Nope. IANAL, but sabotaging a software product in order to gain entry into government or corporate systems to gain information in time of war is espionage. Espionage, especially when it is commited on behalf of the enemy in wartime, is treason. Given the current political climate, I wouldn't want to be accused of treason, even if you think it's a joke.
Oh, wait, sorry, that was for IIS, which is NOT part of the OS...
Whew, thanks, I was almost wrong for a minute there. Anyway, I'm sure at least a couple of programmers saw it and laughed. If that article is true, the discovery team would have kept treason a secret, which is a lot more serious than a little engineering slander.
People who are willing to eat flaming death aren't
likely to be daunted by the Microsoft interview process.
Unlike eating flaming death, you have to be good at something to get hired by Microsoft. Namely: programming. So, no, flaming death-eaters wouldn't get a job at Microsoft. They wouldn't be afraid of the interview, just unlikely to make it through. Nice karma whoring, though. Thanks, moderators for helping.
Even given that, what percent of code is reviewed at some point before shipment? Not necessarily line-by-line, in a systematic and documented fashion, but every now-and-again, to fix a bug or add a feature? I would say well over 95%, in my experience. For this article to even be plausable, a rogue programmer would have to plant the bad code, then hope no one ever sees it again. If anyone does, they run a "diff" in Source Safe, and guess who checked it in last? Considering that something like that could be considered treason, and therefore result in the death penalty, who is going to try that? Even suicide bombers want to be certain that their terrorism will at least work.
Have we forgotten that the web is supposed to be browser-blind?
Says who? Oh, right, the W3C. Their standards process is too slow, and Netscape hasn't even got their browser supporting those standards. Java on the client is slow, buggy, and a lot harder to write/compile/deploy than javascript.
Java works on many platforms, including the PlayStation Fucking Two
Your definition of "works" has to be pretty loose. The MacOS virtual machine is a dog. Sun uses Java as a litigation tool like a pissed-off Scientologist. Putting applets in your web pages seems like a great idea, until you realize it's not 1996, Java on the client sucks, and 80% of people use IE anyway.
There's a reason IE is breaking the web.
IE isn't "breaking" shit. Web pages load faster, do more, and look better in their browser. This is because web developers request new features from Microsoft, and then Microsoft builds them in. If content providers didn't build IE-friendly web pages, this wouldn't be an issue, but it is, because IE is easier to code for and more powerful than Netscape.
Quit being another one of MS' brainwashed sheepole and wake up
Microsoft makes my job easier. Netscape makes it harder. My job is how my kids get food. Some things are more important than who's "breaking" the web. Put down Adbusters for a second and take a look around you. That green paper your mom gives you all the time, that's money.
---
Re:not as easy as you might think
on
al Qaeda Hacks XP?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's a fucking joke.
While I'd admit that QA in professional software is lacking, there are definately source code reviews in an OS product group. Every line of code is looked at, even if only briefly. The risk of the exploit being detected and erased before a release is too great for the Microsoft interview process (grueling, trust me) to be worthwhile. Especially if the coder is a new employee. It is highly unlikely that a new programmer even wrote a single line of compiled OS code. Most of the time, they are writing tools or test scripts for years before they get to write OS code. Insinuating that someone's entire career was a setup in order to get caught planting some bugs in Windows is a lot more ridiculous than claiming this is a hoax.
It's got a CD-RW drive, and 3 USB ports. It supports networking and copying to devices automatically. I for one am sick of all the hassles involved in moving music from the 'net to the PC to the player or CD. If they can add a built-in CD printer, I am so there. Even without, $1500 is a bargain for all the time and geeking you'd save.
That's right, missionaries are doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do.
According to dictionary.com, a missionary is:
One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country
Now, there's hardly three words in that definition that you could string together to apply to free software programmers! A missionary is not just someone on a mission, it is someone who is sent on a mission, usually for religious reasons. It's just that sort of argument that both glorifies not-that-noble parts of computer science (writing a word processor), and downplays the sacrifices of those risking their lives, and most certainly their comfort, for their faith. Anyone doing something in their spare time is a hobbyist. Even if they're "on a mission" (that phrase itself a bit of hyperbole used for everything from a professional athelete looking for a victory to someone's mom cleaning the kitchen).
