Not to mention the multitude of sites which are either designed to work in, or specifically work only in, a single proprietary web browser with contempt for web standards, which works for a single OS and was written by the same company, with the primary intention of strengthening its monopoly.
I have. They exist. (Most of) The exploits themselves would take a phenomenal amount of knowledge about the entire underlying OS to turn them into a full-fledged rootkit installation exploit but they do exist. They do exist, but is it true that they come up with one per day while Windows has one per month? One per month? That is an out-and-out lie.
I think some media has woken up. Not enough... the really mainstream media is still the same, "The new Vista is here, and Bill Gates says it's awesome." Main newspapers and TV stories I've seen (at least in australia) are not doing journalism, they're just rephrasing MS marketing material as a news item. It shits me.
It is good to see more tech-specialised media having a go at him. Still, his reaction majorly upsets me - page 2 of TFA in particular, where he first whines about the lies of mac. Then he goes and makes blatant lies such as implying that OSX stole concepts which they announced, because Vista security took too long... (erk), and
Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?
So.. MS came up with File, Edit, View and Help... while Apple came up with the GUI and the DESKTOP.
And also I have yet to see any interviewer get to the hard issues - DRM, WGA, licensing, and so on. All the media focusses on is the visible issues - HD media, parental controls and aero.
I usually refrain from directly telling people to switch to Linux. If I'm going to lecture, I usually sing the praises of Linux (it's free, its got a better security model than Windows, it's all open source + good philosophy, etc, and best for me is it helps a technical person work more efficiently - that last point isn't good for you, the novice). So basically, I explain the advantages without directly recommending it.
Of course you explain that it's getting there - it'll possibly be there by the end of the year. Things like WINE will help a lot. But it just isn't ready for the average Windows user to use - and even if it was, it isn't ready for the avg Windows user to set up!
And then if they agree with the open philosophy but find Linux is all too hard (which is true of most people), then get them to make less-drastic switches like Firefox and Open Office, if they haven't already. Is this more than 5 minutes?
One of the saddest games was Psychonauts - a brilliant, funny and whimsical platformer from Tim Schafer, which sold about eight copies. It won dozens of awards in 2005 but its market reception was so poor because it was "something else". (Also the marketing was dreadful and it wasn't even available in many countries).
My next big hope is Spore, which should generate a lot of attention coming from Will Wright.
Hm, you seem to think Gutmann's posts and rebuttals are slashdot comments. I'm referring to the article A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. This is the work of a notable security expert, who has analysed and written a report on the AACS specification and its implementation in Vista. This is not some evangelist slashdot post, it is a serious paper, heavily based in fact by a noted security expert. It's become extremely popular.
This therefore is not a criticism of AACS in general (though it is horrible) - this paper criticises the way in which Microsoft has implemented AACS in Vista. Now this is completely irrelevant of whether or not MS were forced to do it - it doesn't matter when you see the lengths they have gone to to compromise computer stability, security and efficiency at every level - it is simply inexcusable that they have done this (even if it's the only way to implement AACS).
Please read the paper. It explains that this is not just going to affect people who play HD content. It isn't just going to affect people using Vista, or Windows. Microsoft is instrumenting a fundamental change to every level of hardware and software. They are mandating that graphics cards (which fully comply with Vista) must not disclose parts of their binary interface, for example (now THERE is a big advantage for MS, since it will make it impossible to write open source drivers). They have basically changed the way the entire computer operates, increasing the cost of all components, just so that you can play HD content in Vista.
So the bottom line is: Even if Hollywood put a gun to Microsoft's head and said "If you want to play our movies, you must implement AACS exactly as we say", the responsible thing for MS to do would have been to say "No. HD content isn't that important for PCs anyway, since most people will view it on standalone players. We refuse to make such an utterly irresponsible change to the PC architecture." Instead, they accepted, due to the obvious appeal of making Vista "the future of multimedia". So it's a marketing thing from MS. It's basically the only thing Vista has going for it, and it's come at an enormous price - not only to MS, but also to hardware manufacturers (who won't benefit from this at all), and most of all consumers (who will only benefit in the least if they wish to play HD content).
