The thing is... why doesn't Samba test symbolic links in a performance friendly way? It would appear to be brute-forcing it, which seems pretty poor to me.
Surely there's a low-cost way to check whether a file is a symbolic link or not? Or even do a pass over the filesystem occasionally and check the links that way. Or just cache as it crops up.
You should set widelinks = no. However, doing that shouldn't affect performance that badly.
If you read the article, you'll see that the NT box was crippled down to 1Gb.
Windows NT Server 4.0 Configuration Windows NT Server 4.0 Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 4 installed Used 1024 MB of RAM (set maxmem=1024 in boot.ini) Server set to maximize throughput for file sharing Foreground application boost set to NONE Set registry entries:
If you look at the certification section it is "mindcraft" admits that MS paid them to do this benchmark. Frankly, I can't see how that could possibly make an objective benchmark.
Parody is a form of protected speech, so MS have no legal leg to stand on. By the way, the people who are trademarking the phrase put out a Linux distribution---they posted on this thread in fact. So they are not using the trademark in a different field; the field is operating systems distributions....;)
Yep - and they haven't been granted that trademark yet; they've just filed for it. The whole trademark issues vary state to state, but if they're only doing in-state commerce under that trademark, they may well be able to. But they won't be able to register it with the federal govt. -- though it may slip through the net, in which case, MS will sue, and they'll lose it. 's pretty clear cut.
And legal issues are sort of irrelevant. Post the slogan to your heart's content and watch MS look extremely foolish trying to send people legal threats, which they then post to their web pages....;)
The thing is though, 99% of those people won't be providing official Linux services / running an official Linux site, which would appear to be what www.linux.de is. And that is where the problem lies; when they use it, it's no longer parody. It's advertising. And hey presto, it's no longer protected.
The thing is though, MS has to do this; if you don't defend your trademarks, they die.
Oh come on, it's not creating "confusion, mistakes or deception"! No way it is. It's crystal clear, everybody immediately remembers Microsoft's slogan, "where do you want to go today" and then they see the point. So where's the confusion, deception and mistakes?
From my perspective (and I am not a lawyer), the confusion is (as I said) in whether or not Microsoft is seen as ENDORSING the use of their trademark in that way, and therefore endorsing that company.
But I believe the law in question here is German. A German company is being sued by another German company (Microsoft's DE subsidiary).
As I said, I believe that trademark law was internationally agreed on, and is recognised internationally since the Geneva Copyright Convention (apart from some notable exceptions).
The law itself in Germany, I believe, is either very similar or identical to the law in the UK and the US.
M$ didn't sue Billy Graham back in '97 when his campaign ended up using this slogan. Why the preferential treatment for Billy G., other than the fact that he shares the same initials as Mr Gates himself, and that he's got friends upstairs? Billy Graham isn't in the computer industry. He's not selling computer-related services. Therefore trademark infringment is not possible in this case.
Microsoft is just hassling competitors; part of their illegal monopolistic practices. Does Microsoft use the slogan in question? No. The legal aspects are pretty clear: Microsoft has no basis for their argument and no sense of humor. Micrsoft does have a vicious streak when it comes to public relations. If they can't take a joke and have no legal basis, then they are just bullies.
Sorry, but it has a legal basis -- section 1114, 1(a) and 1(b) of the Lanham Act of 1946.
Confusion can include whether or not Microsoft ENDORSES companies using a similar slogan and/or trademark. As such, www.linux.de was infringing MS's trademark.
Thanks for the citation, it was definitely informative (Where did you get it, btw?). Now my question is what did www.linux.de violate?
I just did a Yahoo search for trademarks, and followed a few links:) (and the actual URL is in there, if you want to read the whole original document).
As for what www.linux.de violated... I'm not 100% sure (firstly, I'm not a lawyer, and secondly, the only details I have on this are from slashdot). But I think it basically goes under the Sect 1114, 1(b) stuff:
They have a banner ad (an advertisement), which is using a parody (imitation) which is likely to cause confusion, mistakes or deception. Confusion, mistakes or deception can be anything from thinking that www.linux.de are Microsoft resellers, to the idea that by using such a similar slogan, Microsoft *ENDORSES* the companies / organisations which are using the similar slogan in that field.
