The most important factor in software work is not the tools or techniques used by the programmers, but rather the quality of the programmers themselves.
Another important factor is the amount of time that they are given to accomplish the task. Certain programmers, including many who are otherwise excellent, procrastinate and cannot meet deadlines. And, as we're aware, even good programmers often take shortcuts once fatigue begins to set in.
Longhorn is supposed to be a "unified" desktop with Internet, mail, etc.
So was Windows 95! Microsoft has promised a revolutionary new interface for several generations of Windows now, but we've only been afforded a new incarnation of the infamous Start button. And, although many argue that the GUI cannot be functionally extrapolated with current hardware, OS X does provide a strong counterargument. Could it be that those who "defend the right to innovate" are simply not particularly innovative themselves?
If most of the updates will be available for current versions of Windows, what is the incentive to upgrade?
Microsoft was once interested in becoming a subscription-based retailer. Perhaps you will be capable of upgrading Windows XP by using an extension to Windows Update, not unlike certain distributions of Linux and other Unix-like operating systems. Such a maneuver would enable them to combat the "pseudo-instant availability" of many alternative operating systems.
Any version beyond "ICQ98" was extremely bloated, and those who weren't offended by the bloat were offended by the presence of AOL, who had acquired ICQ and was attempting to deprecate it in favor of AIM. Many of us can also recall the blatant security vulnerabilities inherent to the ICQ protocol, including "ICQ identity theft," which was somewhat commonplace around 1999.
There are over 30,000,000 functional illiterates here in the United States. 29,302,757 represents 10% of our population, rendering that a staggering figure.
And because it has been widely speculated that they are more responsive to advertising than any other demographic, the networks are probably catering to them.
Okay, tell meonce again how many months it took to root out those errors? Some where known for a long time. And I expected a longer list... waaaaay longer!
Modifying a large operating system while attempting not to "break" any end-user configurations is nothing short of a prodigious task.
The modifications were probably developed and committed to the Windows source tree in a relatively short period of time. However, Windows must accommodate a diverse array of configurations, including many that are very "fragile" and obscure. Because of this, the modified build likely endured an extensive testing process, hence the multiple delays.
I tried to upgrade my mothers PC to XP, its a 400mhz AMD K6. It didnt work.
But the hardware vendors require patronage, too, and deprecating what is predominantly an OEM bundled operating system is one effective method of "encouraging" the "consumer" to purchase additional hardware. Computer users are realizing that you don't require a three gigahertz machine to browse Web sites; as a result, the corporations are becoming somewhat desperate.
Realistically, I would anticipate a similar result if I were to directly connect an unpatched Red Hat 5.1 machine to the Internet. After all, Windows 98 and Red Hat Linux 5.1 are both technologically obsolete, having been released on June 25, 1998 and May 22, 1998, respectively. They are over six years old, and both were available for purchase. Why should Microsoft support Windows 98 if Red Hat doesn't support RHL 5.1?
On the other hand, Red Hat Linux is open source; thus, anybody is capable of backporting patches to their version of the operating system, whereas Windows users remain dependent on Microsoft. Additionally, the operating system still does possess a substantial user base, whereas users of RHL 5.1 are much more likely to have already updated their machine(s). Most importantly, Microsoft is probably financially capable of supporting Windows 98 indefinitely.
I ultimately believe that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide support for Windows 98 unless they develop an alternative method for the end-user to properly secure it. Not everybody is willing to endure the inconvenience of installing a new operating system every two years, and the Internet certainly doesn't benefit from a prodigious cache of unsupported, vulnerable machines.
It also notes that VoIP customers may not be listed in the local phone book, causing problems with "major fast food companies"
That's horrible! Are you implying that some telemarketers won't be capable of easily obtaining my telephone number, and the local telephone company won't be capable of charging me to opt-out of the directory?
If this group is merely validating complaints by including only those that have been submitted on many different occasions by unique hosts, then a malevolent individual could hypothetically establish a distributed network of compromised machines - perhaps by deploying an Internet worm - and then submit his false complaint, thus circumventing that precaution.
Mod me flamebait, but are we intentionally excluding Microsoft from the browser development community now? Apple, Adobe, Macromedia, Opera, and Sun are definitely interested in causing Microsoft to become financially insolvent. If Microsoft were defeated, those corporations -- corporations that also attempt to profit and dominate markets -- would lose their incentive to remain "benevolent." Competition is good, and the Microsoft engineers have probably learned from many of their mistakes; thus, they may actually be able to contribute valid advice here.
Maybe they have. However, maybe they've also determined that those individuals are already vehemently opposed to "corporately distributed" music, and are thus unlikely to purchase their products.
