One of our users (using Netscape for mail) got it from someone at Compaq *rrrgggh*. It wiped our NT file server clean of all.doc.xls and.ppt files. Fortunately we trust our critical files to a Linux Samba server -UNSCATHED!!!
I'd check again; if anyone had a network drive mapped out to the Samba server, your files on there were at risk (assuming that the user had write privs. on the Samba side).
please reread it. anybody who executes the binary will have files deleted, anybody can recieve it regardless of what mail client they use. it only uses the outlook api to resend itself and most ppl will have the outlook api even if they dont use outlook as their main email client.
More correctly, it used the Windows MAPI subsystem, which is the standard mechanism for email clients which run under Windows.
Inate paranoia makes me suspect of anything that MS touches. Personally, I hope you're right, and I also hope that people simply won't use anything that creates incompatabilities. I do know it can be complicated writing cross-platform code in MS J++. Small changes can be as problamatic as big in that they seem innocuous.
How is it complicated writing cross-platform code in J++? All you have to do is turn off the MS extensions; every MS change then flags an error in the compiler.
Yes, Microsoft implemented these standard protocols, but AFAIK, they did not attempt to subvert them in any way. In fact, the only standard that comes to mind besides Java or HTML (or perhaps Basic, if you want to go that route) that MS has or will prevert (besides their own formats and protocols, of course) is XML
And given that MS is on the standards committee for XML and XSL, and has been heavily involved in the design and standardisation work for XML and XSL, this is decidedly unlikely. Check out the W3C if you don't believe me.
Copyrights and IP law generate government condoned monopolies.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Sure, its supposed to spur competition, but modern corporations like microsoft have become very adept at exploiting it.
I'd love to see you write articles / program / music / art / do photography for a living, and then have your stuff blatantly copied all over the place. Then we'll see how you feel about copyright.
Egad, Microsoft has assigned a permanent agent to slashdot, operating in the open even? I thought they liked their agents provocateurs to stay under cover.
Er, actually, no -- I post here because I enjoy participating in debates on Slashdot. And I'm "out in the open" because company rules & regs state that if I'm not "out in the open", I'll be fired. Full disclosure is the name of the game.
And as for "agents provocateurs"... do you see me spreading FUD? Or anything else that "Microsoft's guerilla teams" of myth and fantasy are supposed to do?
No. You don't.
So I post here. So what? I've been posting on online forums since before I worked for MS, and I'll probably be posting on them after I finish working for MS. The only difference right now is that it's MS company policy for me to disclose my possible conflict of interest in any debate involving the computer software industry.
First, admit that the only reason for 'including' all that stuff you don't *need* for an Office suite is to encourage you to buy the FULL versions of all of those nifty new expensive Microsoft products. Like everyone has already said "the first hit's free"...
You already get the FULL versions of those products in the FULL version of Office - or you can buy them separately. You don't get cut down versions. The products are broken out the way they are so that people can pick and choose what's best for them.
Now, I'll tell you what's "included" in that full version: the only office suite to promote macro viruses.
That's right, folks, the dumbest security hole of the '90s award goes to... Microsoft! No surprise there. The Goodtimes virus used to be a joke until they came along.
Hmmm... Office 2K has code-signing for Macros now, and by default it'll jump up and down and shout loudly to get your attention if it comes across an unsigned piece of code. So Macro virii should no longer be a problem.
Not to mention that if you're stupid enough to run a macro-ridden file when the OS shows you a dialog saying "Hey! This contains a macro - and that could be a virus! Are you SURE you want to open this with Macros turned on?" then you deserve everything you get.
If I thought Microsoft cared about their customers, or produced superior software, then maybe I'd pay for or seriously use one of their products.
I know that we care about our customers. However, it would appear that you've believed the hype that other people spread.
That's different. If I make a copy of a computer program, I'm not claiming that I wrote it. I'm just making a copy to use for myself. If someone steals a copy of an essay I wrote and just sits at home and reads it, that's ok.