The Abiword developers are not doing Abiword for relaxation!
You're right, they do it for something much more serious than that: fun. Seriously, ever put a ship-in-a-bottle together? A big jigsaw puzzle? Sometimes it's frustrating, but it's still a hobby, and until you make your living from it, you're a hobbyist. Just like the people building Battlebots, or re-enacting civil war battles.
The word 'hobby' indicates a low level of seriousness.
That letter indicated a low level of seriousness relative to a shrink-wrapped closed-source software shop, too. No big deal. In fact, that's what the letter was trying to say: "we can not be as serious about this as full-time developers could be,".
Einstein was an amateur scientist.
How did he make his living, then? From mowing lawns? Einstein did science for a living, therefore he was a professional scientist. Just like monks are professional clergy, even though they don't draw a salary. Sometimes monks are missionaries too, but that's beside the point.
But missionaries are not about to give up. Professionals will leave you in the lurch when they smell profit elsewhere.
That's a broad statement. If missionaries never gave up, the Spanish Inquisition would still be going on, and you'd have a few restraining orders out against Jehovah's Witnesses. Professionals are often not allowed to leave you in a lurch, because they have made a contract with you for their services. Free software programmers can leave just because they get bored.
I hope these ideas don't appear completely alien to you.
Are your decisions based more on popular thought, or your own ideas on controlling Microsoft? That is, is it your job to decide what happens, or is it ours?
As I've said before under this article, the term 'hobbyist' is simply incorrect when talking about Free Software developers.
So they're not doing something in their free time for pleasure? Just because someone is very good at their hobby does not instantly make them a professional. Conversely, being bad at something you do doesn't instantly grant hobbyist status. I'm not saying Free Software shouldn't exist, just that anyone who expects to use it for mission-critical tasks might think twice after reading a letter like that one.
"That's an incredibly silly analogy; painting someone else's house doesn't line up with open source in any way I can see. "
Just because the price of some OSS is $0.00 doesn't mean someone isn't selling it. The makers are hobbyists, but write products to be used beyond the hobbyist segment. If you design and sell a product, regardless of how cheap it is, it had better work well. Granted, no-one is showing up on anyone's doorstep, but their products are. Those products must meet at least minimal standards of use, or dissatisfied customers result. What the publisher of that letter, and the previous poster are asserting is that the user has no right to be dissatisfied, that if the product does not work to expectations, they shouldn't complain, but merely lower their expectations. Just as a product touted as a word processor had better properly process words, so should a painting service properly paint your house. OSS is not a recipe for anything, it is a product, and by definition, should do what is asked of it, and what it has been sold to do. What you're describing would be instructions for something. Source code is not a set of instructions for your use, but as much software as binaries are. The act of compilation completes delivery, not manufacture.
Yeah, real insightful. No offense, but your post should be photocopied and handed out to any CIO thinking of going open-source at any level, from the server room to the desktop.
If I offered free house painting, then slopped the wrong color all over your house and yard, and then said to you, "hey, it was free, don't complain", would I be much of a professional? Of course not, and that's why open source will ebb and flow, but never truly dominate modern software.
These are the people who have the most need to switch browsers[...]
Uh, why? Not everyone cares as much about their computer as you do. Even when infected with a virus, they're unaware of any problem. They expect their computer to "lose" things, or suddenly reboot. Just like people who refuse to change their oil have to buy new cars every couple of years. Granted, someone could take over their machine to use it to launch DoS attacks or worms, but assuming you use Linux, or have up-to-date security patches, you are again unaffected. Except for maybe a small loss of bandwidth.
To say that these people have no reason to switch is simply making matters worse.
