C# is a language like any other language. C# is there so people who want to produce COM components with the ease of VB and the speed of C++ can do that with C#. They also could do that with J++ but Sun thought that would be a bad thing (?) so a lawsuit canceled that oppertunity.
.NET's CLR lets all kinds of objects operate and work together (and better: get debugged by 1 single debugger) no matter in which language it's written. If you think this is just about VB you don't get the point behind.NET and why it's so important for every developer out there.
.NET is powered by 20+ languages btw, (including java) so I really don't understand where your FUD is coming from. --
I mean: the HTML syntax is so full of stupid things a normal standardisation organisation like ANSI or ISO would never include. Example? when you add a textbox to a page, you have to specify the LENGTH of the textbox in characters but you do that with the parameter 'size'. The MAXIMUM LENGTH of the textbox isn't maxsize or something, but maxlength... erm... first it's size now it's length.
And there are a lot of these small things. An organisation that calls itself an official standardisation organisation should first think if they're capable of doing the job correctly before stepping forward with all kinds of 'do this and do that and everything will be allright'.
Until then, I don't see HTML as a 'standard' which is standarized by a standardisation organisation, but 'just a propriatry language'. --
NT as a name was already trademarked. So MS trademarked 'Windows NT'. I wouldn't be suprised that MS will now trademark 'Microsoft X-Box' instead of just 'X-Box'. Besides that, if the products of the same name are totally not related it's not uncommon 2 companies can register the same name:
Here in the netherlands we have Dove chocolate (from Mars Inc.) and Dove soap. Thankfully they don't use the same packaging, but both marks are trademarks. Also we have Sun dishwasher stuff and Sun computers, Linux cleaning services (yeah really! in The Hague, it's a house cleaning agency) and Linux the OS...:) --
...In the past years, many Mac users have sought out Linux for a number of reasons. Whether they were looking for a system that was open source, faster, or more reliable, Linux was a viable alternative.
Excuse me, but since years there are just a few reasons why people buy Apple Macintoshes and not other software: 1) some markets are mainly Apple: print, DTP etc 2) people like the ease of use of an apple and the logic and design of the OS.
Since when is Linux then an alternative? it's not, it cannot offer the same functionality just because it's a total different OS. So I find it very hard to believe 'many mac users' were looking for an alternative to MacOS.
Sure, the few die-hard macfans who ran their servers using MacOS server were perhaps changing to LinuxPPC, but than again... is LinuxPPC able to produce the same AppleTalk performance as MacOS server can? Dunno, but I think the ONLY people who ran LinuxPPC on a Mac were those who were liking the PPC hardware more than the x86 and didn't have the money to buy an alpha or sparc powered machine. I mean.. if you want to run linux, what hardware do you get? 1) an expensive G4 2) an x86 based PC (and very cheap compared to 1)) 3) an alpha workstation/server and 4) a sun workstation. I bet a lot will say: 2), because I get the most hardware for the least amount of money. I also bet not a lot will say: 1), because I think Apple makes the best hardware there is.
So LinuxPPC is not an OS variant with millions of possible users. If you think about the reasons why most macusers bought a mac in the first place, you'll also know that MacOSX is the nail on LinuxPPC's coffin, except for those (all 3 of them) who keep the G4 AND linuxPPC. --
When you put this info onto a website, how is a newbie supposed to view that website when his system is blank and all he has in his hand is a CD with a Linux distribution on it?. The installation and configuration help should be build into the distribution. Like the help users get when they install windows. Or the help they get when they select "help" in the startmenu (and that is a pretty massive help nowadays, not the 3 pages of dumbass crap in win3.x;)). Or the kind of help users get when they select help in whatever system application they can start.
ONLY THEN a typical user without that much computer skills can savely wipe any OS from his harddisk and start fresh with Linux, knowing he won't be facing questions he can't resolve without having to peek on a website he can't visit because his system doesn't contain any OS.