The main problem with computer software right now is that when you "buy" it, you don't own it. For example, lets say I buy a book that I think is really good. Am I doing anything illegal by letting my friends read my copy of it? No.
I think that software should use the same sort of copyright laws as literature. If I buy a book, it's mine and I can do what I want with it. I can't, however, claim that I wrote it. Also, I can't write my own book by cutting and pasting from other books without permission from those authors, or without giving due credit to those authors.
Specifically can't use more than ~ 20% of the original work in your book without the copyright owner's express permission. Everything else is covered under the "Fair use" provisions of the Bern copyright convention.
[I used to make a living writing words before I made one writing code - it's handy to know this kind of thing]
Microsoft has the all the cost and benifits of being the standard. This includes being able to charge US customers $1000 for the full version of MS Office 2000, but also implys mass piracy. Lotus and Corel already have their prices down to $200 or so - busting the 3rd world pirates puts the fastest growing parts of the world economy right into their hands. No piracy means MS has to be price competitive.
Why don't you tell the nice readers what's INCLUDED in that "Full Version"? Including a whole slew of developer tools, back-end stuff, database software, photo manipulation software, web page editing, publishing, etc etc etc etc?
Actually, why not compare it 1:1 with Lotus and Corel's offerings? Split it up and break it out? Then we'll see if MS is really charging too much -- because I believe that except for Word vs. WordPerfect, MS's offerings are about the same price on all fronts. So that sounds "competitive" to me.
That's a good point. I also wonder, if companies would consider charging a different price for personal use than commercial use, if piracy would go down. Very few individuals can afford to pay $500 for Photoshop, but what if you could buy a personal use license for $100? I'm sure the piracy would go down and more people would buy genuine copies.
Companies can always afford to pay more than individuals, generally. Let's see some personal use licenses.
I'd love to see that occur; though that's kind of close to what you get with Educational versions of software. Yep, I'd love to see that happen!
What is kinda funny is that not too long ago (about 6 months) I saw a copy of QB4.5 at Fry's of all places - all nice and shrink wrapped! Guess how much it was selling for?
Would you believe $150.00?
I nearly fell over - I wouldn't give a pile of monkey brains for it! What was really funny was it was sitting next to an LE version of VB5 - which was selling for $99.00...
And the really funny thing is that Microsoft hasn't sold QuickBasic for YEARS!!!
I can't understand why M$ has to charge such over inflated prices for any of their compilers (ever seen the price for VB)? Too me, it seems like they do this out of elitism, to try and keep "shadetree" programmers from creating what they perceive as lower quality (read: less features) software for the masses...
Compare the prices to Borland / Symantec, and you'll see that they compare more than favorably...
The poster never claimed he hadn't stolen the software, he said that the software companies lost no money because he would not have purchased that software.
But because he wouldn't have bought it anyway, it's okay for him to steal it so he can use it?
So it's useful enough for him to want to break the law and steal the software, but not useful enough for him to buy it legally?
So in other words, if you want something but don't actually need it, you can do whatever the hell you want to get a hold of it, because ethically and morally you're in the right?
Sorry, but that's complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.
Yes, but if I buy Stephen King's latest novel, I can photocopy it, color it, loan it to a friend, sell it, take it apart and otherwise do what I want with a copy that I bought. If I "buy" your software; I cannot copy it, I cannot take it apart, I cannot loan it, I cannot do anything against the licence included with all software.
You're crossing the boundaries of the analogy. You can take the CD that it comes on, and photocopy it, color it, sell it, take it apart... you can even loan it to a friend as long as they don't install it (or rather, specifically, don't run the software at the same time you're running it).
Same doesn't apply to the code on the CD. And this also applies to a book; though the "code" of the book is readily visible on the pages. You can't photocopy a book in entirety; there are limited fair-use provisions under copyright law to allow copying of material for research and educational purposes (and for journalistic purposes, I guess).