No, it's just accepting reality. Were these lusers to switch to another platform, they would just bring all of these problems with them. Does the Linux community really need 150 million soccer moms? Are you prepared for the hand-holding required of a free software community. You might be willing to write software for free, but who's going to give out free tech support for FreeAOL?
Not forgetting the evil things [slashdot.org] that MSIE does that cause web developers to learn lots of non-standard things.
Give me a break. Try writing something like BLOX for use in Netscape.
With the recent exodus (sorry) from hosting providers, is rack space all that valuable anymore? I mean, for people who aren't still stuck in contracts?
I got a few requests to give simple instructions on how to code to Outlook 2000 events. Although I'm sure there's an msdn article on this already, I am too lazy to find it. Here:
Choose "Visual Basic Editor" From the Tools:Macro menu in Outlook 2000, or just hit ALT-F11. When the code window pops up, just choose Application from the left drop-down, and ItemSend from the right. When you're done, hit "Save". I'd like to see if anyone can post improvements, since the code is pretty sparse.
Instead of blocking subject lines, they could have just added the following code to the Application_ItemSend event in Outlook 2000:
If Item.Attachments.Count > 0 Then
blsure = MsgBox("A message is being sent with attachments. Do you want to send this message?", vbOKCancel)
If blsure = vbCancel Then
For i = 0 To Item.Attachments.Count
Item.Attachments.Remove (i)
Next
Item.Delete
Cancel = True
MsgBox "The message has not been sent."
End If
End If
What makes virus writing so easy for Windows is the ability to churn through the Outlook address book with a convenient object model. Of course, you could switch to another client, but then you wouldn't be able to write your own code to customize the behavior of the sending of attachments. Kind of a double-edged sword.
Once you've gotten your Outlook installation "patched", read this article to learn how to deploy the fix to other users. Of course, if they get infected, they may have to click "Cancel" 1500 times, but that's what they get for double-clicking an untrusted.exe.
Back in the day, I worked for a major network's enhanced television group. I suggested the idea of enhancing close captioning for the deaf. My idea was to make close captioning customizable for people with partial blindness. It's entirely possible that with a WebTV+ box on top of your TV, you can change the color and font of close captioning, even move it around the screen so that it doesn't interfere with sports scores while watching the game. The idea was shot down right away due to "lack of ROI". I wish I had those stats back when I pushed the project. Oh well...
just maybe not companies as large as the current ones.
Yeah, and they're called indie labels. Labels like Tree, Matador, Dischord, Touch and Go, et al. These record companies produce artists because they love rock and roll. They sell CDs for US$11 and LPs for US$9. They play at small venues for US$7 a ticket, and the artists respond to their emails. I have recieved shipments from Insound that would make any punk rocker wet his/her pants for under $30. Wake up, people! We will not be any worse off without major labels.
I find it amazing that the people making these albums allow something like this to happen.
The artists have little or no choice about how or where their music gets distributed. Most lose all creative control once the recording is finished, and some don't even get to decide which songs get on the album. On top of this, many musicians aren't that computer savvy, and many more aren't even that bright (*cough* Fred Bizkit *cough*). As long as they get fat checks, they don't really want to hear anything bad fans have to say.
I think that we should simply _not_ buy these CDs.
Just like anti-censorship pundits claimed we could just not buy CDs with content warnings? Face it, unless we do something radical, like a return-it protest, we are going to have to eat this shit on behalf of all the sheeple who won't care until it's too late.
Hi there. Fuck you. Check out Insound for the ill shit. Also, I might add that anyone who thinks radio music is good for anything but a laugh can go pound sand. The indie music scene actually encourages the listener to "pirate" (not my word) their music. That's because most of their money is made from playing live. You know, actually playing their instruments in person for money.
Sounds a lot like the process I have used in the past to "rip" vinyl. There are a lot of us still out there that collect and listen to vinyl records, and upload them to various sharing services. The inconveniences associated with this have not stopped releases from appearing online, it just usually takes a couple more days. There's a program to do the seperating of tracks for you here.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. IANAL, but sabotaging a software product in order to gain entry into government or corporate systems to gain information in time of war is espionage. Espionage, especially when it is commited on behalf of the enemy in wartime, is treason. Given the current political climate, I wouldn't want to be accused of treason, even if you think it's a joke.