Which opens up the first goal: a program that first checks the system of the user if the distro he wants to install on that system is able to run the distro, and if all hardware is supported. This program should obviously run under win32 or typical other OS the user will leave behind. (Microsoft has this kind of program to test if your system is able to run windows2000 and which parts of your system need new drivers, where to get them etc).
I think this will only succeed if the people who now work on Linux (i.e. program on the kernel, window managers and other key system items) change their focus from the "all knowing geek who wants to control every freaking byte of his system" towards the more mainstream average kinda user, who needs/wants help along the way. This will be tough because the people who DO work on the kernel/key system items ARE mostly people who want to control every damn setting of their system, which is EXACTLY the reason why they don't use windows. --
pure HTML 4.0 is a nightmare to code by hand...
Ever typed a large document in Latex and then you got all kinds of 'syntax errors'... HTML will be invisible within a year or so. Programs are much better in typing correct HTML or latex than any human. And I find HTML a zillion times more friendlier to create than Latex. I'm sorry. --
So true... The exploits mentioned in the article are so old and well known, there are patches available for all of them since april this year (some even earlier), if the admins still haven't applied these patches, they don't know what they're doing. I know a few of these admins, in fact they work for big corporations here in Holland, and they say "Well, we have the corporate wide policy to be on patchlevel X (or service pack Y) and all our servers have to be on that level otherwise we get confusion"...
No that's no joke, but reality. They simply don't understand that if a server is behind a firewall but still connected to the internet, it still can be very vurnerable. So they don't see the need to apply all these patches and configuration settings.
I did the MCSE course myself a couple of years back, just to get that raise;) and it's true: if you get the title you think you're AdminGod who knows everything. When you're then sent to a real life situation with servers running all kinds of weird software that affects your work but you don't know that software, you understand how that 16 year old kid must feel, you described perfectly.
I went back to programming right away...:) Much more fun.;) --
WSH for starters... it runs VBscript, Jscript, embedded perl etc. As long as the languageinterpreter is COM compliant. It's shipped with NT. You can code whatever you want in it, using WMI api's to control whatever you want in NT.
Doesn't cost you anything. So... where are your arguments now? ah I see... you don't understand HOW to remote administrate NT server. Well. that's fine. But don't come with default Unix rethoric crap that NT lacks this and that. It doesn't. All tools needed are available and most of them free and installed with NT or with a free service pack (read: kernel update), or free resource kit. But whatever... you of course know more of NT administration than I do.:) (do you really;)?) --
Conversely, we love to mention how small the Linux kernel is compared to Windows.
Erm... you mean the monolithic linux kernel size vs the windows microkernel size?
So, if you consider: out of the box vs out of the box... what's more friendlier? with NT I have to install a free telnetd, well.. that takes ages to do.. not. Then I have out of the box my scripting host and off I am. that is the same setup the unix sysadmin has.
Oh, of course I have to install the FREE tools of the resourcekit.
On Unix I also have to write scripts to make my life as an admin easier. The same goes on NT. You can also install PC Anywhere, on NT. Works very ok. (true, it had some bugs over the years, but it's quite stable, as stable as X can be.)
So... where is your nightmare? I don't see it really. --
Reliability has to be designed in from the ground up. Frankly, that's why I give more credence to the people claiming that W2K is unstable than to those who claim that it's stable. Stability wasn't an issue at MS until Linux started getting popular. By the time MS started talking up the stability line, W2K had already been in development for several years. I know they didn't go back and retrofit stability as an add-on, because it simply isn't possible.
Because you're not ranked as a troll (which should be a better qualification) but 'insightful', I care to reply.
What you mumble here is clearly bull. Win2K is designed to be rocksolid, as was NT. There is no designflaw in NT that makes it unreliable. Mostly just hardware or driver failures are causing it to get unstable, the same with other OS-es.
Reliability is something that is the result for careful designing and developing software. Not something like security you have to 'design in to get it'. You state it as if you have to DESIGN reliability. That's untrue. If you careful design the software you're working on, it will be reliable, unless your design has flaws, which I then don't call a careful designed system.