These are not comparable situations. "Bought" software is so much more than IP. The IP portion is hidden away in most (commercial) software, unavailable for anyone to appreciate or even notice.
Over 90% of MS's customers don't want to read the source code to the apps. So instead of wasting resources releasing the source code, we spend them on making the products more useful and usable for that 90%.
It's an interesting debate, but you are nothing more than a programming drone. You got paid. Shut up. No one is taking money away from you unless you are involved in some kind of high-level profit sharing there at Mickeysoft AND you weren't paid hourly/salary for the work you did. No one is taking anything from you if you were paid for your labor. They are, however, taking something from the software companies because the company DID pay for your time. The question is what and how much.
Oh, so it's okay to do it to a company, but not to a person?
I didn't say anything about programming specifically; I'm talking about ANY kind of intellectual property. This is why copyright violation is wrong. If was an author or an artist, you'd probably view it all differently. "Well, we can't scan in Stephen King's latest novel and send it all over the net -- that'd be wrong!!!".
But because it's software, you think otherwise.
Crazy. Truly crazy.
And yes, you do hurt me if you steal software I worked on. Because I do participate in some kind of high-level profit sharing. It's called stock.
But let's say I didn't work for Microsoft - let's say I was a lone developer selling stuff. Would it be alright to pirate my stuff then? Or not?
tangent] Once you look at it from a mathematical perspective, the idea that someone could 'own' code is a bit warped. A program is a collection o ones and zeros, in a specific order. Therefore, a program is a really long binary string. Can you copyright a number? If that's possible, I could go file a copyright on '2'! Then I could collect royalties from every math textbook ever printed! Hey, I could sue anyone who used '2' in any way without paying me first! Think of the possibilities...McDonald's couldn't charge $2.99 for something without paying me; Microsoft would have to pay me before they could use '2' in any version numbers for their apps; every two-dollar bill printed would be a copyright infringement, and I could sue the US Treasury Dept for it.... [/tangent]
That's just the representation of the idea. For example - you're just a collection of amino acids. Therefore, it should be perfectly allowable for me to use nerve gas on you, because afterwards, you'll be fine -- because you'll still be just a collection of amino acids.
You just refuted your own argument. If you "didn't lose revenue" then it is *not* theft. It *is* copyright violation, which is completely different. Think trespassing versus breaking and entering. The original poster may not be right, but he is not as wrong as you think he is.
Same difference. Either way, you're using something that I spent my limited amount of LIFE working on. You've just stolen time from me, no matter how small or insignificant.
I wish more people would equate intellectual property with the effort and lifetime spent coming up with it. Because mortality puts a whole new spin on the issues.
Nobody saw that their were two Slashdot teams! Number one and ten! Hum, the numbers look good to me! Add both of those totals, and I highly doubt M$ can touch "this".
The thing that I don't understand is who gives a flying (!*&#@(!*&?
The point isn't a race or a competition (though that adds a certain amount of fun for those involved, and gets people to participate, I guess). The point is to advance science and our knowledge of the universe -- even if a signal is never found, the mass of data accumulated and processed is going to be damn useful to physicists the world over.
That's why everyone I know at Microsoft is doing the Seti@Home thing (and I know because I roped about 20 or 30 people into it).
Maybe, there is something other than the screen saver causing the WIndows client to be so much slower.
Like what? I'd love to hear a suggestion for this one... We're talking single-threaded data crunching here - the only variable should be the priority of the thread.
I just ask one thing: Fix Visual C++ to be a standard compliant C++ compiler so I can get my Unix programs working on NT easier. Pretty Please? And I mean those annoying std:: namespace stuff. Why are cstdio not in the namespace? I could send a long list of freaking wierd errors I had porting code which were all non-compliant to the standard.
MS could never kill java. Its pickup has been slow because it has been crap before 2.0 and dev tools are expensive.