Oh, wait, sorry, that was for IIS, which is NOT part of the OS...
Whew, thanks, I was almost wrong for a minute there. Anyway, I'm sure at least a couple of programmers saw it and laughed. If that article is true, the discovery team would have kept treason a secret, which is a lot more serious than a little engineering slander.
People who are willing to eat flaming death aren't
likely to be daunted by the Microsoft interview process.
Unlike eating flaming death, you have to be good at something to get hired by Microsoft. Namely: programming. So, no, flaming death-eaters wouldn't get a job at Microsoft. They wouldn't be afraid of the interview, just unlikely to make it through. Nice karma whoring, though. Thanks, moderators for helping.
It just doesn't happen.
Even given that, what percent of code is reviewed at some point before shipment? Not necessarily line-by-line, in a systematic and documented fashion, but every now-and-again, to fix a bug or add a feature? I would say well over 95%, in my experience. For this article to even be plausable, a rogue programmer would have to plant the bad code, then hope no one ever sees it again. If anyone does, they run a "diff" in Source Safe, and guess who checked it in last? Considering that something like that could be considered treason, and therefore result in the death penalty, who is going to try that? Even suicide bombers want to be certain that their terrorism will at least work.
Have we forgotten that the web is supposed to be browser-blind?
Says who? Oh, right, the W3C. Their standards process is too slow, and Netscape hasn't even got their browser supporting those standards. Java on the client is slow, buggy, and a lot harder to write/compile/deploy than javascript.
Java works on many platforms, including the PlayStation Fucking Two
Your definition of "works" has to be pretty loose. The MacOS virtual machine is a dog. Sun uses Java as a litigation tool like a pissed-off Scientologist. Putting applets in your web pages seems like a great idea, until you realize it's not 1996, Java on the client sucks, and 80% of people use IE anyway.
There's a reason IE is breaking the web.
IE isn't "breaking" shit. Web pages load faster, do more, and look better in their browser. This is because web developers request new features from Microsoft, and then Microsoft builds them in. If content providers didn't build IE-friendly web pages, this wouldn't be an issue, but it is, because IE is easier to code for and more powerful than Netscape.
Quit being another one of MS' brainwashed sheepole and wake up
Microsoft makes my job easier. Netscape makes it harder. My job is how my kids get food. Some things are more important than who's "breaking" the web. Put down Adbusters for a second and take a look around you. That green paper your mom gives you all the time, that's money.
---
That's a fucking joke.
While I'd admit that QA in professional software is lacking, there are definately source code reviews in an OS product group. Every line of code is looked at, even if only briefly. The risk of the exploit being detected and erased before a release is too great for the Microsoft interview process (grueling, trust me) to be worthwhile. Especially if the coder is a new employee. It is highly unlikely that a new programmer even wrote a single line of compiled OS code. Most of the time, they are writing tools or test scripts for years before they get to write OS code. Insinuating that someone's entire career was a setup in order to get caught planting some bugs in Windows is a lot more ridiculous than claiming this is a hoax.
Get a load of the features again:
It's got a CD-RW drive, and 3 USB ports. It supports networking and copying to devices automatically. I for one am sick of all the hassles involved in moving music from the 'net to the PC to the player or CD. If they can add a built-in CD printer, I am so there. Even without, $1500 is a bargain for all the time and geeking you'd save.
That's right, missionaries are doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do.
According to dictionary.com, a missionary is:
One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country
Now, there's hardly three words in that definition that you could string together to apply to free software programmers! A missionary is not just someone on a mission, it is someone who is sent on a mission, usually for religious reasons. It's just that sort of argument that both glorifies not-that-noble parts of computer science (writing a word processor), and downplays the sacrifices of those risking their lives, and most certainly their comfort, for their faith. Anyone doing something in their spare time is a hobbyist. Even if they're "on a mission" (that phrase itself a bit of hyperbole used for everything from a professional athelete looking for a victory to someone's mom cleaning the kitchen).