Dave Cuttler is a well known and well respected Operating System designer, not known for misdesign in what he designs for a living: OS-es.
Adding that up, plus the fact that Win2k is rocksolid and stable, I don't see why you're rambling about 'we won't see a stable windows for the next 4-5 years'...
When I code a win32 app under windows2000 using vc++, and I execute it, I don't get a warning nor is it flagged as 'perhaps bad'. These 'flags' and errorreporting is only done when you want to install a piece of software that runs in kernelspace (f.e. a driver, or a subsystem layer). Because it's important that that kind of software is stable, secure and robust, it needs testing, plus it should follow the guidelines set by the OS manufacturer. Well, that's exactly what the signing program does: MS testlabs test the stuff for stability/robustness/security (no jokes please, the tests are very thourough) and also for usage of the win32 api and the os features like the Windows Installer. If you want to get your software signed/certified, it also has to follow rules like it has to work with policies/multiple profiles for more than 1 user etc.
Why is this important? -> the user doesn't know any better. He just purchases/downloads a piece of software and expects it to run. If it's signed/certified, he CAN BE SURE it's tested to bring what it should and that it should work on the OS PROPERLY.
Signing of software and especially kernelspace software is very important: it brings reliability to the softwareworld. Userland software should also follow the guidelines set by MS (check the MSDN for more details) so the USER of the software gets what he expects. --
programming basics like datastructures, how to port an algorithm to code, how to program programflow etc. etc are platform independant.
So it boils down to which tool is used to hammer in the code. Or are you saying you're programming from behind the keyboard without thinking about design of the code? If you do, please, sit down next to those kids who learn how to program because you're doing it wrong then.
programming is designing code to execute an algorithm. First design the algorithm, then project that on a programming language. When done, pick an editor, hammer in the code, compile, enjoy.
So, now these kids use MS tools to hammer in the code. Is their programming any different? No. The basics are still the same. If a student doesn't understand that what he is being thaught is uniform no matter what tool is used, he/she shouldn't be taking the programming class in the first place because he/she doesn't understand the principles of programming at all. (example: "I don't like that university because they don't teach me programming in java").
So to let the kids/students be able to hammer in the code as EASY as possible, which of the following would you prefer (mind you: they don't have any skills in the tools, they don't know how they work): 1) VI, 2) EMACS, 3) KDevelop, 4) MS Devstudio.
3) and 4) are way, way more easy to use/work with than 1) and 2) by the programming focussed student. Note that 3) is a (stripped down) copy of 4) and you'll understand why they pick 4) and not 1) or 2).
If someone takes this situation as "MS indoctrination", that person doesn't understand what programming is all about and doesn't understand that to be ABLE to produce GOOD and WORKING code, you should be working with the tool that makes you hammer in / test/debug/tweak the code as easy and as smoothly as possible.
Oh... and don't come to me gdb is more easy to use than MSDevstudio debugger;). For the skilled developer perhaps, who has lived all his life inside vi/emacs and gdb. Not for the starting developer. --
If Bush will become the next president, he's chosen with a minority in votes. Well, I don't know what YOUR definition of democracy is, but mine is definitely NOT matching the situation in the US today. For a country with a big mouth about other countries and their democracies, they have a very malfunctional democracy themselves.
I truely hope for the USA that 1) they will drop the electoral voting system and 2) THIS election the electoral voted persons will choose Gore as the next president, just because he has the MAJORITY of votes.
Read that again, supporters of a democratic US: MAJORITY of votes. Now... when should a person be elected as the president of a country: a) when he/she has the MINORITY of the votes or b) the MAJORITY of the votes? (no punchhole problems there;)) --
"There are no known showstoppers, but I've asked all the major Linux houses to start deploying the current test kernels internally and start it through their test cycles," Torvalds said. "We've already found a few things that way, and hopefully, a month of this will shake out the worst."