Java is huge and getting bigger all the time...
Ummm... "Dev tools are expensive"?!?!?!?
So, let's see... Sun gives away a free compiler since the first release of Java, and you claim that the reason Java's not taken off in leaps and bounds is because a FREE COMPILER is too EXPENSIVE?
Why not permit WinXX developers to use Perl instead of VB? I'd love to see Perl embrace and extend Microsloth...
MS already does; see "Windows Scripting Host", which enables you to use Perl, JavaScript, VBScript, NetRexx and more to write scripts against applications and the OS.
And NT4.0 Resource Kit comes with a version of Perl, as well as a host of other handy dandy utilities (like vi):)
"MS employees are so STUPID as to not be able to download a fraggin' copy of REDHAT?" They may know how to download it, but after that they're most likely totally lost.
Hubris - don'tcha just love it?
And yeah, M$ needs Linux Gurus, just like you need to check your facts before saying that "it has several thousand of them working for it already". They may have some FreeBSD guys and some Solaris guys off-site but it's doubtful that they have "thousand(s)" of them.
Hellooooo? Who works here @ MS and who doesn't in this conversation? I know what I'm talking about when I say there are thousands of Linux Guru's here at MS.
After seeing your pro-Microsoft posts, one after another, I couldn't take it anymore. You, my friend, are the target for M$ FUD. It's guys like yourself that believe all the M$ hype and are afraid of command lines and compilers.
Hmmm... that's an odd comment to make. Especially seeing that I work day in, day out on systems libraries for the developer tools division here.
Slashdot Mirror
That is because you can't even find out what day it is with the date/time control panel unless you are an administrator. I hate NT.
Wrong - you can't CHANGE the system date and time with the date/time control panel unless you're an administrator.
Try moving your mouse over the clock on the taskbar; if you wait about 2 seconds, it'll tell you the current date.
One of our users (using Netscape for mail) got it from someone at Compaq *rrrgggh*. It wiped our NT file server clean of all .doc .xls and .ppt files. Fortunately we trust our critical files to a Linux Samba server -UNSCATHED!!!
I'd check again; if anyone had a network drive mapped out to the Samba server, your files on there were at risk (assuming that the user had write privs. on the Samba side).
please reread it. anybody who executes the binary will have files deleted, anybody can recieve it regardless of what mail client they use. it only uses the outlook api to resend itself and most ppl will have the outlook api even if they dont use outlook as their main email client.
More correctly, it used the Windows MAPI subsystem, which is the standard mechanism for email clients which run under Windows.
Inate paranoia makes me suspect of anything that MS touches. Personally, I hope you're right, and I also hope that people simply won't use anything that creates incompatabilities. I do know it can be complicated writing cross-platform code in MS J++. Small changes can be as problamatic as big in that they seem innocuous.
How is it complicated writing cross-platform code in J++? All you have to do is turn off the MS extensions; every MS change then flags an error in the compiler.
Yes, Microsoft implemented these standard protocols, but AFAIK, they did not attempt to subvert them in any way. In fact, the only standard that comes to mind besides Java or HTML (or perhaps Basic, if you want to go that route) that MS has or will prevert (besides their own formats and protocols, of course) is XML
And given that MS is on the standards committee for XML and XSL, and has been heavily involved in the design and standardisation work for XML and XSL, this is decidedly unlikely. Check out the W3C if you don't believe me.
Repeat after me:
Copyrights and IP law generate government condoned monopolies.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Sure, its supposed to spur competition, but modern corporations like microsoft have become very adept at exploiting it.
I'd love to see you write articles / program / music / art / do photography for a living, and then have your stuff blatantly copied all over the place. Then we'll see how you feel about copyright.
Egad, Microsoft has assigned a permanent agent to slashdot, operating in the open even? I thought they liked their agents provocateurs to stay under cover.
