|But apparently not English. The only problem is if Microsoft uses its knowledge of undocumented APIs to gain an advantage on Google. If the documentation is piss-poor (and it is, I've had to rewrite parts so that it was usable), that doesn't matter. It only matters if their internal developers get a better version.|
The bad news is my english has gotten worse since i stared reading code written in Inda, the good news my Hindi has gotten better. By the way the rest of us could use some better documentation.
|P.S. very clever of you to once more reference Microsoft's opening of an R+D center in Canada because of laxer immigration requirements. I'm sure you see it as a condemnation of Microsoft and not a horribly broken immigration system in the United States.|
No Bill warned us, the techies here in the USA couldn't cut it. That helped a lot (from the Stick Foot in Mouth Department). Thank god for the Canadians.
|What? Since when is Microsoft supposed to guarantee apps work OS to OS. OSX killed OS9 apps... in fact Microsoft typically has better support for dropping an old binary on a new version than any other OS (in major version cycles).|
Hey guarantee are hard to come by, but every so often you expect one of Microsoft's competitors (Lotus, netscap, google...Pick your favorite Application failure) to get lucky. Its Dejavu all over again.
|And as for undocumented APIs, use them at your own risk.|
Which ones? (Old joke catch 22 stuff). How much risk does Microsoft assume btw on the documented ones anyway?
|The only legal problem is if Microsoft's internal development team gets better documentation/advance notice of the "undocumented" API.|
Ok, I blame Microsoft's Internal Development Team's documentation. Hmmm, But when I read their public documentation it aint that hot either (IMHO). It might lose something in translation, maybe the "Kunnucks" (god bless them) can help them out some. I can read canadian.:)
|Version control has nothing to do with software versioning.|
This is two sides of the coin my boy(see oldtimer jokes), if it aint important just throw it out the window and let the code rip. LoL
|Software versioning is the process of releasing new versions of software while attempting to maintain syntactic and semantic compatibility.|
Textbook Answer, depending on which textbook you use on which platform. See the problem yet?
|In almost all cases, versioning software without breaking changes is pretty much impossible - software contains bugs, and fixing bugs is by definition requires a change in the semantics of a program.|
Note to self: Tools you wrote back in the late 1980's don't work no more. Tools you converted in the 1990's don't work no more. I got to find the semantics of the program to get them work in 2000's.
|Some software relies on bugs.|
Try not to do this... (Bad Idea!!!)
|Some software relies on unpublished behavior.|
Try not to do this... (Bad Idea, unless you are OLD School Hacker/[Engineer])
|Some software relies on very specific timing or patterns of callbacks.
Woot, Be a game programer, network program, or hmmm... well machine level coder(a step above actually)|
|Some software relies on broken security models - like that of Windows XP.|
Wow only Windows XP? I think you forgot a few... (keep going all the way back to DOS 3.3 if you like)
|Versioning software and maintaining 100% compatiblity is difficult even when your software only has a limited amount of client code - it's impossible for software like Windows which has numerous clients and numerous issues (bugs, security problems, legacy code...).|
No its not see the Unix model, see the IBM Mainframe Model. FREEZE the Environment. Hell I can get Xenix System written in the late 1980 to run on a current Linux kernel.
|That's why Microsoft runs extensive beta programs and certification programs before they officially release new versions.|
I thought it was for the free testing they got, well I am shocked.
|Google had the chance to find out that their software was going to be broken well before Vista was officially released.|
Yes I am sure that's why it is broken. It's there fault (finger points that way and that way... old joke)
|The fact that it was broken meant that someone at Google chose not to spend time on supporting Vista like many other vendors.|
Bad Google, you didn't spend enough time helping Microsoft witting write their new OS, or did I miss something.
|Like I said in my first post - you need to learn about software versioning before you talk about it.|
Yea you explained it to me. Now I know thank you. My Google DLL is still broke when I start Vista.
|I don't care how many years you think you've been doing this - I know plenty of old timers who don't have a clue.|
Hand me my buggy whip, before I beat the clue out of this genius.
| I work on the Windows team at MS and my team's role is to test Applications Compatibility, so I'm posting AC here. |
I respect your position in acknowledging you work for Microsoft, however if you are on the up and up, I am not sure why you are posting anonymous unless under duress.