And as for definitions of "colorable imitation", I think this is a duck-test thing.
Where is it trademark infringement? Last I checked MS had "Where do you want to go today?" trademarked, not the slogan in question. Sure they're similar, but the criteria for trademarks is "Is it's use likely to cause confusion between products?", and there's no way Linux will ever be confused with an MS product.
Look at it this way:
If Pepsi had their cans EXACTLY as they are now, but put the Pepsi logo in the Coca Cola font (and I'm not talking about the swoosh here), it'd be no contest -- Coca Cola would win the ensuing lawsuit. But! You say, "It says PEPSI, not Coca-Cola! how can that be confusing"?
Answer: Doesn't matter.
Here's part of the reason:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html
Under state common law, trademarks are protected as part of the common law of unfair competition and registration is not required. See Unfair Competition. States' statutory provisions on trademarks differ but most have adopted a version of the Model Trademark Bill (MTB) or the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA). The MTB provides for registration of trademarks while the UDTPA does not.
Sect. 1114. Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers (1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant--
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the remedies given to the owner of a right infringed under this Act or to a person bringing an action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] shall be limited as follows:
(A) Where any infringer or violator is engaged solely in the business of printing the mark or violating matter for others and establishes that he or she was an innocent infringer or innocent violator, the owner of the right infringed or person bringing the action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] shall be entitled as against such infringer or violator only to an injunction against future printing.
(B) Where the infringement or violation complained of is contained in or is part of paid advertising matter in a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or in an electronic communication as defined in section 2510(12) of title 18, United States Code, the remedies of the owner of the right infringed or person bringing the action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] as against the publisher or distributor of such newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or electronic communication shall be limited to an injunction against the presentation of such advertising matter in future issues of such newspapers, magazines, or other similar periodicals or in future transmissions of such electronic communications. The limitations of this subparagraph shall apply only to innocent infringers and innocent violators.
(C) Injunctive relief shall not be available to the owher of the right infringed or person bringing the action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] with respect to an issue of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or an electronic communication containing infringing matter or violating matter where restraining the dissemination of such infringing matter or violating matter in any particular issue of such periodical or in an electronic communication would delay the delivery of such issue or transmission of such electronic communication after the regular time for such delivery or transmission, and such delay would be due to the method by which publication and distribution of such periodical or transmission of such electronic communication is customarily conducted in accordance with sound business practice, and not due to any method or device adopted to evade this section or to prevent or delay the issuance of an injunction or restraining order with respect to such infringing matter or violating matter.
(D) As used in this paragraph--
(i) the term "violator" means a person who violates section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)]; and
(ii) the term "violating matter" means matter that is the subject of a violation under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)].
So there you have it. Most other countries' trademark laws follow the Lanham Act; this was all settled down around the time of the Geneva Copyright Convention.
According to the letter (and spirit) of the law, Linux.De was indeed infringing a trademark.
Also, the Michigan guy who's trying to register Where Do You Want To Go Tomorrow?... well, he's still waiting for the patent to file. And by the look of it, he ain't going to get it.
It wouldn't take an expensive lawyer to defend linux.de; in fact, if they hadn't backed down, M$ probably wouldn't have the balls to sue anyway--they'd lose.
Actually, no, MS wouldn't lose. This is in fact trademark infringment. Also, that company in Michigan is using the trademark in a different field...
You know, I rarely hear Linux users or developers utter the word "workaround." Does M$ have this word trademarked so that other people can't use it without their permission? Or is it that other developers don't tolerate the concept of a workaround and instead fix the problem?
Visualize this situation:
You discover a bug in XXXX.lib, used by 1000's of programs the world over. Shipped with every RedHat distribution.
You tell RedHat.
Does RedHat: 1. Fix the bug? 2. Document the bug? 3. Release a new revision of the lib, and keep shipping the old one? 4. 2 and 3, but not 1.
I'm willing to bet that (1) will never occur. Why? Because it'd break all that software. Doh!
Well... I just took my novel out of storage, dusted it off, cut and pasted it into a document about 20 times, and started typing at various parts of the file.