In my book it is absolutely inexcusable what MS have done, regardless of whether or not they had to do it to play HD content. They have not only ruined Windows, but have brought the entire PC platform down with it.
At the University of Melbourne (Australia) department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, we have a dumb terminal architecture (UNIX) for most of the machines. There is a cluster of central servers, and we log in from anywhere in the building with these terminals. They get a GNOME X server so we get a full desktop, and we work from there.
It's rarely clogged, and it provides us with instant access to our home directory from anywhere in the building. Furthermore, we can SSH in from any computer in the world. So it works really well, and of course the entire department gets updates when they happen. (Note: This isn't just for access to your files, but all of the applications available in the unix environment).
This is as opposed to the Windows and Mac computers that are installed in certain rooms of the facility - they are all desktop computers, and while you can still access your drive using samba, each computer has its own software installed. This is frankly quite annoying, since there are differences between each machine - some aren't configured properly, and also you have to set up all your prefs on each computer you use - a maintenance nightmare and not fun for anyone. So most of the time we just end up using XWin to log into the Unix servers anyway.
How is this a level discussion when there are 2 Vista advocates compared to 1 of each other OS? I feel rather insulted here... it's like "Vista's the new thing so here are 2 people to sing it's praises. Now for 2 of you other people to tell us about the alternatives."
Also I'd like to point out that the Linux and Mac guys are (as Linux and Mac guys usually are) switchers from Windows, while both of the Windows guys seem as though they've never used anything but Windows in their life. If they were going to get 2 Windows guys, they could at least get one of them to be someone who's used another system but still prefers Windows (though... those sorts of people are extremely difficult to find - and I'm not kidding).
Having said that, I'd like to congratulate Paul Broadbent (the Linux dude). He's written a good summary, touching on all the aspects of why Linux is superior, without ever resorting to sledging. I like the way he's covered the technical advantages, cost, community support, and wrapped up with a non-preachy bit about the importance of freedom and open source. I hope a lot of people read this (without getting to swept up in the usual "Vista is prettier than XP" argument which precedes it).
If Vista does what most of its customers want it to, it would be difficult to describe as a "bad product" simply because it - or its developer - doesn't align perfectly with my moral compass.
You obviously have a very far-reaching moral compass...
The only "orders" Microsoft are following are the ones their customers were giving with regards to "accessing premium content".
Did you not recently try to rebut my assertion that MS were being "forced" to implement DRM? That's the orders Gutmann is talking about...
Most of the alarmist suppositions this article makes have been refuted as the FUD that they are. Slashdot linked to it about a week ago.
Yes, MS made a lot of weak rebuttals, which we all saw through a week ago. Where were you?
Then Gutmann refuted it... the result of which is the above quote.
The method for avoiding DRM in Vista is trivial: don't buy DRM-encumbered content.
This sort of statement comes up all the time and it pisses me off. Firstly, Gutmann explained (and the weak Microsoft rebuttals confirmed) that Vista's content protection schemes will waste CPU cycles even if there is no protected content running. It requires all drivers to continually poll for attacks.
Secondly, it is not trivial to avoid buying DRM-encumbered content. The reason I hate DRM is not because it's attacking my grandmother. It's because I want to watch movies. I want to watch movies in my own home that I have paid for. There is no way for me to do that without buying DRM-encumbered content. Do you understand this: you can't avoid DRM unless you avoid content itself.
I agree that copyright holders are at fault - but it is quite clear that DRM benefits everybody - the OS vendors, the hardware vendors, the **AAs and the copyright holders. It benefits everybody except the consumer because every single company all down the line stands to make a hefty profit when consumers repurchase their media, their hardware, and their software, to be re-compatible. DRM is the biggest scam in history, and don't think for one second that anybody in the industry is not going to profit from it.