| Their old toolbar broke on Vista because it was referencing an API that was neither documented, supported, nor guaranteed to exist in later versions.|
This is an old argument. You control the documentation, support, and guarantees. Microsoft controls the DLL environment not Google. Please don't blame the people who use the environment, they are after all users. We are talking about browser DLL's in your prioritary software. I real don't care about how you code your API as a user I need to know what they do and how to use them effectively, not to mention I also need to be confident they will be around for more than a couple patches, this extends to all software developers.
| This was discovered early in the beta process and was fixed in Google's next version- I'm not sure whether one of our engagement folks worked with them on it or if they spotted it themselves.|
Obviously Not, too bad for a major competitor.
|This is always regrettable, but it's often necessary.|
Yes always regrettable, how unfortunate.
|When we change Windows, it sometimes breaks apps- including Microsoft apps, which *also* do stuff that makes us pull our hair out, and which they have to fix.|
Well don't worry I understand the folks in Canada are hairy maybe their R&D can figure it out. In other words this doesn't fly. (Sorry you all are moving OPS to Canada, nothing against the "Kunnucks".)
| We do our best to give guidance [microsoft.com] on how to make your apps work well version to version, but it's a big job getting guidance to everyone and sometimes it takes some time to get it right.|
That your job, you work for the worlds largest software company you have the resources to fix the problems.
|Any suggestion that we go breaking competitors' apps on purpose is plain wrong- we go out of our way to preserve functionality, sometimes even functionality that isn't guaranteed or documented- but we won't do that if it means foregoing a security improvement, or giving up a fundamental architectural improvement.|
Hmmm, maybe not, but it does effect your allocation of resources and priorities(Welcome the the IT Industry, nothing new here again). I quit giving you folks advice in the early 90's, because the little developers were ignored. No reason to start now. Others are listening now. (BTW security is another issue all together, a topic worth of its own discussion)
|Maybe the top thing that gives Windows its value to consumers is that their apps will work from one version to the next.|
Backward compatibility... Hmmm, IBM use to be good about that, but they became the first to drop support on a problem product or heavy competition. Hope the 64 bit architecture treats you all well in the future, just like the 16 bit architecture did. But I am not so sure with the amount of competition and the costs.
|I'd call legal and report it myself if I ever thought we took a change specifically to break the competition.|
Sorry, they have been called before and settled out of court and sealed the court documents. That's the benefits to being, well Microsoft.
I am not looking for street cred(it). Having worked with version control on 4 different OS's (counting linux/*nix as one), Version Control is not an excuse for putting out software that breaks other peoples code because it is hard to do - lol. I recall Microsofts history of version control doing this on several occasions. I guess you never heard of Mr Bill's stratage of "Embrace and Enhance". Translation for the uninitated - embrace someone elses idea and modify it so the orginal work is unsuable. The only real example I have found otherwise was a Microsft product back in the late 80's call Xenix in which the archetecure allowed it to be upgraded to y2k plus standards, of course it was killed, I beleive in the early 90's.
What ever you think, I still get to look at the Google DLL error on Vista startup everyday, and the BixFix (bloatware) aint fixed it yet, nore has the Microsoft patches on Vista. I just have don't blame Google for it since it works on other Microsft OS's. But hey, version control is HAAAARd !!!
How come is it that ever Microsoft's competitor software breaks when they bring out an upgrade or new OS. This has been happening since Lotus 1-2-3. This time its a Google DLL that craps out as the internet is starting up on Vista, yet its cleanup utilities somehow keep missing the fix. Its very visible and very annoying. Typical Microsoft Cripple your competitors software, cuz we are the only game in town stuff.
I got to watch this everyday, another satisfied customer:(
FTA |...the FCC decreed that open-source security software, too, cannot be made public if doing so would raise the risk that the FCC's rules could be sidestepped....|
Well here your problem...
"The 300" on the History Channel(while I was reading/. of course). Done entirely in front of a green screen with minimal actors. They could have use cartoon figures as far as I was concerned, but still a good historical recreation. Hey I am geek not a "Red Carpet Groupy". What do you expect?