Typing at the start of the file?
No slowdown.
Typing at the end of the file?
No slowdown.
Typing in the middle?
No slowdown.
128Mb of memory, Gateway G6-200, running Windows 2000 Professional Beta 3/RC1 and Office 2000.
So, I guess this "problem" has been fixed.
To be honest, I don't remember this "problem" existing in Office 97 or Word 6 either.
Consider the phrase, "If it compiles, ship it." Apparently, an M$ program/product manager was said to have told someone on his group just that (of course, that probably wasn't the first/last time). Gives you the ol' warm-fuzzies, doesn't it?
That's somewhat out of context. At all times, we try to have a shippable product ready to go out the door. ie. everything has to build, the functionality has to work to spec (or can be ripped without destroying the product), and we devs write our own test suites to make sure of this (and the testers punish our code using a number of methodologies as well).
The term you are recycling is half joke, half truth around here. If it compiles, ship it!!! (this comes from the fact that if you don't ship a product, it ain't a product). However, if what you ship doesn't work properly (ie. it compiles, but the functionality is all fubar) you haven't got a product either.
In other words, grand ideas are great for a product, but when it comes to the bottom line, if you can cut a few features and get the product out of the door -- and still have it worth buying -- then it's a reasonable tradeoff.
I don't work for M$ and never would. I find that a daily shower and peaceful contemplative moment suffice to cleanse myself (and my karma) of the stench that accumulates from using m$ products. What kind of pennance would you have to pay if you actually worked for them?
Speaking personally, none. My conscience is clear.
As I said - I might be wrong, but I believe that the reporter badly paraphrased what Muth was saying.
See my other post for the dirt on what I think about your "Strike 1".
And as for:
Actually, as I have shown, your attempt at analysis here is not quite up to par with the standards that you proclaimed in the message's title. The solution thus is to read the article more carefully, rather than to attempt such a badly-done (likely due to personal bias) deconstruction.
And you don't have personal bias falling into this? I already said I might be wrong in my statements. But the possibility still exists that ZDNet screwed up in their reporting -- and the language used in those reports is enough to make me think it *was* screwed up. (Heck, I was a writer before I started coding for a living -- I've interviewed enough people myself in my time. In fact, it's things like these which is why I always tried to get my sources to read over the article before publication).
Until I see more evidence to the contrary (like a transcript), I'm sticking to my guns. Call me biased. Call me sceptical. Just don't call me after 3am; I like to sleep:)
So I exaggerated. So it's not "completely and utterly wrong"... but most people assume that "Open Source" EQUALS GPL, not "is a super set of".
There's a variety of open source licenses. Open source thus, to the lay person, usually means one of those licenses.
How many times do you say "I'm going to release my software as open source!", implicitly meaning under GNU? Should you be sued for trademark infringement? Because you're misrepresenting the Open Source definition; you're making it stricter than it really is.
So I exaggerated. So it's not "completely and utterly wrong"... but most people assume that "Open Source" EQUALS GPL, not "is a super set of".
There's a variety of open source licenses. Open source thus, to the lay person, usually means one of those licenses.
How many times do you say "I'm going to release my software as open source!", implicitly meaning under GNU? Should you be sued for trademark infringement? Because you're misrepresenting the Open Source definition; you're making it stricter than it really is.
While I cannot provide hard numbers, as I do not have any machines which use any Microsoft products and only use Solaris machines at school, I can provide the following evidence (albeit anecdotal to all of you, it is first hand to me):
I have seen two people attempt to compile simple, introductory C++ programs with VC++ and have it fail because there was insufficient space on the floppy they were using for compilation. *NOT* because of the final executable size, but because of the several 200-500k intermediate files left behind by the compiler. I cannot say what these files were (they didn't end in ".o") or what they did.
Hmmm... my guess is that it was the cache used by the IDE, the intermediate files and the debug databases. You can configure it down to produce a minimum of output, actually... or use it from the command line:) By default though, it'll produce a whole swamp of debug output for the debugger. You can pare that down too -- so that it only produces symbols / line numbers instead. It should be possible to get it to compile stuff onto a floppy.
