Quite honestly, I'm afraid to go. People may link my real name to my/. name and recognize that 4/5 times I tend to defend MS technology and even commend MS for their innovations. Maybe since I'm in the Seattle area there will be a few more "on my side" since it's so close to redmond. Nevertheless, I should at least come prepared with a weapon to defend myself. Maybe then I wouldn't be afraid to wear the MSDN T-Shirt and ASP.NET hat that I usually wear to similar meetings;P
You glossed over the entire point. Most serious IT departments don't care about the "hot off the compiler" patches because of the lack of testing involved in said patches. So, MS releases stuff just as quickly, but they don't release to the public until the quality has been assured. With OSS, sure, you have the option of installing a pre-Alpha patch, but I wouldn't say that makes OSS inherintly more responsive or secure.
Now for the
"But Apache will be patched in 1/5th the time it takes MS to patch IIS" replies.
Most IIS patches (read: not IE, a completely different product) are out whithin days or a week at the most as well. They're just limited to a very small group of people outside MS that actually have access to it. Many people with certain support agreements can install these "hotfixes" that have not gone through regression testing. The resut of us have to way the 4-8 weeks once MS determines the quality is acceptable for the masses.
Those who run mission critcal web servers generally don't apply the latest patch because it's generally more risky to install a "hot off the compiler" security patch then the security risk itself.
Good post. I really hope that we find a cure for AIDS and many of the cancers that we have. However, I think we spend way too much money on said research, and not enough on preventative research. For example, it is commonly known that many cancers are caused by bad diet, radioactive exposure, and toxic chemicals (many found in pesticides, plastics, cigarrettes, and other polutants). AIDS is also most commonly spread as a STD. These are all solveable problems with the right plans and cultural changes in place. Again, I really hope that we find cures for as many cancers as possible, and a cure for AIDS, but in America we focus way too little on prevention.
If you and your girlfriend are having sex (for free), do you regret it because you spent six hours making passionate love and didn't charge her for it?
No, but most people don't use this as a business plan either (I've heard some Internet statistics that challenge this but you get the point). The point is, I may love programming software, and I may get great OSS based programs in return (give/take relationship), but it doesn't feed my family or pay the bills.
This post is right on. Think about it, with OSS, since there is no company to be held liable (maybe the distro) would you want to be held liable for code that you contributed? I think I'd kiss OSS contribution goodbye for fear of liability!
It depends. Copy Protection in video games is not OK because I can't back it up. CD's are not exactly bullet proof. I think Microsoft got it right with Windows Activiation - believe it or not. They have a completely unintrusive, EXTREMELY EASY, anonymous method of validating your copy on your machine. However, I can make 100 copies of the disk if I see fit. Sure, I'd rather _NOT_ have Product Activation, but it's "copy authentication" is better then "copy prevention" IMHO.
I've seen labels on a few crippled disks but they are A) very sugar coated and do not use direct verbage and B) are placed on the back of the CD in an area in which the customer is not likely to look until after the purchase.
He's complaining about the lack of realism in explosions...
Distance from the explosion would reduce the number of projectiles striking a spaceship. However, impacting pieces would have the same kinetic energy they had right next to the blast. A spacecraft would have to use the time afforded by distance from the explosion to raise its shields or risk annihilation.
Did NASA build something that I don't know about?:P
Unless I'm mistaken, movies are not airplane simulators. Aside from documentaries or movies like "Saving Private Ryan", they are supposed be fictional. They will obviously add little effects like "bullet sparks" to add to the dynamic of the scene, even if they "violate the laws of physics". Really people, get a Life(tm)!
I agree. I also have dysgraphia. There also isn't a point to throwing away the IDE. It's there so that you can spend less time on the "nerdy" stuff and more time on the creative and more relevant things. Finally, UML is the way to go. Even Boeing is starting to adopt UML for less technical documentation - it's a very versitile standard.