Slashdot Mirror
|But apparently not English. The only problem is if Microsoft uses its knowledge of undocumented APIs to gain an advantage on Google. If the documentation is piss-poor (and it is, I've had to rewrite parts so that it was usable), that doesn't matter. It only matters if their internal developers get a better version.|
The bad news is my english has gotten worse since i stared reading code written in Inda, the good news my Hindi has gotten better. By the way the rest of us could use some better documentation.
|P.S. very clever of you to once more reference Microsoft's opening of an R+D center in Canada because of laxer immigration requirements. I'm sure you see it as a condemnation of Microsoft and not a horribly broken immigration system in the United States.|
No Bill warned us, the techies here in the USA couldn't cut it. That helped a lot (from the Stick Foot in Mouth Department). Thank god for the Canadians.
|What? Since when is Microsoft supposed to guarantee apps work OS to OS. OSX killed OS9 apps... in fact Microsoft typically has better support for dropping an old binary on a new version than any other OS (in major version cycles).|
:)
Hey guarantee are hard to come by, but every so often you expect one of Microsoft's competitors (Lotus, netscap, google...Pick your favorite Application failure) to get lucky. Its Dejavu all over again.
|And as for undocumented APIs, use them at your own risk.|
Which ones? (Old joke catch 22 stuff). How much risk does Microsoft assume btw on the documented ones anyway?
|The only legal problem is if Microsoft's internal development team gets better documentation/advance notice of the "undocumented" API.|
Ok, I blame Microsoft's Internal Development Team's documentation. Hmmm, But when I read their public documentation it aint that hot either (IMHO). It might lose something in translation, maybe the "Kunnucks" (god bless them) can help them out some. I can read canadian.
|Version control has nothing to do with software versioning.|
This is two sides of the coin my boy(see oldtimer jokes), if it aint important just throw it out the window and let the code rip. LoL
|Software versioning is the process of releasing new versions of software while attempting to maintain syntactic and semantic compatibility.|
Textbook Answer, depending on which textbook you use on which platform. See the problem yet?
|In almost all cases, versioning software without breaking changes is pretty much impossible - software contains bugs, and fixing bugs is by definition requires a change in the semantics of a program.|
Note to self: Tools you wrote back in the late 1980's don't work no more. Tools you converted in the 1990's don't work no more. I got to find the semantics of the program to get them work in 2000's.
|Some software relies on bugs.|
Try not to do this... (Bad Idea!!!)
|Some software relies on unpublished behavior.|
Try not to do this... (Bad Idea, unless you are OLD School Hacker/[Engineer])
|Some software relies on very specific timing or patterns of callbacks.
Woot, Be a game programer, network program, or hmmm... well machine level coder(a step above actually)|
|Some software relies on broken security models - like that of Windows XP.|
Wow only Windows XP? I think you forgot a few... (keep going all the way back to DOS 3.3 if you like)
|Versioning software and maintaining 100% compatiblity is difficult even when your software only has a limited amount of client code - it's impossible for software like Windows which has numerous clients and numerous issues (bugs, security problems, legacy code...).|
No its not see the Unix model, see the IBM Mainframe Model. FREEZE the Environment. Hell I can get Xenix System written in the late 1980 to run on a current Linux kernel.
|That's why Microsoft runs extensive beta programs and certification programs before they officially release new versions.|
I thought it was for the free testing they got, well I am shocked.
|Google had the chance to find out that their software was going to be broken well before Vista was officially released.|
Yes I am sure that's why it is broken. It's there fault (finger points that way and that way... old joke)
|The fact that it was broken meant that someone at Google chose not to spend time on supporting Vista like many other vendors.|
Bad Google, you didn't spend enough time helping Microsoft witting write their new OS, or did I miss something.
|Like I said in my first post - you need to learn about software versioning before you talk about it.|
Yea you explained it to me. Now I know thank you. My Google DLL is still broke when I start Vista.
|I don't care how many years you think you've been doing this - I know plenty of old timers who don't have a clue.|
Hand me my buggy whip, before I beat the clue out of this genius.
| I work on the Windows team at MS and my team's role is to test Applications Compatibility, so I'm posting AC here. |
I respect your position in acknowledging you work for Microsoft, however if you are on the up and up, I am not sure why you are posting anonymous unless under duress.
