No really, they have. They sacrifice proper quality to get 'first to market' time and again. Then they build on that with marketing or freebies till they are the de facto standard. That's called lock in, and it doesn't benefit consumers at all.
Have you ever used a MS product that didn't piss you off in some subtle way? Apart from the MS keyboard, which is a lovely piece of kit.
Firstly I don't understand your problem with the interview (I get that it's a little thin, but so what)...
I mean, "better code is better code" - that's not really a paraphrase of what he said, is it? He said that speed wasn't the only issue, maintainability is a biggy, which is a good answer to a rather dull question.
Second I don't understand why someone has moderated your comment funny. It wasn't supposed to be was it?
I have always thought that WiFi connection owners should be able to secure/encrypt their own signals, and give them 95% of bandwidth, then leave 5% unsecured for 'guests'.
Chances are that we all would be always able to find a signal.
I thought of that too, but decided not to put it in as I think it's a special case of the sense of touch. Then again, the same biochemical pathway is used in most of the physical senses.
1-5 you probably know 6 Gravity (calcium crystals on hairs in ears) 7 Rotational motion (liquid flow in ear tubey bits that I forget the name of) 8 Body location (feedback via nervous system tells you where your arms are)
We'll prolly find a few more if others here chip in...
Careful... if you don't read the Clean section of Make magazine first of all, you could find yourself reading stale articles from the last issue you read.
So their test process for IE involves installing it in a secure, corporate environment. No-one outside the room can take it, sandbox it and try to crack it, but they at least check it surfs OK. Wait for a few months and then, when the surfing experience is good enough and there have been, count 'em, no security issues, bung it out for install on a billion unprotected machines, and let the hackers take it to pieces and actively look for holes. Then - suddenly - all these security issues just 'occur'.
If I tested my code like that, I'd never get another contract.
Most windows system admins are Mom 'n' Pop. They shouldn't be expected to learn how to secure it - it should start that way. Fuckwit Anonymous Cowards - we should have another moderation: "Trace IP and bar from posting".
I certainly meant switching, not logging off. I didn't consider it instantaneous, and from what you just said I would suggest the delay I observe is the gui initialising, whereas under X it's still there just not connected to the video card.
Personally I don't run any XP machines atm, but it takes several seconds on friends' boxes. A user change on my Linux and X box takes less than half a second. As I understand it - I could certainly be wrong - the inactive user sessions are saved and reproduced on switch in XP whereas Unix and X support true concurrent users with concurrent graphical sessions.
It's fairly normal for a test-phase application to do more logging than is even faintly reasonable for a release-phase application. Mine do.
For the next two points, I have never thought the MS multi-user model was worth its weight in rat shit. YMMV;-) "Fast user switching" should be, well, fast. Like pressing ctrl-alt-f8 fast. Ho hum.
Last point? Well, I have always wondered if MS developers put their beta-ware out for testing, then sit back and go "hey, no bugs yet" for three months, then release it, all the while never even noticing that they forgot to build the feedback mechanism;-)
(1) Oddly enough, I was commenting here just the other day that the security chief only gave an interview last week because the statisticians had noticed that for 2005-to-date (ie six weeks!) the Red Hat alerts (for the whole system) exceeded (in number) the XP alerts (for just a vanilla install). So IMO they quickly looked up their interview request list, picked one and did it.
(2) MS also claimed back in 1991 or so that the internet wasn't going to be important and that they didn't have a browser planned. Then they 'got it' and trumpeted 'oh we made a mistake' for a while, then court papers revealed they have been developing IE since long before the original interview.
Simply put, with the widespread availability of Windows you are going to have many people who are too stupid to own a computer let alone use it.
But with, say, Firefox on Xandros, it is almost impossible to get hit with a trojan when it said it was a jpeg of Anna Kournikova, even if walking and chewing gum at the same time results in chewed shoes and sticky feet.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah - I read it as a pop at Kapor, not the interviewer. Now I get you, and I agree: a very thin interview given the apportunity.
J.
Why does there have to be a business plan?
Why can't things just be done to add good things to the commons?
Why do some people see everything in fucking dollar signs?
Justin.
No really, they have. They sacrifice proper quality to get 'first to market' time and again. Then they build on that with marketing or freebies till they are the de facto standard. That's called lock in, and it doesn't benefit consumers at all.