This was modded as "flamebait" because it wasn't anti-MS but I think that you are right on the money. Mark is whining. Look at Opera, it IS competing well. It would have done better if they weren't so late at implementing a decent DHTML rendering engine. But now that they have, you should check your weblogs - I was surprised. I use both Opera and IE (mainly IE), and once Opera is a good as IE in rendering (it's waaay better in features and security and speed, but rendering is the most important thing for me), I will PAY for it, even though the cost of IE is part of the OS (which makes sense to most anyone but anti-MS people) because I believe in paying for good software (whethor through code contribution for OSS or via my money for CSS).
Besides the fact that Netscape has always been free for personal and educational use (I don't know anyone who's ever paid for it but used it legally), the point is MS deliberately added a feature to an OS that their customers wanted. Many people use Internet Explorer more then the windows file explorer. It's just like punishing MS for "giving away Dialup Networking" for free because then there was no need to buy Trumpet Winsock (see Win3.x). It also made sense to use DHTML and ActiveX for simple GUI's for apps like MS-HELP plus easier 3rd party Windows development. It make a ton of sense on the technical side, it gave the customers what it wanted, and it pissed off Netscape because all of the suddon the browser became a commoddity just like "file managers" or "shells" did in the days of DOS when Win2.x came out.
Finally, you missed my entire point. Regardless of my arguments, I've simply proved that the issue is complex, and is not as cut-and-dry as anti-MS fanatics seem to make it. Any intellectually objective person should be able to look at an issue and say, "Ok, I dissagree with you, but I see how some of the points are arguable and worth discussing further". This being said, even if they've been found guilty, if the issue is as complex as I make it out to be, then the "resolution" is just as complex. The punishment for pre-meditated murder is a lot more harsh then someone who accidentally killed someone (an analogy NOT a comparison, people here tend to confuse the two). If MS intended to extend the OS just as they have in many other ways, and since a web browser is now a commodity, it's hard to prove that MS was being completely evil (all corporations are "evil" to an extent) in trying to crush the competition in an anti-competitive manner. If they were ignorant of the fact that adding an obvious feature to Windows was illigal (I sure was), then the rememdy should reflect this.
This is justification of a totally unethical system. You pay people what their work from an ethical standpoint, you don't abuse someone who doesn't have the negotiation skills to fight for what they deserve. Finally, companies that treat employees well will almost always get what they pay for. More employee loyalty, better moral, and better productivity. The same goes for the other extreme. If you overpay someone (read: most executives) they may become arrogant and relatively useless to the company.
...the company that pays you only the rate that they must to retain youre services is a company that plans to survive.
I dissagree, especially when it comes to professionals (your analogy to restraunts and other "low-skilled" industries are a bit different - no offense to those in said industries). Look a Google. They didn't hire and retain incredibly creative computer scientists by paying the minimum rate to retain them. They pay extremely well, they have an incredible work environment, and in return they get what they pay for.
I've said it time and time again that that this is not a trivial issue at all. To YOU it is obvious because of your clear bias against MS. Personally, myself (and many others) do not believe that what was done with IE was anti-competitive in any way. This is America, and everyone has a right to a fair trial and to voice their side of an argument. MS has been found guilty, but what they are guilty of is not trivial either. Personally, I believe in pro-customer solutions not anti-MS punishments. Remember, the point of antitrust is to restore competition not to punish the corporation. For example, I think that MS's strongarmed OEM licensing agreements should be regulated or banned altogether. But that's just me. There are many other people who's full time job is to think about all of these issues, so while we have our opinions, none of us really see the depth of the issues at hand.
I work with a person who has a mastors in Mathematics, and who is still very invloved with University level research projects, and he will tell you the same thing. He doesn't even have the quadratic forumla memorized, yet some of his innovations are acknowledged by many in the field.
This type of thing has been going on with Univiersities and countries for quite some time, however, the license is restricted. The "two bit" article you mentioned is based on the GPL, and how you may be forced to release sensative code if you intermingled it with GPL'd code. This is not on the contrary to MS Shared Source, which allows you to read "the vast majority" of the source code. Both.NET, and WindowsXP (both "open source") do not have 100% of their source as readable via shared source, as certain "critical but not usefull to the end-user" parts have been intentionally left out.