So, in other words: commercial testlabs, payed by companies traded on the Nasdaq, do the final testing before release? Is it just me or does this sound almost the same as Microsoft's RC testing in their own testlabs and DEFINITELY NOT like the bazaarmodel?
What happened to the driving force behind the quality of open source: "thousands of eyes go over the code to find bugs". ? Isn't that enough? I guess not... --
So you want to compare it to NT, system that is 4 years old? Afraid it won't beat win2k, a system that is almost a year old now.
What I'd like to see is how it holds up against the latest Unix competitors like solaris, AIX and *BSD variants. That's IMHO much more relevant than compare it to NT. Or do you think it's relevant to compare it to Novell 3.11 too?;) --
I've printed this out and nailed it on the wall.:) You should have had +5 insightful. Ah well.. you know/.... IF EXISTS (SELECT @iPostingID=PostingID FROM POSTINGS WHERE CONTENT LIKE %anti-linux%) BEGIN EXEC sp_DegradePosting @iPostingID END
--
Reading the WP's story how the crackers got initial access, I wondered if this action will end the possibility to sent executables with email messages using MS software (as in: they'll patch the tools to get rid of this feature, as they should have done ages ago). I mean: the way the crackers got access wouldn't have possible with the lack of a way to send a person an executable by email (as a trojan).
OTOH, it's always possible to get a trojan to a person's PC, f.e. by let the person download some moronic 'gadget' for the desktop. But it would have been way more difficult that way. --
Nice talking, but any claims to proof that and which also state Apache doesn't fail in these areas? (you mentioned reliability too:))
IIS isn't insecure, nor unstable. The insecurities are in the dll's used to handle some requests. (like the.htr bug). The IIS process almost never requires a restart, only with certain (but already patched) issues. Apache leaves you with defunct processes from time to time, and an insecure mod compiled into apache will render apache insecure too.
Please, next time, come with hard proof (not slashdot stories, I ment proof, not dinnertable talk!;) ), or include more details. IMHO your point is now a bit of a troll. --
I mean: if people stop coding instantly and start designing the stuff for a change, the VFS can get universal for _ALL_ kind of filesystems: plug 'em in and they'll run. Why o why do people start coding their own freaking filesystem without a proper motherlayer first? I know there are rivaling opinions about what the VFS should do and what it shouldn't do but, please... this kind of software development seems to me erm... rather unsuccesful.
"Hey, the last 9 months I programmed on this superduper filesystem and it will be great for the next Linux Kernel!"
"Erm.. yeah, great but the VFS layer isn't up to par so we can't use your functionality in the rest of the system anyway"
Besides that... Linus isn't stupid. He already mentioned a zillion times he wants to end the featurecreep and finish the kernel. Now adding another filesystem will definitely delay the kernel's release BECAUSE of featurecreep, something Linus wants to avoid.
But.. with a better design of the system internals, this wouldn't have to be necessary: IBM would just add another module and everything would have been fine. ah well...
Erm... MS patch is a patch which is regression tested, in their labs using tools to test if the patch is correct. True, they fail sometimes (NT SPx, x=even:)), but why should I assume the patch they delivered for this problem is not correct? You, as a security consultant, should know that a webserver, f.e. an IIS server, should only map the extensions used, so.htr (which is almost never used) extensions should be disabled beforehand. No bugfix needed then, because no exploit possible. Your claims about patches that are overturned by other patches are a bit off base, because it's not as you state. Sometimes patches get overturned, sometimes patches get updated later, but most of the patches are just runnable and work. Like with all HOTFIXES: only run them if you have to run them: if you can avoid the bug (like this case: just remove the.htr mapping in your webapplication definitions on IIS) without loosing functionality needed, do so and wait for the official SP.