Have you ever used a MS product that didn't piss you off in some subtle way? Apart from the MS keyboard, which is a lovely piece of kit.
Justin.
Firstly I don't understand your problem with the interview (I get that it's a little thin, but so what)...
I mean, "better code is better code" - that's not really a paraphrase of what he said, is it? He said that speed wasn't the only issue, maintainability is a biggy, which is a good answer to a rather dull question.
Second I don't understand why someone has moderated your comment funny. It wasn't supposed to be was it?
J.
I was about to say well at least they can spell, then I remembered...! ;-)
Yeah, but that's rather the point of a backup system, as one of the parents said! How could you back up the files if you couldn't read them?!
Having weak security is bad, but having write access as well is a mess.
J.
Access requires r/o. The guiding rule of all software dev should be 'no more privs than absolutely necessary'.
Justin.
I have always thought that WiFi connection owners should be able to secure/encrypt their own signals, and give them 95% of bandwidth, then leave 5% unsecured for 'guests'.
;-)
Chances are that we all would be always able to find a signal.
Perhaps I'm just a hippy at heart
J.
I thought of that too, but decided not to put it in as I think it's a special case of the sense of touch. Then again, the same biochemical pathway is used in most of the physical senses.
J.
No. Rotational acceleration is different to linear (in fact quasi-linear for gravity).
Justin.
1-5 you probably know
6 Gravity (calcium crystals on hairs in ears)
7 Rotational motion (liquid flow in ear tubey bits that I forget the name of)
8 Body location (feedback via nervous system tells you where your arms are)
We'll prolly find a few more if others here chip in...
Justin.
Imagine more than PR.
Imaging better drugs.
Imagine PR on drugs.
That's what they were getting at... I think.
Justin.
J.
Which explains why they can have such fatties in the US; we just don't have space for 'em. Either that or it's the food over here... ;-)
Justin.
Careful... if you don't read the Clean section of Make magazine first of all, you could find yourself reading stale articles from the last issue you read.
Justin.
If I tested my code like that, I'd never get another contract.
Justin.
Most windows system admins are Mom 'n' Pop. They shouldn't be expected to learn how to secure it - it should start that way. Fuckwit Anonymous Cowards - we should have another moderation: "Trace IP and bar from posting".
Justin.
In England, pissed means drunk. So, yes, Wine users should be pissed.
Justin.
I certainly meant switching, not logging off. I didn't consider it instantaneous, and from what you just said I would suggest the delay I observe is the gui initialising, whereas under X it's still there just not connected to the video card.
J.
Personally I don't run any XP machines atm, but it takes several seconds on friends' boxes. A user change on my Linux and X box takes less than half a second. As I understand it - I could certainly be wrong - the inactive user sessions are saved and reproduced on switch in XP whereas Unix and X support true concurrent users with concurrent graphical sessions.
Justin.
It's fairly normal for a test-phase application to do more logging than is even faintly reasonable for a release-phase application. Mine do.
;-) "Fast user switching" should be, well, fast. Like pressing ctrl-alt-f8 fast. Ho hum.
;-)
For the next two points, I have never thought the MS multi-user model was worth its weight in rat shit. YMMV
Last point? Well, I have always wondered if MS developers put their beta-ware out for testing, then sit back and go "hey, no bugs yet" for three months, then release it, all the while never even noticing that they forgot to build the feedback mechanism
Justin.
Bit of hint there that the grandpappy was sending up the 'terrorists are everywhere' idiots ;-)
J.
(1) Oddly enough, I was commenting here just the other day that the security chief only gave an interview last week because the statisticians had noticed that for 2005-to-date (ie six weeks!) the Red Hat alerts (for the whole system) exceeded (in number) the XP alerts (for just a vanilla install). So IMO they quickly looked up their interview request list, picked one and did it.
(2) MS also claimed back in 1991 or so that the internet wasn't going to be important and that they didn't have a browser planned. Then they 'got it' and trumpeted 'oh we made a mistake' for a while, then court papers revealed they have been developing IE since long before the original interview.
In short, they lie. Whodathunkit?
Justin.
But with, say, Firefox on Xandros, it is almost impossible to get hit with a trojan when it said it was a jpeg of Anna Kournikova, even if walking and chewing gum at the same time results in chewed shoes and sticky feet.
Justin.