The Abiword developers are not doing Abiword for relaxation!
You're right, they do it for something much more serious than that: fun. Seriously, ever put a ship-in-a-bottle together? A big jigsaw puzzle? Sometimes it's frustrating, but it's still a hobby, and until you make your living from it, you're a hobbyist. Just like the people building Battlebots, or re-enacting civil war battles.
The word 'hobby' indicates a low level of seriousness.
That letter indicated a low level of seriousness relative to a shrink-wrapped closed-source software shop, too. No big deal. In fact, that's what the letter was trying to say: "we can not be as serious about this as full-time developers could be,".
Einstein was an amateur scientist.
How did he make his living, then? From mowing lawns? Einstein did science for a living, therefore he was a professional scientist. Just like monks are professional clergy, even though they don't draw a salary. Sometimes monks are missionaries too, but that's beside the point.
But missionaries are not about to give up. Professionals will leave you in the lurch when they smell profit elsewhere.
That's a broad statement. If missionaries never gave up, the Spanish Inquisition would still be going on, and you'd have a few restraining orders out against Jehovah's Witnesses. Professionals are often not allowed to leave you in a lurch, because they have made a contract with you for their services. Free software programmers can leave just because they get bored.
I hope these ideas don't appear completely alien to you.
...
Are your decisions based more on popular thought, or your own ideas on controlling Microsoft? That is, is it your job to decide what happens, or is it ours?
As I've said before under this article, the term 'hobbyist' is simply incorrect when talking about Free Software developers.
So they're not doing something in their free time for pleasure? Just because someone is very good at their hobby does not instantly make them a professional. Conversely, being bad at something you do doesn't instantly grant hobbyist status. I'm not saying Free Software shouldn't exist, just that anyone who expects to use it for mission-critical tasks might think twice after reading a letter like that one.
Or, if Apple and Sun sell out, we can just count on our buddies from overseas. Microsoft doesn't control the whole world, just the USA.
"That's an incredibly silly analogy; painting someone else's house doesn't line up with open source in any way I can see. "
Just because the price of some OSS is $0.00 doesn't mean someone isn't selling it. The makers are hobbyists, but write products to be used beyond the hobbyist segment. If you design and sell a product, regardless of how cheap it is, it had better work well. Granted, no-one is showing up on anyone's doorstep, but their products are. Those products must meet at least minimal standards of use, or dissatisfied customers result. What the publisher of that letter, and the previous poster are asserting is that the user has no right to be dissatisfied, that if the product does not work to expectations, they shouldn't complain, but merely lower their expectations. Just as a product touted as a word processor had better properly process words, so should a painting service properly paint your house. OSS is not a recipe for anything, it is a product, and by definition, should do what is asked of it, and what it has been sold to do. What you're describing would be instructions for something. Source code is not a set of instructions for your use, but as much software as binaries are. The act of compilation completes delivery, not manufacture.
Yeah, real insightful. No offense, but your post should be photocopied and handed out to any CIO thinking of going open-source at any level, from the server room to the desktop.
If I offered free house painting, then slopped the wrong color all over your house and yard, and then said to you, "hey, it was free, don't complain", would I be much of a professional? Of course not, and that's why open source will ebb and flow, but never truly dominate modern software.
These are the people who have the most need to switch browsers[...]
Uh, why? Not everyone cares as much about their computer as you do. Even when infected with a virus, they're unaware of any problem. They expect their computer to "lose" things, or suddenly reboot. Just like people who refuse to change their oil have to buy new cars every couple of years. Granted, someone could take over their machine to use it to launch DoS attacks or worms, but assuming you use Linux, or have up-to-date security patches, you are again unaffected. Except for maybe a small loss of bandwidth.
To say that these people have no reason to switch is simply making matters worse.