OK let's simplify this a bit... it's bad right? Whether or not MS is forced to or they could or couldn't have done anything about it is irrelevant - the product contains these nasty, repugnant features - therefore it is a bad product.
I'll just quote the recent rebuttal by Peter Gutmann,
Anyway... I agree DRM is stupid, but shouldn't these guys be barking at the paranoid media companies trying to enforce that junk, not Microsoft? Vista provides merely an implementation of the HDCP standards that are being pushed out. As long as these guys whines at Vista, nothing will change, because Microsoft will always be the kind of guys that wants to at least provide their users the option to use protected media if they really, really want to. For possibly-not-the-last-time, Microsoft are a) big and powerful enough (and with a large enough user base) to be able to protest and change these standards if they want, and b) behind these standards.
MS is a big promoter of HD DVD (wikipedia lists it as one of the top 5, along with Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo, and Intel). They form part of the committee which decides upon these standards.
In short, there is no use arguing that MS is being "forced" to do this. We all know MS doesn't get "forced" into anything.
In that case, he needs to provide a major part of his article giving convincing conspiracy-free details on how Microsoft would exactly profit from that. Lock-in == profit. DRM == lock-in. Vista == DRM. That's about it.
Well this is just it really - it's gotten to the point (and maybe it did with XP too, I don't remember) where MS do not need to "sell" Windows at all. If they did no marketing at all there would be no difference. Windows sells itself - as in - when you buy a computer, Windows grabs your wallet out of your pocket and buys a copy of itself for you. Such is the power of lock-in + vendor deals/bullying.
Having said that, there is an awful amount of negative publicity, as you say, and that is helpful.
Well, it sort of makes sense that things you need at startup are often going to need to do admin-type things. So I don't know... but there has to be some way. Maybe they want everything to run as a "Windows Service" - a special type of program-that's-not-a-program. (Based on the wiki, that could well be it). I don't know much about services, but MS wants programs that run in the background to be services instead.
Vista also incorporates Windows Defender, an anti-virus program that actively scans computers for "spyware, adware, and other potentially unwanted software." The agreement does not define any of these terms, leaving it to Microsoft to determine what constitutes unwanted software. Once operational, the agreement warns that Windows Defender will, by default, automatically remove software rated "high" or "severe,"even though that may result in other software ceasing to work or mistakenly result in the removal of software that is not unwanted.
Sounds pretty nasty. Beyond my (semi)joke example of firefox.exe, this can be a problem - Norton for example continually detects netcat as "malicious software" and tells me to delete it. No... it isn't. It's a well-regarded open source tool for open network communications, which can be used for hacking (just as Paint can be used for child porn). Stop trying to delete it. So... if Defender detects nc, it may just delete it, which would infuriate me. It's my computer, damnit. You are my Operating System. You delete what I tell you to delete, and no more!
Windows Defender in Windows Vista automatically blocks all startup items that require administrator privileges to run (this is considered a bad behaviour for a startup item). There is no known easy way to automatically unblock these items, the only suggestion given is to "contact the software vendor for an updated version" which is Vista compatible (does not require administrator privileges to run)... If there is no updated version of the startup item, the only currently known way to circumvene this behavior is to disable UAC altogether.
So... once again does not give users choice in what programs can and can't do (this is fine as a default, but you need to give advanced users a choice) - and the only way to disable it is to either update software to comply with MS's commandments, or completely disable UAC... is this not precisely why everyone made Admin accounts in XP and the security was nonexistant? MS need to rethink their policy on user choice AND security.
I'm not going to find out how bad it is because I am never going to get Vista.
Yup. Don't run from Windows to Mac. The only reason why Windows has everyone up in arms is because it's so popular. Run to Linux to save your soul.
(Well, I was considering getting a Mac, but the TPM thing scared me safely back to Linux).