Personally, I'd give all the people at the school some hard drive space, and a roaming account with a quota on it, and get them to use their space on the network... but that's just me:) [I was spoiled by IDE's, but working @ MS has weaned me off it somewhat -- you can't use an IDE that you (or someone else) is in the middle of writing... well, not in the early stages!]
I have also seen students spend 30 minutes trying to figure out how to use VC++. You can't just open up a new source file, type and compile. Visual C++ may be the finest tool available for high-end Windows development - I wouldn't know - but it is completely unsuitable for use in this situation. Of course, this is not Microsoft's problem, but rather my school's. It does, perhaps, point out a problem with IDEs in general, IMHO.
Hmmmm... Yeahh... the solution to the problem is to create a Win32 Commmand Line project from the wizard, and use that for everything -- but I must admit it's not too hot for the uninitiated. Mind you, the next version will use a new shell, so things may change, and become easier.
As for the ad-hominem assaults, I apologize. That was uncalled for and I graciously accept your calling me an ignoramus. We tend to get hot-headed when things we love are threatened, ne?
*grins* In that case, I'll take it back. As a rule though, I tend to fight fire with fire; and I hate people prejudicing me because of my current employment.:)
Truce?:-)
ps. see my "Death of Critical Thinking on/." post near the end of the index... I think I'm right about this, but I might not be.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is... why doesn't Samba test symbolic links in a performance friendly way? It would appear to be brute-forcing it, which seems pretty poor to me.
Surely there's a low-cost way to check whether a file is a symbolic link or not? Or even do a pass over the filesystem occasionally and check the links that way. Or just cache as it crops up.
You should set widelinks = no. However, doing that shouldn't affect performance that badly.
Needs fixing.
From Andrew Trigell (original Author of Samba):
:)
They set "widelinks = no" now I wonder why they did that
My guess would be so that you would have a secure system, which is what 99% of admins not trying to rig benchmark results would arguably prefer.
widelinks = yes gets you hit on the nose with a soggy newspaper, if you're an admin.
See what I mean? It used 1024Mb.
If you look at the certification section it is "mindcraft" admits that MS paid them to do this benchmark. Frankly, I can't see how that could possibly make an objective benchmark.
Why shouldn't it make an objective benchmark?
Parody is a form of protected speech, so MS have no legal leg to stand on. By the way, the people who are trademarking the phrase put out a Linux distribution---they posted on this thread in fact. So they are not using the trademark in a different field; the field is operating systems distributions.... ;)
;)
Yep - and they haven't been granted that trademark yet; they've just filed for it. The whole trademark issues vary state to state, but if they're only doing in-state commerce under that trademark, they may well be able to. But they won't be able to register it with the federal govt. -- though it may slip through the net, in which case, MS will sue, and they'll lose it. 's pretty clear cut.
And legal issues are sort of irrelevant. Post the slogan to your heart's content and watch MS look extremely foolish trying to send people legal threats, which they then post to their web pages....
The thing is though, 99% of those people won't be providing official Linux services / running an official Linux site, which would appear to be what www.linux.de is. And that is where the problem lies; when they use it, it's no longer parody. It's advertising. And hey presto, it's no longer protected.
The thing is though, MS has to do this; if you don't defend your trademarks, they die.
mmm..and to think we all thought you were
a Micro$~1 stooge being paid to post stuff
up here...
Guess we were mistaken. hehe.
... and to continue...
At least I don't post as an anonymous coward (the way you seem to be doing), and I don't hide my affiliation.
What's this Micro$~1 crap anyway? Doesn't apply to NT. Doesn't apply to Windows 98/95 unless you drop down to DOS.
mmm..and to think we all thought you were
:)
a Micro$~1 stooge being paid to post stuff
up here...
Guess we were mistaken. hehe
Read the disclaimer. It's there for a reason.
Also, read my User Bio - I develop UI controls for Visual Studio. I also spend too much time online
That analogy you presented was the worst piece of crap I've seen in a long, long time. Was that the best you could come up with?
Given the short amount of time I can spend posting here while I'm at work, yes.
I'm paid to code, not to play on the Internet.
And heck, if you don't like it, come up with your own.