Er, actually, no -- I post here because I enjoy participating in debates on Slashdot. And I'm "out in the open" because company rules & regs state that if I'm not "out in the open", I'll be fired. Full disclosure is the name of the game.
And as for "agents provocateurs"... do you see me spreading FUD? Or anything else that "Microsoft's guerilla teams" of myth and fantasy are supposed to do?
No. You don't.
So I post here. So what? I've been posting on online forums since before I worked for MS, and I'll probably be posting on them after I finish working for MS. The only difference right now is that it's MS company policy for me to disclose my possible conflict of interest in any debate involving the computer software industry.
First, admit that the only reason for 'including' all that stuff you don't *need* for an Office suite is to encourage you to buy the FULL versions of all of those nifty new expensive Microsoft products. Like everyone has already said "the first hit's free"...
You already get the FULL versions of those products in the FULL version of Office - or you can buy them separately. You don't get cut down versions. The products are broken out the way they are so that people can pick and choose what's best for them.
Now, I'll tell you what's "included" in that full version: the only office suite to promote macro viruses.
That's right, folks, the dumbest security hole of the '90s award goes to... Microsoft! No surprise there. The Goodtimes virus used to be a joke until they came along.
Hmmm... Office 2K has code-signing for Macros now, and by default it'll jump up and down and shout loudly to get your attention if it comes across an unsigned piece of code. So Macro virii should no longer be a problem.
Not to mention that if you're stupid enough to run a macro-ridden file when the OS shows you a dialog saying "Hey! This contains a macro - and that could be a virus! Are you SURE you want to open this with Macros turned on?" then you deserve everything you get.
If I thought Microsoft cared about their customers, or produced superior software, then maybe I'd pay for or seriously use one of their products.
I know that we care about our customers. However, it would appear that you've believed the hype that other people spread.
That's different. If I make a copy of a computer program, I'm not claiming that I wrote it. I'm just making a copy to use for myself. If someone steals a copy of an essay I wrote and just sits at home and reads it, that's ok.
The main problem with computer software right now is that when you "buy" it, you don't own it. For example, lets say I buy a book that I think is really good. Am I doing anything illegal by letting my friends read my copy of it? No.
I think that software should use the same sort of copyright laws as literature. If I buy a book, it's mine and I can do what I want with it. I can't, however, claim that I wrote it. Also, I can't write my own book by cutting and pasting from other books without permission from those authors, or without giving due credit to those authors.
Specifically can't use more than ~ 20% of the original work in your book without the copyright owner's express permission. Everything else is covered under the "Fair use" provisions of the Bern copyright convention.
[I used to make a living writing words before I made one writing code - it's handy to know this kind of thing]
Microsoft has the all the cost and benifits of being the standard. This includes being able to charge US customers $1000 for the full version of MS Office 2000, but also implys mass piracy. Lotus and Corel already have their prices down to $200 or so - busting the 3rd world pirates puts the fastest growing parts of the world economy right into their hands. No piracy means MS has to be price competitive.
Why don't you tell the nice readers what's INCLUDED in that "Full Version"? Including a whole slew of developer tools, back-end stuff, database software, photo manipulation software, web page editing, publishing, etc etc etc etc?
Actually, why not compare it 1:1 with Lotus and Corel's offerings? Split it up and break it out? Then we'll see if MS is really charging too much -- because I believe that except for Word vs. WordPerfect, MS's offerings are about the same price on all fronts. So that sounds "competitive" to me.
That's a good point. I also wonder, if companies would consider charging a different price for personal use than commercial use, if piracy would go down. Very few individuals can afford to pay $500 for Photoshop, but what if you could buy a personal use license for $100? I'm sure the piracy would go down and more people would buy genuine copies.
Companies can always afford to pay more than individuals, generally. Let's see some personal use licenses.
I'd love to see that occur; though that's kind of close to what you get with Educational versions of software. Yep, I'd love to see that happen!
No idea how it'd be policed though...