Dude... it isn't simple. If I was OK to avoid all the products with DRM on them... then I would, and I wouldn't care. So while it's simple to say "don't get an iPod, get a DRM-free media player", or "don't get music from iTunes, get the same music from eMusic" - it's not as easy when you want a movie. They make them in DRM DVD, DRM HD-DVD or DRM Blu-ray - and you pick (and yes, I pick DVD).
Thankyou. I regain a bit of faith in the world when mass media says stuff like this. What a pity it's in Canada. (No offense to Canadians, but it's the US where change needs to happen). But... yeah I am sick of reading narrow-minded articles praising Vista. This article, while short, tells a much fuller story. Cheers!
Wow, this Windows Defender(TM) seems like a piece of work. It can delete any piece of software it wants. firefox.exe, for example. (Come on, with all the security holes, it's practically spyware!)
Usually the other kind of link is called a "hard link", so it's easy to see where "soft link" comes from. But yes, in UNIX it is called a symlink. Haven't read TFA but it sounds like typical MS trying to pretend they came up with an original idea when they didn't.
(Sorry, I'm just disheartened since I just finished reading about them ripping off BlueJ.)
This is mostly true, but one of the things being pointed out recently with Vista coming out is that switching from XP to Vista will require almost as much training as switching from XP to Linux. So now is the perfect time for companies to, rather than upgrading to Vista because MS tells them to, to finally break the cycle, migrate to Linux and run their own software the way they want to run it.
Now for my Software Engineering / Computer Science knowledge:
Also as far as mathematical proofs go, well that's just infeasible I'm afraid. By this I mean, it is mathematically impossible to make proofs in most languages because they are so nondeterministic (this reduces to the Halting problem). Modern languages may be designed with proofs in mind (functional and logic languages like Haskell and Mercury) - now for these it is technically possible to make "proofs" but if you want to automate a proof on anything more complex than Hello World or a simple computation, it's going to take an exponential amount of time.
For more realistic proofs, you do hardcore system testing, establish reliability measures, etc, etc boring statistics stuff, to come up with a "0.00001% chance of failure per hour" or something like that.
But really, this is all academic crap that nobody in the "real world" will listen to - and it's silly to think that businesses will throw away Windows and adopt Linux just because some professor says it's "proven stable". Linux is already well-regarded to be a far more stable/secure platform than Windows but it doesn't do us a lot of good.
That's exactly right - Wiki is a huge help in research, it helps you find information immediately and links to other sources. It helps you decide if such a topic is an avenue you'd like to pursue, gives you a lot of background knowledge, and then sends you off in the right direction to get more information. I'm a huge proponent of Wikipedia in this use.
The fact simply is though that Wiki alone is never a credible resource. Once you have benefited from it's massive usefulness in giving you the background information, you then have to do the work, verify this information from credible sources, and then cite those sources.
The way Wikipedia is designed, there is theoretically no information on there which doesn't exist anywhere else (according to the rules, all information must be drawn from some other traceable source), so theoretically it should be possible (theoretically it should be very easy) to find primary sources backing up whatever you read on the wiki.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the multitude of sites which are either designed to work in, or specifically work only in, a single proprietary web browser with contempt for web standards, which works for a single OS and was written by the same company, with the primary intention of strengthening its monopoly.
It is good to see more tech-specialised media having a go at him. Still, his reaction majorly upsets me - page 2 of TFA in particular, where he first whines about the lies of mac. Then he goes and makes blatant lies such as implying that OSX stole concepts which they announced, because Vista security took too long... (erk), and So.. MS came up with File, Edit, View and Help... while Apple came up with the GUI and the DESKTOP.
And also I have yet to see any interviewer get to the hard issues - DRM, WGA, licensing, and so on. All the media focusses on is the visible issues - HD media, parental controls and aero.