The biggest mistake made here is that the manufacturer of the product used is not always to blame for misusage by the customer and results of that misusage. I'm pretty sure the Nasdaq site admins have overlooked 1 issue, like slashdot had overlooked 1 issue last week when they were hacked. Can happen, we're all human. What I find disturbing is that the global.asa file contained database information. Every normal site should build a simple COM object that provides you the connection string for the database at runtime, so no static info is stored in ascii files, readable for every intruder. Such a COM object is written in 10 lines of code in VB. Little effort, great pleasure.:)
Oh, and I'm an MCSE too (but programming is a nicer job).:) --
Hacker did ethical job of providing info to fix. Also, mentions BugTraq and how MS didn't fix the hole when it was posted July 17.
Erm, the bug (in IIS4 and IIS5) was patched on July 17th, and if I interpret the text correctly, that's THE SAME DAY as the bug was posted on bugtraq. If you look up the vulnerability on bugtraq you'll see the patches are already available. Check also:
Now.. slashdot.. tell me... do you have a problem with a certain company or something? because the 'news' seem to get a little shakey in the 'correctness' area.:) --
Saying that the government is not at all happy with Microsoft's idea is an understatement
Well... that really suprised me.... NOT. This case has 2 sides: MS (A) and the US Gov (B). If (A) does something, (B) is against it and vice versa. That has been the case (pun intended) in this whole trial.
Both sides should work things out to get an agreement (settlement) as Jackson also suggested. However, if either side does a proposal, the other side is against it, doesn't like it and rejects it, most of the time for reasons not clear to any living soul.
The first round was for the US Gov. The second round will probably for MS. Now that are some scores the world can build on! Get a life, (A) and (B) and settle this crap, so the rest of the world can go on with their daily work. --
From the article:
Why is that? First and foremost, we can blame the Microsoft Foundation Classes. This API is a brick wall of incompatibility. Secondly, we can blame Visual C++'s extensions to the language.
The MFC library is a true C++ OO wrapper around win32, which is function oriented, non-C++. In other words: if you use MFC your C++ program is _TRUE_ OO. (so no main function, nothing. everything is an object). If you don't understand the concepts or of you don't know how everything is build up, MFC looks like a mess and not workable. However, the MFC is very very handy when programming a GUI and the gui supporting layer, hell it even supplies nice thread objects and other objects for common used win32 stuff, so you can keep your C++ truely OO, instead of have to fall back to function oriented programming for some parts of your application.
The Loki programmer clearly doesn't understand MFC. he also doesn't understand VC++'s extensions. That's ok, you can't know everything, but that's not a reason for ranting. It's a reason for investigation and to collect information about the topics he doesn't understand.
I've done some tools in MFC and all I can say is that using it is a breeze, but you have to study it to get to that point. That takes time and effort. The Loki programmer should take more time to clearly understand how the original sourcecode is using the MFC.
Another thing though... he's talking about the code to port to Linux. The code he's porting is from people who write tools that do what they want them to do AT THAT TIME, but not mainstream tools for every user on the planet: i.e.: the sourcecode can be cumbersome to understand. IMHO that's a much bigger reason why it's hard to port a tool from win32 to GTK+ than the MFC calls, which are clearly documented in the MSDN (which is shipped on 3 (not 2!) CD's, he must be using old MSDN's too). I mean... how hard can it be to read the clear MSDN explanation of an MFC method, understand what it does and to use an equivalent in GTK+.... --
Slashdot Mirror
--
And there are a lot of these small things. An organisation that calls itself an official standardisation organisation should first think if they're capable of doing the job correctly before stepping forward with all kinds of 'do this and do that and everything will be allright'.
Until then, I don't see HTML as a 'standard' which is standarized by a standardisation organisation, but 'just a propriatry language'.
--
Here in the netherlands we have Dove chocolate (from Mars Inc.) and Dove soap. Thankfully they don't use the same packaging, but both marks are trademarks. Also we have Sun dishwasher stuff and Sun computers, Linux cleaning services (yeah really! in The Hague, it's a house cleaning agency) and Linux the OS... :)
--
Excuse me, but since years there are just a few reasons why people buy Apple Macintoshes and not other software: 1) some markets are mainly Apple: print, DTP etc 2) people like the ease of use of an apple and the logic and design of the OS.