What is kinda funny is that not too long ago (about 6 months) I saw a copy of QB4.5 at Fry's of all places - all nice and shrink wrapped! Guess how much it was selling for?
Would you believe $150.00?
I nearly fell over - I wouldn't give a pile of monkey brains for it! What was really funny was it was sitting next to an LE version of VB5 - which was selling for $99.00...
And the really funny thing is that Microsoft hasn't sold QuickBasic for YEARS!!!
I can't understand why M$ has to charge such over inflated prices for any of their compilers (ever seen the price for VB)? Too me, it seems like they do this out of elitism, to try and keep "shadetree" programmers from creating what they perceive as lower quality (read: less features) software for the masses...
Compare the prices to Borland / Symantec, and you'll see that they compare more than favorably...
Have I agreed to something?
I never told them 'I will agree to this license'. Simply because I opened the package never meant that I bound my word to following the EULA.
The point is: I never broke my word, because I never promised anything. Opening a package or running a binary do not mean I promised anything. Period.
Doesn't matter; it's still protected under copyright law.
The poster never claimed he hadn't stolen the software, he said that the software companies lost no money because he would not have purchased that software.
But because he wouldn't have bought it anyway, it's okay for him to steal it so he can use it?
So it's useful enough for him to want to break the law and steal the software, but not useful enough for him to buy it legally?
So in other words, if you want something but don't actually need it, you can do whatever the hell you want to get a hold of it, because ethically and morally you're in the right?
Sorry, but that's complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.
Yes, but if I buy Stephen King's latest novel, I can photocopy it, color it, loan it to a friend, sell it, take it apart and otherwise do what I want with a copy that I bought.
If I "buy" your software; I cannot copy it, I cannot take it apart, I cannot loan it, I cannot do anything against the licence included with all software.
You're crossing the boundaries of the analogy. You can take the CD that it comes on, and photocopy it, color it, sell it, take it apart... you can even loan it to a friend as long as they don't install it (or rather, specifically, don't run the software at the same time you're running it).
Same doesn't apply to the code on the CD. And this also applies to a book; though the "code" of the book is readily visible on the pages. You can't photocopy a book in entirety; there are limited fair-use provisions under copyright law to allow copying of material for research and educational purposes (and for journalistic purposes, I guess).
These are not comparable situations. "Bought" software is so much more than IP. The IP portion is hidden away in most (commercial) software, unavailable for anyone to appreciate or even notice.
Over 90% of MS's customers don't want to read the source code to the apps. So instead of wasting resources releasing the source code, we spend them on making the products more useful and usable for that 90%.
It's an interesting debate, but you are nothing more than a programming drone. You got paid. Shut up. No one is taking money away from you unless you are involved in some kind of high-level profit sharing there at Mickeysoft AND you weren't paid hourly/salary for the work you did. No one is taking anything from you if you were paid for your labor. They are, however, taking something from the software companies because the company DID pay for your time. The question is what and how much.
Oh, so it's okay to do it to a company, but not to a person?
I didn't say anything about programming specifically; I'm talking about ANY kind of intellectual property. This is why copyright violation is wrong. If was an author or an artist, you'd probably view it all differently. "Well, we can't scan in Stephen King's latest novel and send it all over the net -- that'd be wrong!!!".
But because it's software, you think otherwise.
Crazy. Truly crazy.
And yes, you do hurt me if you steal software I worked on. Because I do participate in some kind of high-level profit sharing. It's called stock.
But let's say I didn't work for Microsoft - let's say I was a lone developer selling stuff. Would it be alright to pirate my stuff then? Or not?
tangent]
Once you look at it from a mathematical perspective, the idea that someone could 'own' code is a bit warped. A program is a collection o ones and zeros, in a specific order. Therefore, a program is a really long binary string. Can you copyright a number? If that's possible, I could go file a copyright on '2'! Then I could collect royalties from every math textbook ever printed! Hey, I could sue anyone who used '2' in any way without paying me first! Think of the possibilities...McDonald's couldn't charge $2.99 for something without paying me; Microsoft would have to pay me before they could use '2' in any version numbers for their apps; every two-dollar bill printed would be a copyright infringement, and I could sue the US Treasury Dept for it....