Oh come on, it's not creating "confusion, mistakes or deception"! No way it is. It's crystal clear, everybody immediately remembers Microsoft's slogan, "where do you want to go today" and then they see the point. So where's the confusion, deception and mistakes?
From my perspective (and I am not a lawyer), the confusion is (as I said) in whether or not Microsoft is seen as ENDORSING the use of their trademark in that way, and therefore endorsing that company.
That's the confusion.
But I believe the law in question here is German. A German company is being sued by another German company (Microsoft's DE subsidiary).
As I said, I believe that trademark law was internationally agreed on, and is recognised internationally since the Geneva Copyright Convention (apart from some notable exceptions).
The law itself in Germany, I believe, is either very similar or identical to the law in the UK and the US.
M$ didn't sue Billy Graham back in '97 when his campaign ended up using this slogan. Why the preferential treatment for Billy G., other than the fact that he shares the same initials as Mr Gates himself, and that he's got friends upstairs?
Billy Graham isn't in the computer industry. He's not selling computer-related services. Therefore trademark infringment is not possible in this case.
Microsoft is just hassling competitors; part of their illegal monopolistic practices. Does Microsoft use the slogan in question? No. The legal aspects are pretty clear: Microsoft has no basis for their argument and no sense of humor. Micrsoft does have a vicious streak when it comes to public relations. If they can't take a joke and have no legal basis, then they are just bullies.
m l#15usc1114
Sorry, but it has a legal basis -- section 1114, 1(a) and 1(b) of the Lanham Act of 1946.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lanham/lanham.act.ht
Confusion can include whether or not Microsoft ENDORSES companies using a similar slogan and/or trademark. As such, www.linux.de was infringing MS's trademark.
(I am not a lawyer)
Thanks for the citation, it was definitely informative (Where did you get it, btw?). Now my question is what did www.linux.de violate?
:) (and the actual URL is in there, if you want to read the whole original document).
I just did a Yahoo search for trademarks, and followed a few links
As for what www.linux.de violated... I'm not 100% sure (firstly, I'm not a lawyer, and secondly, the only details I have on this are from slashdot). But I think it basically goes under the Sect 1114, 1(b) stuff:
They have a banner ad (an advertisement), which is using a parody (imitation) which is likely to cause confusion, mistakes or deception. Confusion, mistakes or deception can be anything from thinking that www.linux.de are Microsoft resellers, to the idea that by using such a similar slogan, Microsoft *ENDORSES* the companies / organisations which are using the similar slogan in that field.
And as for definitions of "colorable imitation", I think this is a duck-test thing.
Simon
Where is it trademark infringement? Last I checked MS had "Where do you want to go today?" trademarked, not the slogan in question. Sure they're similar, but the criteria for trademarks is "Is it's use likely to cause confusion between products?", and there's no way Linux will ever be confused with an MS product.
l
... well, he's still waiting for the patent to file. And by the look of it, he ain't going to get it.
Look at it this way:
If Pepsi had their cans EXACTLY as they are now, but put the Pepsi logo in the Coca Cola font (and I'm not talking about the swoosh here), it'd be no contest -- Coca Cola would win the ensuing lawsuit. But! You say, "It says PEPSI, not Coca-Cola! how can that be confusing"?
Answer: Doesn't matter.
Here's part of the reason:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.htm
Under state common law, trademarks are protected as part of the common law of unfair competition and registration is not required. See Unfair Competition. States' statutory provisions on trademarks differ but most have adopted a version of the Model Trademark Bill (MTB) or the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA). The MTB provides for registration of trademarks while the UDTPA does not.
---
And here's the kicker:
The Lanham Act of 1946. ( http://www.law.cornell. edu/lanham/lanham.act.html#15usc1114)
Sect. 1114. Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers
(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant--
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the remedies given to the owner of a right infringed under this Act or to a person bringing an action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] shall be limited as follows:
(A) Where any infringer or violator is engaged solely in the business of printing the mark or violating matter for others and establishes that he or she was an innocent infringer or innocent violator, the owner of the right infringed or person bringing the action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] shall be entitled as against such infringer or violator only to an injunction against future printing.