People keep forgetting that Human Resources (yes, even in Africa) cost more then software or hardware. If my software/hardware solutions is plug and play, and I need minimal support, my cost is significantly lower then free software with the need of more support. The bottom line is, take a WinXP, or MacOSX desktop and plug it in, and it will cost less then a Linux desktop to support in almost all scenarios. One exception may be a callcenter in which all you have is a web browser running Intranet apps. In this case just buy a bunch of ThinkNic's and be done with it!.
You're missing the point of the parent post. A business may have certain portions of an app that they'd like to give away as Open Source, part of which may already use Open Source'd code. This is, of course, the benefit of Open Source. However, one part of this app is proprietary and they do not wish to give out that source, even though parts of the app are Open Source'd. With the GPL, this is not possible.
Does MS do any federal background security checks?
The moderators see fit to mod you up but you have no factual basis for your claims. I know people who are contracters at MS, and full time employees. First, they do pretty good background check on you. But that's really the point. Code just doesn't get checked in to CVS (lol!) without any sort of peer review and approval process. Think about OSS - can I, someone who has never hacked on a kernal, and someone who doesn't like GPL'd software, write some crap code and check it in to the Linux source tree?
Windows does not have any intentional backdoors, it's just an OS that was designed for features and the security of a "disconnected environment". The second everyone got onto the Internet, MS realized the importance of security as hole after hole was announced. However, it's very difficult to take away features, and it takes a long time to role out a fundamentally different design. Regardless, Widnows' security (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the fact that it's Closed Source. There are many of other commercial and Closed Source OS's, banking software, etc. that have incredible security. Actually, the only OSS OS (say that 3 times fast!0) that I know of that's really secure "out of the box" is OpenBSD.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite honestly, I'm afraid to go. People may link my real name to my /. name and recognize that 4/5 times I tend to defend MS technology and even commend MS for their innovations. Maybe since I'm in the Seattle area there will be a few more "on my side" since it's so close to redmond. Nevertheless, I should at least come prepared with a weapon to defend myself. Maybe then I wouldn't be afraid to wear the MSDN T-Shirt and ASP.NET hat that I usually wear to similar meetings ;P
You glossed over the entire point. Most serious IT departments don't care about the "hot off the compiler" patches because of the lack of testing involved in said patches. So, MS releases stuff just as quickly, but they don't release to the public until the quality has been assured. With OSS, sure, you have the option of installing a pre-Alpha patch, but I wouldn't say that makes OSS inherintly more responsive or secure.
Now for the "But Apache will be patched in 1/5th the time it takes MS to patch IIS" replies.
Most IIS patches (read: not IE, a completely different product) are out whithin days or a week at the most as well. They're just limited to a very small group of people outside MS that actually have access to it. Many people with certain support agreements can install these "hotfixes" that have not gone through regression testing. The resut of us have to way the 4-8 weeks once MS determines the quality is acceptable for the masses.
Those who run mission critcal web servers generally don't apply the latest patch because it's generally more risky to install a "hot off the compiler" security patch then the security risk itself.
Good post. I really hope that we find a cure for AIDS and many of the cancers that we have. However, I think we spend way too much money on said research, and not enough on preventative research. For example, it is commonly known that many cancers are caused by bad diet, radioactive exposure, and toxic chemicals (many found in pesticides, plastics, cigarrettes, and other polutants). AIDS is also most commonly spread as a STD. These are all solveable problems with the right plans and cultural changes in place. Again, I really hope that we find cures for as many cancers as possible, and a cure for AIDS, but in America we focus way too little on prevention.
If you and your girlfriend are having sex (for free), do you regret it because you spent six hours making passionate love and didn't charge her for it?
No, but most people don't use this as a business plan either (I've heard some Internet statistics that challenge this but you get the point). The point is, I may love programming software, and I may get great OSS based programs in return (give/take relationship), but it doesn't feed my family or pay the bills.