Such widely propagated beliefs, after all, die hard: According to many, network news is still liberal, American corporations are still honest, and only democrats violate civil liberties. To some, large, corporate music distributors will always be nefarious. And they're already capable of legislating their business model, so why bother?
Actually, Mercedes-Benz is currently disposing of traditional flat keys. They are gradually being replaced by an IR/RF "SmartKey." As of 2004, the E-Class ships only with a flat "valet key" that independently locks the glovebox.
Unfortunately, nobody appears to understand that with the shuttles grounded indefinitely, the International Space Station provides one of the few opportunities for the United States to safely (relatively speaking) evaluate new technology in the precise environment that it must function properly in. Hypotheses and simulation, after all, often differ from reality. And with their newly aggrandized objective to ensure "complete astronaut safety," shouldn't NASA be utilizing every resource in its arsenal?
However, they also offer many daemons as "one-click downloads," and those were the subject of my response. They (did?) operate as root by default, too. Once they have been allowed to age sufficiently, these vulnerable daemons will become an excellent vector by which to propagate "auto-installing" malware.
I'm talking about an open source equivalent to things like Norton AntiVirus - at some point, at some time desktop Linux will be hit by viruses/spyware/other undesireables. Current security technologies are purely focussed upon preventation and none upon cure.
I believe that Lindows (Linspire) is especially susceptible to this. After all, the user operates as 'root' by default, thus compromising many of the local security principles inherent to the Linux/Unix philosophy. Lindows and the other "easy-to-use" implementations of Linux haven't yet become ubiquitous enough to warrant the development of distribution-specific malware, but give it time. After all, we're already beginning to observe one-click malware intended for the Mozilla community in the wild.
I propose a fork of Apache that contains a complete implementation of all IIS functionality (circa 2001), preferably enabled by default. The application must operate as 'root'. This will ensure that certain IT positions will remain abundant for many decades.
Slashdot Mirror
The most important factor in software work is not the tools or techniques used by the programmers, but rather the quality of the programmers themselves.
Another important factor is the amount of time that they are given to accomplish the task. Certain programmers, including many who are otherwise excellent, procrastinate and cannot meet deadlines. And, as we're aware, even good programmers often take shortcuts once fatigue begins to set in.
Longhorn is supposed to be a "unified" desktop with Internet, mail, etc.
So was Windows 95! Microsoft has promised a revolutionary new interface for several generations of Windows now, but we've only been afforded a new incarnation of the infamous Start button. And, although many argue that the GUI cannot be functionally extrapolated with current hardware, OS X does provide a strong counterargument. Could it be that those who "defend the right to innovate" are simply not particularly innovative themselves?
If most of the updates will be available for current versions of Windows, what is the incentive to upgrade?
Microsoft was once interested in becoming a subscription-based retailer. Perhaps you will be capable of upgrading Windows XP by using an extension to Windows Update, not unlike certain distributions of Linux and other Unix-like operating systems. Such a maneuver would enable them to combat the "pseudo-instant availability" of many alternative operating systems.
Any version beyond "ICQ98" was extremely bloated, and those who weren't offended by the bloat were offended by the presence of AOL, who had acquired ICQ and was attempting to deprecate it in favor of AIM. Many of us can also recall the blatant security vulnerabilities inherent to the ICQ protocol, including "ICQ identity theft," which was somewhat commonplace around 1999.
Yes and one of them is your President!
"To the C students, I say, 'You too can be president of the United States.'" - George W. Bush, 2001
There are over 30,000,000 functional illiterates here in the United States. 29,302,757 represents 10% of our population, rendering that a staggering figure.
And because it has been widely speculated that they are more responsive to advertising than any other demographic, the networks are probably catering to them.
Okay, tell meonce again how many months it took to root out those errors? Some where known for a long time. And I expected a longer list... waaaaay longer!
Modifying a large operating system while attempting not to "break" any end-user configurations is nothing short of a prodigious task.
The modifications were probably developed and committed to the Windows source tree in a relatively short period of time. However, Windows must accommodate a diverse array of configurations, including many that are very "fragile" and obscure. Because of this, the modified build likely endured an extensive testing process, hence the multiple delays.
Will the proles ever learn?
You should hope not. If you're a computer technician, then the "proles" are your job security.
I tried to upgrade my mothers PC to XP, its a 400mhz AMD K6. It didnt work.
But the hardware vendors require patronage, too, and deprecating what is predominantly an OEM bundled operating system is one effective method of "encouraging" the "consumer" to purchase additional hardware. Computer users are realizing that you don't require a three gigahertz machine to browse Web sites; as a result, the corporations are becoming somewhat desperate.