I usually refrain from directly telling people to switch to Linux. If I'm going to lecture, I usually sing the praises of Linux (it's free, its got a better security model than Windows, it's all open source + good philosophy, etc, and best for me is it helps a technical person work more efficiently - that last point isn't good for you, the novice). So basically, I explain the advantages without directly recommending it.
Of course you explain that it's getting there - it'll possibly be there by the end of the year. Things like WINE will help a lot. But it just isn't ready for the average Windows user to use - and even if it was, it isn't ready for the avg Windows user to set up!
And then if they agree with the open philosophy but find Linux is all too hard (which is true of most people), then get them to make less-drastic switches like Firefox and Open Office, if they haven't already. Is this more than 5 minutes?
One of the saddest games was Psychonauts - a brilliant, funny and whimsical platformer from Tim Schafer, which sold about eight copies. It won dozens of awards in 2005 but its market reception was so poor because it was "something else". (Also the marketing was dreadful and it wasn't even available in many countries).
My next big hope is Spore, which should generate a lot of attention coming from Will Wright.
Hm, you seem to think Gutmann's posts and rebuttals are slashdot comments. I'm referring to the article A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. This is the work of a notable security expert, who has analysed and written a report on the AACS specification and its implementation in Vista. This is not some evangelist slashdot post, it is a serious paper, heavily based in fact by a noted security expert. It's become extremely popular.
This therefore is not a criticism of AACS in general (though it is horrible) - this paper criticises the way in which Microsoft has implemented AACS in Vista. Now this is completely irrelevant of whether or not MS were forced to do it - it doesn't matter when you see the lengths they have gone to to compromise computer stability, security and efficiency at every level - it is simply inexcusable that they have done this (even if it's the only way to implement AACS).
Please read the paper. It explains that this is not just going to affect people who play HD content. It isn't just going to affect people using Vista, or Windows. Microsoft is instrumenting a fundamental change to every level of hardware and software. They are mandating that graphics cards (which fully comply with Vista) must not disclose parts of their binary interface, for example (now THERE is a big advantage for MS, since it will make it impossible to write open source drivers). They have basically changed the way the entire computer operates, increasing the cost of all components, just so that you can play HD content in Vista.
So the bottom line is: Even if Hollywood put a gun to Microsoft's head and said "If you want to play our movies, you must implement AACS exactly as we say", the responsible thing for MS to do would have been to say "No. HD content isn't that important for PCs anyway, since most people will view it on standalone players. We refuse to make such an utterly irresponsible change to the PC architecture." Instead, they accepted, due to the obvious appeal of making Vista "the future of multimedia". So it's a marketing thing from MS. It's basically the only thing Vista has going for it, and it's come at an enormous price - not only to MS, but also to hardware manufacturers (who won't benefit from this at all), and most of all consumers (who will only benefit in the least if they wish to play HD content).
In my book it is absolutely inexcusable what MS have done, regardless of whether or not they had to do it to play HD content. They have not only ruined Windows, but have brought the entire PC platform down with it.
At the University of Melbourne (Australia) department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, we have a dumb terminal architecture (UNIX) for most of the machines. There is a cluster of central servers, and we log in from anywhere in the building with these terminals. They get a GNOME X server so we get a full desktop, and we work from there.
It's rarely clogged, and it provides us with instant access to our home directory from anywhere in the building. Furthermore, we can SSH in from any computer in the world. So it works really well, and of course the entire department gets updates when they happen. (Note: This isn't just for access to your files, but all of the applications available in the unix environment).
This is as opposed to the Windows and Mac computers that are installed in certain rooms of the facility - they are all desktop computers, and while you can still access your drive using samba, each computer has its own software installed. This is frankly quite annoying, since there are differences between each machine - some aren't configured properly, and also you have to set up all your prefs on each computer you use - a maintenance nightmare and not fun for anyone. So most of the time we just end up using XWin to log into the Unix servers anyway.