This post is right on. Think about it, with OSS, since there is no company to be held liable (maybe the distro) would you want to be held liable for code that you contributed? I think I'd kiss OSS contribution goodbye for fear of liability!
It depends. Copy Protection in video games is not OK because I can't back it up. CD's are not exactly bullet proof. I think Microsoft got it right with Windows Activiation - believe it or not. They have a completely unintrusive, EXTREMELY EASY, anonymous method of validating your copy on your machine. However, I can make 100 copies of the disk if I see fit. Sure, I'd rather _NOT_ have Product Activation, but it's "copy authentication" is better then "copy prevention" IMHO.
I've seen labels on a few crippled disks but they are A) very sugar coated and do not use direct verbage and B) are placed on the back of the CD in an area in which the customer is not likely to look until after the purchase.
Just wait unitl X10.com get's a hold of this technology!
He's complaining about the lack of realism in explosions...
:P
Distance from the explosion would reduce the number of projectiles striking a spaceship. However, impacting pieces would have the same kinetic energy they had right next to the blast. A spacecraft would have to use the time afforded by distance from the explosion to raise its shields or risk annihilation.
Did NASA build something that I don't know about?
Unless I'm mistaken, movies are not airplane simulators. Aside from documentaries or movies like "Saving Private Ryan", they are supposed be fictional. They will obviously add little effects like "bullet sparks" to add to the dynamic of the scene, even if they "violate the laws of physics". Really people, get a Life(tm)!
I agree. I also have dysgraphia. There also isn't a point to throwing away the IDE. It's there so that you can spend less time on the "nerdy" stuff and more time on the creative and more relevant things. Finally, UML is the way to go. Even Boeing is starting to adopt UML for less technical documentation - it's a very versitile standard.
I'm proud to proclaim that I, for one, love the Mozilla form factor.
I'm proud to say that Opera has had the elegant "form factor" well before mozilla did, and it's still a 3meg browser (vs. 8MB of Mozilla).
This was modded as "flamebait" because it wasn't anti-MS but I think that you are right on the money. Mark is whining. Look at Opera, it IS competing well. It would have done better if they weren't so late at implementing a decent DHTML rendering engine. But now that they have, you should check your weblogs - I was surprised. I use both Opera and IE (mainly IE), and once Opera is a good as IE in rendering (it's waaay better in features and security and speed, but rendering is the most important thing for me), I will PAY for it, even though the cost of IE is part of the OS (which makes sense to most anyone but anti-MS people) because I believe in paying for good software (whethor through code contribution for OSS or via my money for CSS).
Besides the fact that Netscape has always been free for personal and educational use (I don't know anyone who's ever paid for it but used it legally), the point is
MS deliberately added a feature to an OS that their customers wanted. Many people use Internet Explorer more then the windows file explorer. It's just like punishing MS for "giving away Dialup Networking" for free because then there was no need to buy Trumpet Winsock (see Win3.x). It also made sense to use DHTML and ActiveX for simple GUI's for apps like MS-HELP plus easier 3rd party Windows development. It make a ton of sense on the technical side, it gave the customers what it wanted, and it pissed off Netscape because all of the suddon the browser became a commoddity just like "file managers" or "shells" did in the days of DOS when Win2.x came out.
Finally, you missed my entire point. Regardless of my arguments, I've simply proved that the issue is complex, and is not as cut-and-dry as anti-MS fanatics seem to make it. Any intellectually objective person should be able to look at an issue and say, "Ok, I dissagree with you, but I see how some of the points are arguable and worth discussing further". This being said, even if they've been found guilty, if the issue is as complex as I make it out to be, then the "resolution" is just as complex. The punishment for pre-meditated murder is a lot more harsh then someone who accidentally killed someone (an analogy NOT a comparison, people here tend to confuse the two). If MS intended to extend the OS just as they have in many other ways, and since a web browser is now a commodity, it's hard to prove that MS was being completely evil (all corporations are "evil" to an extent) in trying to crush the competition in an anti-competitive manner. If they were ignorant of the fact that adding an obvious feature to Windows was illigal (I sure was), then the rememdy should reflect this.
