.
Is there no way to prosecute MS for false advertising in this matter? What steps need to be taken? How does one try to kick-start the process?
Ballmer's such a pig - and an ugly pig.
What most of us want is an environment - and a life - where we're never reminded that Microsoft even exist, and to finally wake up one morning and hear on the news they no longer do.
Scroll Lock was used a lot in the early days of the PC. We used it quite a lot in our software packages. Yes, it was up to the ISV to implement, but basically meant you locked the scroll (DUH). Several editors we released had both read-only and edit modes, and working in character mode on the screen with only the keyboard to navigate, this made things easier (and quite good actually). If I am not incorrect, Kahn's SideKick used it too - for the same purpose.
Alt-Graph on a Sun workstation might try to do the same things as the comparative key on the PC: provide characters not found in the English language.
I remember Bill collecting a lot at Sainsbury and Tesco back then. Did not hear that nothing came of it.
Funny you don't mention Linus a single time. Linux is what is on the move - not RMS. And what's this 'GNU vs. BSD'? It's LINUX - it's not GNU/Linux and it's not GNU. And that's what Linus said, and he's the man behind it - not RMS. Bash riots? It's over. No one dislikes Linus, and no one likes RMS, and we can all go home. Even YOU.
Ballmer can blame users all he wants. It comes down to Microsoft having a crappy security model and poor development practices.
Yes. But the blame does not belong farther down the organisation - the blame belongs at the top, with Ballmer and Gates, who have deliberately cultivated the corporate atmosphere that is causing all these problems today.
If they wanted excellence, they could have blown everyone out of the water. They have enough money. They simply do not want it. Period.
So stop hoping they'll improve, or hoping the Internet will be less hectic while they're still a major player. For it's not going to happen.
Proactive development cuts into profitability, as does the practice of hiring experienced developers instead of fresh-faced children just out of engineering school who are willing to work twice as hard (although not twice as smart) in exchange for a free mountain bike and occasional use of the game room.
Hear hear. And it might be added that the security experts are not the problem, as Thade has implied. Microsoft is the problem. No one wanted their Blaster patch because they'd crashed 600,000 two months earlier.
And why? The above quote tells all. Microsoft do not have a cult of excellence.
This is of course great news - for Halderman and everyone. Yes, one wonders how such a silly lawsuit would have went, and this can be the ultimate consideration of CEO Jacobs, as SunnComm gains little by playing hero.
But it doesn't really matter. If SunnComm stay out of this, then it is a victory, and maybe we will now see the end of all this foolish copy-prevention hype as Halderman predicted.
I not only think they don't; I know it.
MS started using their own compiler for Windows with the "Visual" products - before that, what was left of the excellent compiler they'd bought from Lattice was a total load of crap. Up until then, they were selling their own compiler (which never worked - I mean it sometimes died at the command line, that's how bad it was) and for their own use licensing another compiler from an ISV to build Windows. The inside cover of the MSJ back then was taken by Borland, who had customer quotes about just how bad that MS compiler was. There are certainly numerous other examples. After all, the Microsoft people might be incompetent, but they're not stupid.Just what we needed. More evidence of why Gates is so loved world-wide. I hope those who think this little exercise will backfire are right, but looking back at MS's sordid history is not encouraging. The problem might be that ordinary people don't have the devious minds of Gates and his friends.
Sorry, but I think that's just a wee bit naive. Yes, on paper it looks reasonable - but let's be honest: Microsoft are never reasonable. And they're always up to something. Exactly what Microsoft's angle is may take a while to figure out, but one thing is for sure: It's not about playing fair.
I believe he is what is known as a 'finlandssvensk', that is to say, he may live in Finland, but his native (first) language will be Swedish. The western half of Finland, from Helsinki to Turku on the coast, is where the 'finlandssvenskar' live - street signs et al. in both languages.
Linux was honoured some years past by the Royal Technical Institute in Stockholm - I believe he received an honorary doctorate, but I might be wrong. It was at any rate the same body that gave GATES that doctor's hat the year after. The only difference is, Linux didn't drop a few cool million when he came to town...
And Stockholm is only a day's ferry ride from Linus's home town, so that's perhaps close enough...
Nice site, admirable idea, but it remains to be seen if they'll be relevant.
DOS was bought and paid for
Uh - not quite. MS had to later pay Paterson $400K, who was threatening to sue.
I don't see how this could hold. After all, the contention is MS lured Burst - played up to them, only long enough to steal their technology.
No one is denying the companies talked. What you will find in those letters is a sort of dissemblance I would believe.