(B) Where the infringement or violation complained of is contained in or is part of paid advertising matter in a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or in an electronic communication as defined in section 2510(12) of title 18, United States Code, the remedies of the owner of the right infringed or person bringing the action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] as against the publisher or distributor of such newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or electronic communication shall be limited to an injunction against the presentation of such advertising matter in future issues of such newspapers, magazines, or other similar periodicals or in future transmissions of such electronic communications. The limitations of this subparagraph shall apply only to innocent infringers and innocent violators.
(C) Injunctive relief shall not be available to the owher of the right infringed or person bringing the action under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)] with respect to an issue of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or an electronic communication containing infringing matter or violating matter where restraining the dissemination of such infringing matter or violating matter in any particular issue of such periodical or in an electronic communication would delay the delivery of such issue or transmission of such electronic communication after the regular time for such delivery or transmission, and such delay would be due to the method by which publication and distribution of such periodical or transmission of such electronic communication is customarily conducted in accordance with sound business practice, and not due to any method or device adopted to evade this section or to prevent or delay the issuance of an injunction or restraining order with respect to such infringing matter or violating matter.
(D) As used in this paragraph--
(i) the term "violator" means a person who violates section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)]; and
(ii) the term "violating matter" means matter that is the subject of a violation under section 43(a) [15 USCS Sect. 1125(a)].
So there you have it. Most other countries' trademark laws follow the Lanham Act; this was all settled down around the time of the Geneva Copyright Convention.
According to the letter (and spirit) of the law, Linux.De was indeed infringing a trademark.
Also, the Michigan guy who's trying to register Where Do You Want To Go Tomorrow?
Simon
It wouldn't take an expensive lawyer to defend linux.de; in fact, if they hadn't backed down, M$ probably wouldn't have the balls to sue anyway--they'd lose.
Actually, no, MS wouldn't lose. This is in fact trademark infringment. Also, that company in Michigan is using the trademark in a different field...
You know, I rarely hear Linux users or developers utter the word "workaround." Does M$ have this word trademarked so that other people can't use it without their permission? Or is it that other developers don't tolerate the concept of a workaround and instead fix the problem?
Visualize this situation:
You discover a bug in XXXX.lib, used by 1000's of programs the world over. Shipped with every RedHat distribution.
You tell RedHat.
Does RedHat:
1. Fix the bug?
2. Document the bug?
3. Release a new revision of the lib, and keep shipping the old one?
4. 2 and 3, but not 1.
I'm willing to bet that (1) will never occur. Why? Because it'd break all that software. Doh!
This is why workarounds are used.
And then charging your ass for a fix for software they made you pay for in the first place.
Name one MS product - just one - that you had to pay for a fix for.
Well... I just took my novel out of storage, dusted it off, cut and pasted it into a document about 20 times, and started typing at various parts of the file.
Typing at the start of the file?
No slowdown.
Typing at the end of the file?
No slowdown.
Typing in the middle?
No slowdown.
128Mb of memory, Gateway G6-200, running Windows 2000 Professional Beta 3/RC1 and Office 2000.
So, I guess this "problem" has been fixed.
To be honest, I don't remember this "problem" existing in Office 97 or Word 6 either.
Consider the phrase, "If it compiles, ship it." Apparently, an M$ program/product manager was said to have told someone on his group just that (of course, that probably wasn't the first/last time). Gives you the ol' warm-fuzzies, doesn't it?
That's somewhat out of context. At all times, we try to have a shippable product ready to go out the door. ie. everything has to build, the functionality has to work to spec (or can be ripped without destroying the product), and we devs write our own test suites to make sure of this (and the testers punish our code using a number of methodologies as well).
The term you are recycling is half joke, half truth around here. If it compiles, ship it!!! (this comes from the fact that if you don't ship a product, it ain't a product). However, if what you ship doesn't work properly (ie. it compiles, but the functionality is all fubar) you haven't got a product either.
In other words, grand ideas are great for a product, but when it comes to the bottom line, if you can cut a few features and get the product out of the door -- and still have it worth buying -- then it's a reasonable tradeoff.