| Their old toolbar broke on Vista because it was referencing an API that was neither documented, supported, nor guaranteed to exist in later versions.|
This is an old argument. You control the documentation, support, and guarantees. Microsoft controls the DLL environment not Google. Please don't blame the people who use the environment, they are after all users. We are talking about browser DLL's in your prioritary software. I real don't care about how you code your API as a user I need to know what they do and how to use them effectively, not to mention I also need to be confident they will be around for more than a couple patches, this extends to all software developers.
| This was discovered early in the beta process and was fixed in Google's next version- I'm not sure whether one of our engagement folks worked with them on it or if they spotted it themselves.|
Obviously Not, too bad for a major competitor.
|This is always regrettable, but it's often necessary.|
Yes always regrettable, how unfortunate.
|When we change Windows, it sometimes breaks apps- including Microsoft apps, which *also* do stuff that makes us pull our hair out, and which they have to fix.|
Well don't worry I understand the folks in Canada are hairy maybe their R&D can figure it out. In other words this doesn't fly. (Sorry you all are moving OPS to Canada, nothing against the "Kunnucks".)
| We do our best to give guidance [microsoft.com] on how to make your apps work well version to version, but it's a big job getting guidance to everyone and sometimes it takes some time to get it right.|
That your job, you work for the worlds largest software company you have the resources to fix the problems.
|Any suggestion that we go breaking competitors' apps on purpose is plain wrong- we go out of our way to preserve functionality, sometimes even functionality that isn't guaranteed or documented- but we won't do that if it means foregoing a security improvement, or giving up a fundamental architectural improvement.|
Hmmm, maybe not, but it does effect your allocation of resources and priorities(Welcome the the IT Industry, nothing new here again). I quit giving you folks advice in the early 90's, because the little developers were ignored. No reason to start now. Others are listening now. (BTW security is another issue all together, a topic worth of its own discussion)
|Maybe the top thing that gives Windows its value to consumers is that their apps will work from one version to the next.|
Backward compatibility... Hmmm, IBM use to be good about that, but they became the first to drop support on a problem product or heavy competition. Hope the 64 bit architecture treats you all well in the future, just like the 16 bit architecture did. But I am not so sure with the amount of competition and the costs.
|I'd call legal and report it myself if I ever thought we took a change specifically to break the competition.|
Sorry, they have been called before and settled out of court and sealed the court documents. That's the benefits to being, well Microsoft.
I am not looking for street cred(it). Having worked with version control on 4 different OS's (counting linux/*nix as one), Version Control is not an excuse for putting out software that breaks other peoples code because it is hard to do - lol. I recall Microsofts history of version control doing this on several occasions. I guess you never heard of Mr Bill's stratage of "Embrace and Enhance". Translation for the uninitated - embrace someone elses idea and modify it so the orginal work is unsuable. The only real example I have found otherwise was a Microsft product back in the late 80's call Xenix in which the archetecure allowed it to be upgraded to y2k plus standards, of course it was killed, I beleive in the early 90's.
What ever you think, I still get to look at the Google DLL error on Vista startup everyday, and the BixFix (bloatware) aint fixed it yet, nore has the Microsoft patches on Vista. I just have don't blame Google for it since it works on other Microsft OS's. But hey, version control is HAAAARd !!!
Wow the CEO actually responded to the article, what a PR Blunder.
Wise up, i have been doing this for 25 years. Notice the Lotus 1-2-3 time frame.
How come is it that ever Microsoft's competitor software breaks when they bring out an upgrade or new OS. This has been happening since Lotus 1-2-3. This time its a Google DLL that craps out as the internet is starting up on Vista, yet its cleanup utilities somehow keep missing the fix. Its very visible and very annoying. Typical Microsoft Cripple your competitors software, cuz we are the only game in town stuff. I got to watch this everyday, another satisfied customer :(
FTA | ...the FCC decreed that open-source security software, too, cannot be made public if doing so would raise the risk that the FCC's rules could be sidestepped. ...|
Well here your problem...
"The 300" on the History Channel(while I was reading /. of course). Done entirely in front of a green screen with minimal actors. They could have use cartoon figures as far as I was concerned, but still a good historical recreation. Hey I am geek not a "Red Carpet Groupy". What do you expect?
I guess if you were a little old lady and had battery trouble, he would either help you or punk you. Maybe we should ask Jobs?