Realistically, I would anticipate a similar result if I were to directly connect an unpatched Red Hat 5.1 machine to the Internet. After all, Windows 98 and Red Hat Linux 5.1 are both technologically obsolete, having been released on June 25, 1998 and May 22, 1998, respectively. They are over six years old, and both were available for purchase. Why should Microsoft support Windows 98 if Red Hat doesn't support RHL 5.1?
On the other hand, Red Hat Linux is open source; thus, anybody is capable of backporting patches to their version of the operating system, whereas Windows users remain dependent on Microsoft. Additionally, the operating system still does possess a substantial user base, whereas users of RHL 5.1 are much more likely to have already updated their machine(s). Most importantly, Microsoft is probably financially capable of supporting Windows 98 indefinitely.
I ultimately believe that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide support for Windows 98 unless they develop an alternative method for the end-user to properly secure it. Not everybody is willing to endure the inconvenience of installing a new operating system every two years, and the Internet certainly doesn't benefit from a prodigious cache of unsupported, vulnerable machines.
Hey, that disc is 1/46th the size of a Volkswagen Bug!
Paradigm Shift
So, who hijacked the time machine and transported us all to 1998?
It also notes that VoIP customers may not be listed in the local phone book, causing problems with "major fast food companies"
;-)
That's horrible! Are you implying that some telemarketers won't be capable of easily obtaining my telephone number, and the local telephone company won't be capable of charging me to opt-out of the directory?
What a shame!
This Web site is actually managed by the infamous Carolyn Meinel, whose tendency to sensationalize is well documented. YMMV.
Touché. PKI is probably applicable here.
If this group is merely validating complaints by including only those that have been submitted on many different occasions by unique hosts, then a malevolent individual could hypothetically establish a distributed network of compromised machines - perhaps by deploying an Internet worm - and then submit his false complaint, thus circumventing that precaution.
Blacklisted, perhaps? ;-)
... Vostok bottled water, a pleasant alternative to Evian. ;-)
Mod me flamebait, but are we intentionally excluding Microsoft from the browser development community now? Apple, Adobe, Macromedia, Opera, and Sun are definitely interested in causing Microsoft to become financially insolvent. If Microsoft were defeated, those corporations -- corporations that also attempt to profit and dominate markets -- would lose their incentive to remain "benevolent." Competition is good, and the Microsoft engineers have probably learned from many of their mistakes; thus, they may actually be able to contribute valid advice here.
I also wonder why the music industry hasn't.
Maybe they have. However, maybe they've also determined that those individuals are already vehemently opposed to "corporately distributed" music, and are thus unlikely to purchase their products.
Such widely propagated beliefs, after all, die hard: According to many, network news is still liberal, American corporations are still honest, and only democrats violate civil liberties. To some, large, corporate music distributors will always be nefarious. And they're already capable of legislating their business model, so why bother?
Actually, Mercedes-Benz is currently disposing of traditional flat keys. They are gradually being replaced by an IR/RF "SmartKey." As of 2004, the E-Class ships only with a flat "valet key" that independently locks the glovebox.
You did observe the quotation marks, didn't you? To clarify, my usage of that statement was intended to be sarcastic. ;-)
:-)
Regarding Bush, however, I agree... completely.
Unfortunately, nobody appears to understand that with the shuttles grounded indefinitely, the International Space Station provides one of the few opportunities for the United States to safely (relatively speaking) evaluate new technology in the precise environment that it must function properly in. Hypotheses and simulation, after all, often differ from reality. And with their newly aggrandized objective to ensure "complete astronaut safety," shouldn't NASA be utilizing every resource in its arsenal?
You're right.
However, they also offer many daemons as "one-click downloads," and those were the subject of my response. They (did?) operate as root by default, too. Once they have been allowed to age sufficiently, these vulnerable daemons will become an excellent vector by which to propagate "auto-installing" malware.
I'm talking about an open source equivalent to things like Norton AntiVirus - at some point, at some time desktop Linux will be hit by viruses/spyware/other undesireables. Current security technologies are purely focussed upon preventation and none upon cure.
I believe that Lindows (Linspire) is especially susceptible to this. After all, the user operates as 'root' by default, thus compromising many of the local security principles inherent to the Linux/Unix philosophy. Lindows and the other "easy-to-use" implementations of Linux haven't yet become ubiquitous enough to warrant the development of distribution-specific malware, but give it time. After all, we're already beginning to observe one-click malware intended for the Mozilla community in the wild.
I propose a fork of Apache that contains a complete implementation of all IIS functionality (circa 2001), preferably enabled by default. The application must operate as 'root'. This will ensure that certain IT positions will remain abundant for many decades.