[/tangent]
That's just the representation of the idea. For example - you're just a collection of amino acids. Therefore, it should be perfectly allowable for me to use nerve gas on you, because afterwards, you'll be fine -- because you'll still be just a collection of amino acids.
Get the picture?
You just refuted your own argument. If you "didn't lose revenue" then it is *not* theft. It *is* copyright violation, which is completely different. Think trespassing versus breaking and entering. The original poster may not be right, but he is not as wrong as you think he is.
Same difference. Either way, you're using something that I spent my limited amount of LIFE working on. You've just stolen time from me, no matter how small or insignificant.
I wish more people would equate intellectual property with the effort and lifetime spent coming up with it. Because mortality puts a whole new spin on the issues.
Er... yep... but the poster I was responding to was claiming that it wasn't just the screen-saver causing perf problems.
Nobody saw that their were two Slashdot teams!
Number one and ten! Hum, the numbers look good to me! Add both of those totals, and I highly doubt M$ can touch "this".
The thing that I don't understand is who gives a flying (!*&#@(!*&?
The point isn't a race or a competition (though that adds a certain amount of fun for those involved, and gets people to participate, I guess). The point is to advance science and our knowledge of the universe -- even if a signal is never found, the mass of data accumulated and processed is going to be damn useful to physicists the world over.
That's why everyone I know at Microsoft is doing the Seti@Home thing (and I know because I roped about 20 or 30 people into it).
Maybe, there is something other than the screen saver causing the WIndows client to be so much slower.
Like what? I'd love to hear a suggestion for this one... We're talking single-threaded data crunching here - the only variable should be the priority of the thread.
*shrugs*
I just ask one thing: Fix Visual C++ to be a standard compliant C++ compiler so I can get my Unix programs working on NT easier. Pretty Please?
And I mean those annoying std:: namespace stuff. Why are cstdio not in the namespace? I could send a long list of freaking wierd errors I had porting code which were all non-compliant to the standard.
Taken to email...
Si
MS could never kill java. Its pickup has been slow because it has been crap before 2.0 and dev tools are expensive.
... "Dev tools are expensive"?!?!?!?
Java is huge and getting bigger all the time...
Ummm
So, let's see... Sun gives away a free compiler since the first release of Java, and you claim that the reason Java's not taken off in leaps and bounds is because a FREE COMPILER is too EXPENSIVE?
Come on, please!
Why not permit WinXX developers to use Perl instead of VB? I'd love to see Perl embrace and extend Microsloth...
:)
MS already does; see "Windows Scripting Host", which enables you to use Perl, JavaScript, VBScript, NetRexx and more to write scripts against applications and the OS.
And NT4.0 Resource Kit comes with a version of Perl, as well as a host of other handy dandy utilities (like vi)
"MS employees are so STUPID as to not be able to download a fraggin' copy of REDHAT?"
They may know how to download it, but after that they're most likely totally lost.
Hubris - don'tcha just love it?
And yeah, M$ needs Linux Gurus, just like you need to check your facts before saying that "it has several thousand of them working for it already". They may have some FreeBSD guys and some Solaris guys off-site but it's doubtful that they have "thousand(s)" of them.
Hellooooo? Who works here @ MS and who doesn't in this conversation? I know what I'm talking about when I say there are thousands of Linux Guru's here at MS.
After seeing your pro-Microsoft posts, one after another, I couldn't take it anymore. You, my friend, are the target for M$ FUD. It's guys like yourself that believe all the M$ hype and are afraid of command lines and compilers.
Hmmm... that's an odd comment to make. Especially seeing that I work day in, day out on systems libraries for the developer tools division here.