How is this a level discussion when there are 2 Vista advocates compared to 1 of each other OS? I feel rather insulted here... it's like "Vista's the new thing so here are 2 people to sing it's praises. Now for 2 of you other people to tell us about the alternatives."
Also I'd like to point out that the Linux and Mac guys are (as Linux and Mac guys usually are) switchers from Windows, while both of the Windows guys seem as though they've never used anything but Windows in their life. If they were going to get 2 Windows guys, they could at least get one of them to be someone who's used another system but still prefers Windows (though... those sorts of people are extremely difficult to find - and I'm not kidding).
Having said that, I'd like to congratulate Paul Broadbent (the Linux dude). He's written a good summary, touching on all the aspects of why Linux is superior, without ever resorting to sledging. I like the way he's covered the technical advantages, cost, community support, and wrapped up with a non-preachy bit about the importance of freedom and open source. I hope a lot of people read this (without getting to swept up in the usual "Vista is prettier than XP" argument which precedes it).
Then Gutmann refuted it... the result of which is the above quote. This sort of statement comes up all the time and it pisses me off. Firstly, Gutmann explained (and the weak Microsoft rebuttals confirmed) that Vista's content protection schemes will waste CPU cycles even if there is no protected content running. It requires all drivers to continually poll for attacks.
Secondly, it is not trivial to avoid buying DRM-encumbered content. The reason I hate DRM is not because it's attacking my grandmother. It's because I want to watch movies. I want to watch movies in my own home that I have paid for. There is no way for me to do that without buying DRM-encumbered content. Do you understand this: you can't avoid DRM unless you avoid content itself.
I agree that copyright holders are at fault - but it is quite clear that DRM benefits everybody - the OS vendors, the hardware vendors, the **AAs and the copyright holders. It benefits everybody except the consumer because every single company all down the line stands to make a hefty profit when consumers repurchase their media, their hardware, and their software, to be re-compatible. DRM is the biggest scam in history, and don't think for one second that anybody in the industry is not going to profit from it.
I'll just quote the recent rebuttal by Peter Gutmann, (More here - search for "Microsoft is only").
MS is a big promoter of HD DVD (wikipedia lists it as one of the top 5, along with Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo, and Intel). They form part of the committee which decides upon these standards.
In short, there is no use arguing that MS is being "forced" to do this. We all know MS doesn't get "forced" into anything. In that case, he needs to provide a major part of his article giving convincing conspiracy-free details on how Microsoft would exactly profit from that. Lock-in == profit. DRM == lock-in. Vista == DRM. That's about it.
Well this is just it really - it's gotten to the point (and maybe it did with XP too, I don't remember) where MS do not need to "sell" Windows at all. If they did no marketing at all there would be no difference. Windows sells itself - as in - when you buy a computer, Windows grabs your wallet out of your pocket and buys a copy of itself for you. Such is the power of lock-in + vendor deals/bullying.
Having said that, there is an awful amount of negative publicity, as you say, and that is helpful.
Well, it sort of makes sense that things you need at startup are often going to need to do admin-type things. So I don't know... but there has to be some way. Maybe they want everything to run as a "Windows Service" - a special type of program-that's-not-a-program. (Based on the wiki, that could well be it). I don't know much about services, but MS wants programs that run in the background to be services instead.
Well I was just going by the description in TFA:
Sounds pretty nasty. Beyond my (semi)joke example of firefox.exe, this can be a problem - Norton for example continually detects netcat as "malicious software" and tells me to delete it. No... it isn't. It's a well-regarded open source tool for open network communications, which can be used for hacking (just as Paint can be used for child porn). Stop trying to delete it. So... if Defender detects nc, it may just delete it, which would infuriate me. It's my computer, damnit. You are my Operating System. You delete what I tell you to delete, and no more!