Since when is Linux then an alternative? it's not, it cannot offer the same functionality just because it's a total different OS. So I find it very hard to believe 'many mac users' were looking for an alternative to MacOS.
Sure, the few die-hard macfans who ran their servers using MacOS server were perhaps changing to LinuxPPC, but than again... is LinuxPPC able to produce the same AppleTalk performance as MacOS server can? Dunno, but I think the ONLY people who ran LinuxPPC on a Mac were those who were liking the PPC hardware more than the x86 and didn't have the money to buy an alpha or sparc powered machine. I mean.. if you want to run linux, what hardware do you get? 1) an expensive G4 2) an x86 based PC (and very cheap compared to 1)) 3) an alpha workstation/server and 4) a sun workstation. I bet a lot will say: 2), because I get the most hardware for the least amount of money. I also bet not a lot will say: 1), because I think Apple makes the best hardware there is.
So LinuxPPC is not an OS variant with millions of possible users. If you think about the reasons why most macusers bought a mac in the first place, you'll also know that MacOSX is the nail on LinuxPPC's coffin, except for those (all 3 of them) who keep the G4 AND linuxPPC.
--
ONLY THEN a typical user without that much computer skills can savely wipe any OS from his harddisk and start fresh with Linux, knowing he won't be facing questions he can't resolve without having to peek on a website he can't visit because his system doesn't contain any OS.
Which opens up the first goal: a program that first checks the system of the user if the distro he wants to install on that system is able to run the distro, and if all hardware is supported. This program should obviously run under win32 or typical other OS the user will leave behind. (Microsoft has this kind of program to test if your system is able to run windows2000 and which parts of your system need new drivers, where to get them etc).
I think this will only succeed if the people who now work on Linux (i.e. program on the kernel, window managers and other key system items) change their focus from the "all knowing geek who wants to control every freaking byte of his system" towards the more mainstream average kinda user, who needs/wants help along the way. This will be tough because the people who DO work on the kernel/key system items ARE mostly people who want to control every damn setting of their system, which is EXACTLY the reason why they don't use windows.
--
pure HTML 4.0 is a nightmare to code by hand ...
Ever typed a large document in Latex and then you got all kinds of 'syntax errors'... HTML will be invisible within a year or so. Programs are much better in typing correct HTML or latex than any human. And I find HTML a zillion times more friendlier to create than Latex. I'm sorry.
--
No that's no joke, but reality. They simply don't understand that if a server is behind a firewall but still connected to the internet, it still can be very vurnerable. So they don't see the need to apply all these patches and configuration settings.
I did the MCSE course myself a couple of years back, just to get that raise ;) and it's true: if you get the title you think you're AdminGod who knows everything. When you're then sent to a real life situation with servers running all kinds of weird software that affects your work but you don't know that software, you understand how that 16 year old kid must feel, you described perfectly.
I went back to programming right away... :) Much more fun. ;)
--
Doesn't cost you anything. So... where are your arguments now? ah I see... you don't understand HOW to remote administrate NT server. Well. that's fine. But don't come with default Unix rethoric crap that NT lacks this and that. It doesn't. All tools needed are available and most of them free and installed with NT or with a free service pack (read: kernel update), or free resource kit. But whatever... you of course know more of NT administration than I do. :) (do you really ;)?)
--
Ah :)
--
Oh, of course I have to install the FREE tools of the resourcekit.
On Unix I also have to write scripts to make my life as an admin easier. The same goes on NT. You can also install PC Anywhere, on NT. Works very ok. (true, it had some bugs over the years, but it's quite stable, as stable as X can be.)
So... where is your nightmare? I don't see it really.
--
Because you're not ranked as a troll (which should be a better qualification) but 'insightful', I care to reply.