This is justification of a totally unethical system. You pay people what their work from an ethical standpoint, you don't abuse someone who doesn't have the negotiation skills to fight for what they deserve. Finally, companies that treat employees well will almost always get what they pay for. More employee loyalty, better moral, and better productivity. The same goes for the other extreme. If you overpay someone (read: most executives) they may become arrogant and relatively useless to the company.
...the company that pays you only the rate that they must to retain youre services is a company that plans to survive.
I dissagree, especially when it comes to professionals (your analogy to restraunts and other "low-skilled" industries are a bit different - no offense to those in said industries). Look a Google. They didn't hire and retain incredibly creative computer scientists by paying the minimum rate to retain them. They pay extremely well, they have an incredible work environment, and in return they get what they pay for.
I've said it time and time again that that this is not a trivial issue at all. To YOU it is obvious because of your clear bias against MS. Personally, myself (and many others) do not believe that what was done with IE was anti-competitive in any way. This is America, and everyone has a right to a fair trial and to voice their side of an argument. MS has been found guilty, but what they are guilty of is not trivial either. Personally, I believe in pro-customer solutions not anti-MS punishments. Remember, the point of antitrust is to restore competition not to punish the corporation. For example, I think that MS's strongarmed OEM licensing agreements should be regulated or banned altogether. But that's just me. There are many other people who's full time job is to think about all of these issues, so while we have our opinions, none of us really see the depth of the issues at hand.
I work with a person who has a mastors in Mathematics, and who is still very invloved with University level research projects, and he will tell you the same thing. He doesn't even have the quadratic forumla memorized, yet some of his innovations are acknowledged by many in the field.
What next? A review on "Datastructures in Fortran"?
This type of thing has been going on with Univiersities and countries for quite some time, however, the license is restricted. The "two bit" article you mentioned is based on the GPL, and how you may be forced to release sensative code if you intermingled it with GPL'd code. This is not on the contrary to MS Shared Source, which allows you to read "the vast majority" of the source code. Both .NET, and WindowsXP (both "open source") do not have 100% of their source as readable via shared source, as certain "critical but not usefull to the end-user" parts have been intentionally left out.
People keep forgetting that Human Resources (yes, even in Africa) cost more then software or hardware. If my software/hardware solutions is plug and play, and I need minimal support, my cost is significantly lower then free software with the need of more support. The bottom line is, take a WinXP, or MacOSX desktop and plug it in, and it will cost less then a Linux desktop to support in almost all scenarios. One exception may be a callcenter in which all you have is a web browser running Intranet apps. In this case just buy a bunch of ThinkNic's and be done with it!.
You're missing the point of the parent post. A business may have certain portions of an app that they'd like to give away as Open Source, part of which may already use Open Source'd code. This is, of course, the benefit of Open Source. However, one part of this app is proprietary and they do not wish to give out that source, even though parts of the app are Open Source'd. With the GPL, this is not possible.
Does MS do any federal background security checks?
The moderators see fit to mod you up but you have no factual basis for your claims. I know people who are contracters at MS, and full time employees. First, they do pretty good background check on you. But that's really the point. Code just doesn't get checked in to CVS (lol!) without any sort of peer review and approval process. Think about OSS - can I, someone who has never hacked on a kernal, and someone who doesn't like GPL'd software, write some crap code and check it in to the Linux source tree?
Windows does not have any intentional backdoors, it's just an OS that was designed for features and the security of a "disconnected environment". The second everyone got onto the Internet, MS realized the importance of security as hole after hole was announced. However, it's very difficult to take away features, and it takes a long time to role out a fundamentally different design. Regardless, Widnows' security (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the fact that it's Closed Source. There are many of other commercial and Closed Source OS's, banking software, etc. that have incredible security. Actually, the only OSS OS (say that 3 times fast!0) that I know of that's really secure "out of the box" is OpenBSD.