OTOH, with an email culture as MS's, the internal memos would be very enlightening.
Yes, too true. This is exactly the type of situation that leads to exploits: people that dabble where we need dedicated pros.
// Guarantee 0 termination
// And remember: '80' and '40' are magic numbers
// Failsafe: force 0 termination on string1 anyway;
// also, strcat call is always more expensive
// This has to work
Let's try to make some sense out of that snippet. There might be many ways, but...
char string1[80], string2[40], string3[40];
ASSERT(sizeof(string1) >= sizeof(string2) + sizeof(string3));
memset(string1, 0, sizeof(string1));
memset(string2, 0, sizeof(string2));
memset(string3, 0, sizeof(string3));
strcpy(string1, string2);
strcat(string1, string3);
This was a talking head article. What we don't need is more talking heads telling us and the world what programmers need. What we do need is a better understanding amongst programmers so that they take greater pride in their work. It is no coincidence that the software I represent is generally bug and vulnerability free and has been for years: The people who wrote it are dedicated and took great pride in it.
Writing good software is the same as writing secure software, said a good friend of mine who just happened to be the clever chap who nabbed the fellow behind Melissa and sent the Washington Post to Anaconda after ILOVEYOU. He's right.
A good programmer will never allow a buffer overflow. It's just not done. A good programmer will not assume his program is going to be used as advertised. An IT manager I used to work with began all his own reviews of software by banging on the keyboard with his fists and throwing the keyboard to the floor. The programs were not allowed to crash or do anything stupid. Several developers thought this was unfair, but of course it was not. It was just good thinking.
You have to perhaps develop a feeling for what can go wrong, but getting into particulars here is not what is needed. Good instincts are what is needed.
If you don't have the instincts, and the dedication, then all the advice of all the talking heads in the world will not help you. They'll still make money hand over fist selling their blather to the suckers, but software will still be leaky.
Cindy sounds American...
Will disagree with poster who cites copying of Windows. Who wants it? Hatter looks as good or better than Windows, but what kind of yardstick is that?
Ever since the taskbar things have gone downhill - to my mind, what a terrible GUI design decision...
But then again, I'm spoiled. All I use today is a TiBook. There you have a GUI to copy...
Why would you be surprised? Microsoft, that fair play advocate, suddenly made to look bad? Poor them!
Windows more insecure by design? Bollocks! Who are these people making such sweeping statements? Talk about being clueless!
Look: Windows sucks, we all know that by now. But the Post wouldn't know a design if it hit them on the backside of the head.
What's wrong with Windows is that they're using some pretty mediocre programmers who have no formal training, at least not like what they should have, no discipline...
You have to make accuracy and stability a priority. In Redmond, writing cute AARD code counts higher. The jerk who wrote the GDI for Cutler in C++ was a gambling addict who wasted most of his time devising a system to beat the bank in Atlantic City.
It's not the system - it's the people, and the mentality surrounding them. MS act more like Nixon Watergate plumbers - they're not sensible programmers. Some of them may be OK individuals, but when they're working at a keyboard they lose it.
I have never seen so much bad code in my life as I have seen coming out of Redmond, and I am not making that up. I have thousands of CDs to prove it. Some of them shouldn't be programmers; others don't apply themselves. You have the same issues in every company. But MS go out after blood; they're fanatics, and stability and good programming are a low priority. With MS, it's worse - far worse.
'Insecure by design' is bollocks. What a waste of hot air...
R.
Well duh so did Linus. And a lot of people were embarrassed about that guy from Redmond getting one. He paid good money for it, maybe he should have it, was a comment I heard.
Supposedly the Swedes have received a reply in blue laser last night. 'We like talking to you better, those SETI guys are too serious.'
Apple have only a few things going for them.
- Microsoft Office. The downside here is that MS Office is priced too highly to be attractive to most users.
- Photoshop and Adobe's dependency. With over 30% of their revenues coming from Mac users, Adobe needs Apple.
- A brand loyalty second to none. Mac users love their machines, and some users even want to marry them.
Apple stand to lose their most important asset, their brand loyalty, by pursuing this new policy. Currently only 10% or 2.5 million Mac users have upgraded to OS X. With 25 million Mac users all told, and with an iTools storage capacity - including e-mail and webspace - of 15MB per user, Apple can easily keep all of this 375MB on a single machine. If Mac e-mail users were limited to only 1MB, they could still store up to 1,000 text-only messages, while the capacity requirements would be trivial.
Apple may need additional cash flow, but going after their loyal customers is not the way to do it.
Rickster