What you mumble here is clearly bull. Win2K is designed to be rocksolid, as was NT. There is no designflaw in NT that makes it unreliable. Mostly just hardware or driver failures are causing it to get unstable, the same with other OS-es.
Reliability is something that is the result for careful designing and developing software. Not something like security you have to 'design in to get it'. You state it as if you have to DESIGN reliability. That's untrue. If you careful design the software you're working on, it will be reliable, unless your design has flaws, which I then don't call a careful designed system.
Dave Cuttler is a well known and well respected Operating System designer, not known for misdesign in what he designs for a living: OS-es.
Adding that up, plus the fact that Win2k is rocksolid and stable, I don't see why you're rambling about 'we won't see a stable windows for the next 4-5 years'...
--
Why is this important? -> the user doesn't know any better. He just purchases/downloads a piece of software and expects it to run. If it's signed/certified, he CAN BE SURE it's tested to bring what it should and that it should work on the OS PROPERLY.
Signing of software and especially kernelspace software is very important: it brings reliability to the softwareworld. Userland software should also follow the guidelines set by MS (check the MSDN for more details) so the USER of the software gets what he expects.
--
So it boils down to which tool is used to hammer in the code. Or are you saying you're programming from behind the keyboard without thinking about design of the code? If you do, please, sit down next to those kids who learn how to program because you're doing it wrong then.
programming is designing code to execute an algorithm. First design the algorithm, then project that on a programming language. When done, pick an editor, hammer in the code, compile, enjoy.
So, now these kids use MS tools to hammer in the code. Is their programming any different? No. The basics are still the same. If a student doesn't understand that what he is being thaught is uniform no matter what tool is used, he/she shouldn't be taking the programming class in the first place because he/she doesn't understand the principles of programming at all. (example: "I don't like that university because they don't teach me programming in java").
So to let the kids/students be able to hammer in the code as EASY as possible, which of the following would you prefer (mind you: they don't have any skills in the tools, they don't know how they work): 1) VI, 2) EMACS, 3) KDevelop, 4) MS Devstudio.
3) and 4) are way, way more easy to use/work with than 1) and 2) by the programming focussed student. Note that 3) is a (stripped down) copy of 4) and you'll understand why they pick 4) and not 1) or 2).
If someone takes this situation as "MS indoctrination", that person doesn't understand what programming is all about and doesn't understand that to be ABLE to produce GOOD and WORKING code, you should be working with the tool that makes you hammer in / test/debug/tweak the code as easy and as smoothly as possible.
Oh... and don't come to me gdb is more easy to use than MSDevstudio debugger ;). For the skilled developer perhaps, who has lived all his life inside vi/emacs and gdb. Not for the starting developer.
--
I truely hope for the USA that 1) they will drop the electoral voting system and 2) THIS election the electoral voted persons will choose Gore as the next president, just because he has the MAJORITY of votes.
Read that again, supporters of a democratic US: MAJORITY of votes. Now... when should a person be elected as the president of a country: a) when he/she has the MINORITY of the votes or b) the MAJORITY of the votes? (no punchhole problems there ;))
--
So, in other words: commercial testlabs, payed by companies traded on the Nasdaq, do the final testing before release? Is it just me or does this sound almost the same as Microsoft's RC testing in their own testlabs and DEFINITELY NOT like the bazaarmodel?
What happened to the driving force behind the quality of open source: "thousands of eyes go over the code to find bugs". ? Isn't that enough? I guess not...
--
What I'd like to see is how it holds up against the latest Unix competitors like solaris, AIX and *BSD variants. That's IMHO much more relevant than compare it to NT. Or do you think it's relevant to compare it to Novell 3.11 too? ;)
--
I've printed this out and nailed it on the wall. :) You should have had +5 insightful. Ah well.. you know /. ... IF EXISTS (SELECT @iPostingID=PostingID FROM POSTINGS WHERE CONTENT LIKE %anti-linux%) BEGIN EXEC sp_DegradePosting @iPostingID END
--
OTOH, it's always possible to get a trojan to a person's PC, f.e. by let the person download some moronic 'gadget' for the desktop. But it would have been way more difficult that way.