How's this for a great feature (from the wiki):
So... once again does not give users choice in what programs can and can't do (this is fine as a default, but you need to give advanced users a choice) - and the only way to disable it is to either update software to comply with MS's commandments, or completely disable UAC... is this not precisely why everyone made Admin accounts in XP and the security was nonexistant? MS need to rethink their policy on user choice AND security.
I'm not going to find out how bad it is because I am never going to get Vista.
That's him. The Zune guy, right?
Yup. Don't run from Windows to Mac. The only reason why Windows has everyone up in arms is because it's so popular. Run to Linux to save your soul. (Well, I was considering getting a Mac, but the TPM thing scared me safely back to Linux).
Dude... it isn't simple. If I was OK to avoid all the products with DRM on them... then I would, and I wouldn't care. So while it's simple to say "don't get an iPod, get a DRM-free media player", or "don't get music from iTunes, get the same music from eMusic" - it's not as easy when you want a movie. They make them in DRM DVD, DRM HD-DVD or DRM Blu-ray - and you pick (and yes, I pick DVD).
Thankyou. I regain a bit of faith in the world when mass media says stuff like this. What a pity it's in Canada. (No offense to Canadians, but it's the US where change needs to happen). But ... yeah I am sick of reading narrow-minded articles praising Vista. This article, while short, tells a much fuller story. Cheers!
Wow, this Windows Defender(TM) seems like a piece of work. It can delete any piece of software it wants. firefox.exe, for example. (Come on, with all the security holes, it's practically spyware!)
Don't you usually need to buy a new beast once you slay it?
Usually the other kind of link is called a "hard link", so it's easy to see where "soft link" comes from. But yes, in UNIX it is called a symlink. Haven't read TFA but it sounds like typical MS trying to pretend they came up with an original idea when they didn't.
(Sorry, I'm just disheartened since I just finished reading about them ripping off BlueJ.)
This is mostly true, but one of the things being pointed out recently with Vista coming out is that switching from XP to Vista will require almost as much training as switching from XP to Linux. So now is the perfect time for companies to, rather than upgrading to Vista because MS tells them to, to finally break the cycle, migrate to Linux and run their own software the way they want to run it.
Now for my Software Engineering / Computer Science knowledge:
Also as far as mathematical proofs go, well that's just infeasible I'm afraid. By this I mean, it is mathematically impossible to make proofs in most languages because they are so nondeterministic (this reduces to the Halting problem). Modern languages may be designed with proofs in mind (functional and logic languages like Haskell and Mercury) - now for these it is technically possible to make "proofs" but if you want to automate a proof on anything more complex than Hello World or a simple computation, it's going to take an exponential amount of time.
For more realistic proofs, you do hardcore system testing, establish reliability measures, etc, etc boring statistics stuff, to come up with a "0.00001% chance of failure per hour" or something like that.
But really, this is all academic crap that nobody in the "real world" will listen to - and it's silly to think that businesses will throw away Windows and adopt Linux just because some professor says it's "proven stable". Linux is already well-regarded to be a far more stable/secure platform than Windows but it doesn't do us a lot of good.
So just to clarify, you mean, "Will trade for software of the same quality as half a carcass."
Sounds about right.
God damned HTML...
$0.00 < $0.50?
(I'm just kidding, I love HTML).
$0.00 $0.50?
Mod parent up (more).
That's exactly right - Wiki is a huge help in research, it helps you find information immediately and links to other sources. It helps you decide if such a topic is an avenue you'd like to pursue, gives you a lot of background knowledge, and then sends you off in the right direction to get more information. I'm a huge proponent of Wikipedia in this use.
The fact simply is though that Wiki alone is never a credible resource. Once you have benefited from it's massive usefulness in giving you the background information, you then have to do the work, verify this information from credible sources, and then cite those sources.
The way Wikipedia is designed, there is theoretically no information on there which doesn't exist anywhere else (according to the rules, all information must be drawn from some other traceable source), so theoretically it should be possible (theoretically it should be very easy) to find primary sources backing up whatever you read on the wiki.