:)
I don't work for M$ and never would. I find that a daily shower and peaceful contemplative moment suffice to cleanse myself (and my karma) of the stench that accumulates from using m$ products. What kind of pennance would you have to pay if you actually worked for them?
Speaking personally, none. My conscience is clear.
As I said - I might be wrong, but I believe that the reporter badly paraphrased what Muth was saying.
:)
See my other post for the dirt on what I think about your "Strike 1".
And as for:
Actually, as I have shown, your attempt at analysis here is not quite up to par with the standards that you proclaimed in the message's title. The solution thus is to read the article more carefully, rather than to attempt such a badly-done (likely due to personal bias) deconstruction.
And you don't have personal bias falling into this? I already said I might be wrong in my statements. But the possibility still exists that ZDNet screwed up in their reporting -- and the language used in those reports is enough to make me think it *was* screwed up. (Heck, I was a writer before I started coding for a living -- I've interviewed enough people myself in my time. In fact, it's things like these which is why I always tried to get my sources to read over the article before publication).
Until I see more evidence to the contrary (like a transcript), I'm sticking to my guns. Call me biased. Call me sceptical. Just don't call me after 3am; I like to sleep
I know the feeling :)
So I exaggerated. So it's not "completely and utterly wrong"... but most people assume that "Open Source" EQUALS GPL, not "is a super set of".
There's a variety of open source licenses. Open source thus, to the lay person, usually means one of those licenses.
How many times do you say "I'm going to release my software as open source!", implicitly meaning under GNU? Should you be sued for trademark infringement? Because you're misrepresenting the Open Source definition; you're making it stricter than it really is.
So I exaggerated. So it's not "completely and utterly wrong"... but most people assume that "Open Source" EQUALS GPL, not "is a super set of".
There's a variety of open source licenses. Open source thus, to the lay person, usually means one of those licenses.
How many times do you say "I'm going to release my software as open source!", implicitly meaning under GNU? Should you be sued for trademark infringement? Because you're misrepresenting the Open Source definition; you're making it stricter than it really is.
Simon (NSFMSFT)
While I cannot provide hard numbers, as I do not have any machines which use any Microsoft products and only use Solaris machines at school, I can provide the following evidence (albeit anecdotal to all of you, it is first hand to me):
:) By default though, it'll produce a whole swamp of debug output for the debugger. You can pare that down too -- so that it only produces symbols / line numbers instead. It should be possible to get it to compile stuff onto a floppy.
:) [I was spoiled by IDE's, but working @ MS has weaned me off it somewhat -- you can't use an IDE that you (or someone else) is in the middle of writing... well, not in the early stages!]
:)
:-)
/." post near the end of the index... I think I'm right about this, but I might not be.
I have seen two people attempt to compile simple, introductory C++ programs with VC++ and have it fail because there was insufficient space on the floppy they were using for compilation. *NOT* because of the final executable size, but because of the several 200-500k intermediate files left behind by the compiler. I cannot say what these files were (they didn't end in ".o") or what they did.
Hmmm... my guess is that it was the cache used by the IDE, the intermediate files and the debug databases. You can configure it down to produce a minimum of output, actually... or use it from the command line
Personally, I'd give all the people at the school some hard drive space, and a roaming account with a quota on it, and get them to use their space on the network... but that's just me
I have also seen students spend 30 minutes trying to figure out how to use VC++. You can't just open up a new source file, type and compile. Visual C++ may be the finest tool available for high-end Windows development - I wouldn't know - but it is completely unsuitable for use in this situation. Of course, this is not Microsoft's problem, but rather my school's. It does, perhaps, point out a problem with IDEs in general, IMHO.
Hmmmm... Yeahh... the solution to the problem is to create a Win32 Commmand Line project from the wizard, and use that for everything -- but I must admit it's not too hot for the uninitiated. Mind you, the next version will use a new shell, so things may change, and become easier.
As for the ad-hominem assaults, I apologize. That was uncalled for and I graciously accept your calling me an ignoramus. We tend to get hot-headed when things we love are threatened, ne?
*grins* In that case, I'll take it back. As a rule though, I tend to fight fire with fire; and I hate people prejudicing me because of my current employment.
Truce?
ps. see my "Death of Critical Thinking on