--
The Sega Dreamcast runs a custom variant of Windows CE.
--
"areas in which IIS simply falls on its face".
Nice talking, but any claims to proof that and which also state Apache doesn't fail in these areas? (you mentioned reliability too :))
IIS isn't insecure, nor unstable. The insecurities are in the dll's used to handle some requests. (like the .htr bug). The IIS process almost never requires a restart, only with certain (but already patched) issues. Apache leaves you with defunct processes from time to time, and an insecure mod compiled into apache will render apache insecure too.
Please, next time, come with hard proof (not slashdot stories, I ment proof, not dinnertable talk! ;) ), or include more details. IMHO your point is now a bit of a troll.
--
"Hey, the last 9 months I programmed on this superduper filesystem and it will be great for the next Linux Kernel!"
"Erm.. yeah, great but the VFS layer isn't up to par so we can't use your functionality in the rest of the system anyway"
Besides that... Linus isn't stupid. He already mentioned a zillion times he wants to end the featurecreep and finish the kernel. Now adding another filesystem will definitely delay the kernel's release BECAUSE of featurecreep, something Linus wants to avoid.
But.. with a better design of the system internals, this wouldn't have to be necessary: IBM would just add another module and everything would have been fine. ah well...
Good old.. mr. Tanenbaum ;)
--
The biggest mistake made here is that the manufacturer of the product used is not always to blame for misusage by the customer and results of that misusage. I'm pretty sure the Nasdaq site admins have overlooked 1 issue, like slashdot had overlooked 1 issue last week when they were hacked. Can happen, we're all human. What I find disturbing is that the global.asa file contained database information. Every normal site should build a simple COM object that provides you the connection string for the database at runtime, so no static info is stored in ascii files, readable for every intruder. Such a COM object is written in 10 lines of code in VB. Little effort, great pleasure. :)
Oh, and I'm an MCSE too (but programming is a nicer job). :)
--
ht tp: //www.microsoft.com/NTWorkstation/downloads/Critic al/q267559/default.asp
or bugtraq's page on this bug and the solutions:
http: //w ww.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/vdb/bottom.h tml%3Fvid%3D1488
Now.. slashdot.. tell me... do you have a problem with a certain company or something? because the 'news' seem to get a little shakey in the 'correctness' area. :)
--
Well... that really suprised me.... NOT. This case has 2 sides: MS (A) and the US Gov (B). If (A) does something, (B) is against it and vice versa. That has been the case (pun intended) in this whole trial.
Both sides should work things out to get an agreement (settlement) as Jackson also suggested. However, if either side does a proposal, the other side is against it, doesn't like it and rejects it, most of the time for reasons not clear to any living soul.
The first round was for the US Gov. The second round will probably for MS. Now that are some scores the world can build on! Get a life, (A) and (B) and settle this crap, so the rest of the world can go on with their daily work.
--
The Loki programmer clearly doesn't understand MFC. he also doesn't understand VC++'s extensions. That's ok, you can't know everything, but that's not a reason for ranting. It's a reason for investigation and to collect information about the topics he doesn't understand.
I've done some tools in MFC and all I can say is that using it is a breeze, but you have to study it to get to that point. That takes time and effort. The Loki programmer should take more time to clearly understand how the original sourcecode is using the MFC.
Another thing though... he's talking about the code to port to Linux. The code he's porting is from people who write tools that do what they want them to do AT THAT TIME, but not mainstream tools for every user on the planet: i.e.: the sourcecode can be cumbersome to understand. IMHO that's a much bigger reason why it's hard to port a tool from win32 to GTK+ than the MFC calls, which are clearly documented in the MSDN (which is shipped on 3 (not 2!) CD's, he must be using old MSDN's too). I mean... how hard can it be to read the clear MSDN explanation of an MFC method, understand what it does and to use an equivalent in GTK+....
--