No, it's just accepting reality. Were these lusers to switch to another platform, they would just bring all of these problems with them. Does the Linux community really need 150 million soccer moms? Are you prepared for the hand-holding required of a free software community. You might be willing to write software for free, but who's going to give out free tech support for FreeAOL?
Not forgetting the evil things [slashdot.org] that MSIE does that cause web developers to learn lots of non-standard things.
Give me a break. Try writing something like BLOX for use in Netscape.
With the recent exodus (sorry) from hosting providers, is rack space all that valuable anymore? I mean, for people who aren't still stuck in contracts?
I got a few requests to give simple instructions on how to code to Outlook 2000 events. Although I'm sure there's an msdn article on this already, I am too lazy to find it. Here:
Choose "Visual Basic Editor" From the Tools:Macro menu in Outlook 2000, or just hit ALT-F11. When the code window pops up, just choose Application from the left drop-down, and ItemSend from the right. When you're done, hit "Save". I'd like to see if anyone can post improvements, since the code is pretty sparse.
Instead of blocking subject lines, they could have just added the following code to the Application_ItemSend event in Outlook 2000:
.exe.
If Item.Attachments.Count > 0 Then
blsure = MsgBox("A message is being sent with attachments. Do you want to send this message?", vbOKCancel)
If blsure = vbCancel Then
For i = 0 To Item.Attachments.Count
Item.Attachments.Remove (i)
Next
Item.Delete
Cancel = True
MsgBox "The message has not been sent."
End If
End If
What makes virus writing so easy for Windows is the ability to churn through the Outlook address book with a convenient object model. Of course, you could switch to another client, but then you wouldn't be able to write your own code to customize the behavior of the sending of attachments. Kind of a double-edged sword.
Once you've gotten your Outlook installation "patched", read this article to learn how to deploy the fix to other users. Of course, if they get infected, they may have to click "Cancel" 1500 times, but that's what they get for double-clicking an untrusted
Back in the day, I worked for a major network's enhanced television group. I suggested the idea of enhancing close captioning for the deaf. My idea was to make close captioning customizable for people with partial blindness. It's entirely possible that with a WebTV+ box on top of your TV, you can change the color and font of close captioning, even move it around the screen so that it doesn't interfere with sports scores while watching the game. The idea was shot down right away due to "lack of ROI". I wish I had those stats back when I pushed the project. Oh well...
just maybe not companies as large as the current ones.
Yeah, and they're called indie labels. Labels like Tree, Matador, Dischord, Touch and Go, et al. These record companies produce artists because they love rock and roll. They sell CDs for US$11 and LPs for US$9. They play at small venues for US$7 a ticket, and the artists respond to their emails. I have recieved shipments from Insound that would make any punk rocker wet his/her pants for under $30. Wake up, people! We will not be any worse off without major labels.
Then the media is there, fighting for the "little guy". Makes a good special interest story.
I find it amazing that the people making these albums allow something like this to happen.
The artists have little or no choice about how or where their music gets distributed. Most lose all creative control once the recording is finished, and some don't even get to decide which songs get on the album. On top of this, many musicians aren't that computer savvy, and many more aren't even that bright (*cough* Fred Bizkit *cough*). As long as they get fat checks, they don't really want to hear anything bad fans have to say.
Nothing's perfect, man.
I think that we should simply _not_ buy these CDs.
Just like anti-censorship pundits claimed we could just not buy CDs with content warnings? Face it, unless we do something radical, like a return-it protest, we are going to have to eat this shit on behalf of all the sheeple who won't care until it's too late.
Hi there. Fuck you. Check out Insound for the ill shit. Also, I might add that anyone who thinks radio music is good for anything but a laugh can go pound sand. The indie music scene actually encourages the listener to "pirate" (not my word) their music. That's because most of their money is made from playing live. You know, actually playing their instruments in person for money.
Sounds a lot like the process I have used in the past to "rip" vinyl. There are a lot of us still out there that collect and listen to vinyl records, and upload them to various sharing services. The inconveniences associated with this have not stopped releases from appearing online, it just usually takes a couple more days. There's a program to do the seperating of tracks for you here.