I've recently upgraded to VC++.NET I did so hoping that some of the issues I had to v6 would go away. I was pleased to learn that they did.
I was horrified to learn that they had been replaced by far more severe bugs. I will list a few of the ones which perterb me more.
- Cannot dock the properties window, the UI will hang when I switch from viewing a resource to a source file.
- Intellisense is better than in v6, but doesn't resolve properly if you create a typedef to a parameter type
- If the complete definition is not available for a class when you wish to pass it as a template parameter, the generated code will have no knowledge of that type. This is a problem if you define a CAutoPtr for some type for which you provide a forward declaration, but haven't included the header for that type beforehand. This is a bit of sneaky bitch, because the compiler will only create a given template once, and if it generates the one without the declaration, you're fsckd.
- Finally, it just up and locks up on me. Usually after a build, I think. I've really started getting in the habit of saving. (I hit ctrl-s ever time I pause to think, lest the system be unresponsive the next time I touch the keyboard)
So obviously C# is not the silver bullet. Neither is Java, mind you. The only cross-platform language is Perl (or Python, for those who's minds work that way)
I can show you a better tool for development, it's not hard...there are so many. Apple gives on away. MetroWerks makes a schweet product. Even Borl...Inpri...Borland's stuff is better.
Maybe my criteria for an IDE are different than yours.
Not that what your server looks like is a huge benefit, but these things are the most beautiful little servers I've ever seen.
I used to work for a little dot-gone, and the couple racks of VA FullOn 2x2 servers looked really impressive to me, especially the blue power lights. Of course, a couple racks of those sounded like a jet taking off. (Actually, one sounded like a jet taking off...those twin high-rpm fans in the front.)
Then later I saw a full rack of Cobalt RaQ servers, and all those blinking lights were impressive looking...
This has over 24 little lights on the front of it...must be so impressive looking in a darkened server room. I could probably read a book from the light off a rack full of these.
The titanium(?) enclosure is just the icing on the cake.
Apple's primary reason for selling a one button mouse (IMHO) is simplicity. The help desk for our (Windows) software can attest to the confusion that two buttons makes in inexperienced users. The call usually goes something like this...
Help Desk: "Right click on the icon and click properties" Stupid User: "Right click?" HD: "Click with the right mouse button on the icon" SU: "Okay...I see a little menu" HD: "Now click on 'Properties'" SU: "Right or left?" ... and later... HD: "Double click on the icon" SU: "Left or right?" HD: "Double left click on the icon"
It's fairly safe to say that everyone here has a good understanding of the purpose behind two different buttons. However, from the perspective of the desktop metaphor itself, more than one button does not make sense.
The philosophy is that if you know what you're doing with a computer, and you need another button, you go buy a mouse with 253 buttons. (As of OS X, multiple buttons are supported natively, and without third party software)
The greatest problem with NeXT hardware was how proprietary it was. Even the monitor interface was proprietary.
Compared to NeXT, the current Apple hardware is very standard. (Some people would disagree, but my TiPB has USB, FireWire, VGA, and a PC Card slot) There is also a substantially larger installed base of Apple hardware than there ever was of NeXT hardware.
I think that more people will be buying computers based on aesthetic style, rather than pure performance. While the currently available processors in Macs are less powerful than their PC cousins, I don't think that the difference is significant enough to matter. (The average user just doesn't need that much power)
I think the combination of NeXT Generation (apologies for the pun) software with nice looking Apple hardware is the most sexy general purpose computing option. (My PC loving boss is getting tempted by the new iMac even!)
PS I'll hear nothing about how many buttons the mouse has...that's been done to death!
This isn't really providing virtual desktops. This little app just shows and hides programs as you switch between "desktops" Because of that, VNC is only going to see the one screen.
It's a nice implementation though. The only caveat is that you can't have windows from the same app across multiple virtual desktops.
1. You find and exploit a software vulnerability... (or you're a skript kiddie, and you grab a 'sploit from some l33t d00d)
2. You obtain some level of control over a large number of systems across several networks. Thus, the DDoS attack.
Both of these scenarios still require some vulnerability to be exploited. So the solution is to patch, patch, patch.
This pretty much eliminates #1. If you didn't patch your box, it's your fault you got killed. (Unfixed vulnerabilities excepted...)
Of course, the solution is flawed when applied to #2, since it is not common behaviour for everyone with a Win* box to update all the time. Behaviour has been proven very difficult to change.
Obviously, these kind of attacks must be prevented closer to the source than the destination. At the destination network, having a router rejecting packets won't be very effective, because your network is still congested.
Installing some form of IDS at an ISP which can kill outgoing DoS attacks would be effective, but only if the attack could be recognised by the IDS without error.
Even so, any new attacks launched would not likely be in the IDS database until after the damage was done.
The most difficult problem would be getting virtually every ISP in the world to sign on.
Without much more advanced protocols, it is unlikely that the DoS problem will go away soon.
I once worked for a dot-bomb banner advertising company in Vancouver.
We spent a lot (5 man years worth) of money developing an ad serving system. After it was put online, the upper management decided to change direction! They began to resell DoubleClick's ad space. Bizarre.
Once, when they cooked up one of their hair-brained schemes to make money, the developers had to cry out for a business plan to justify their decisions. As usual, they came up with numbers that were pulled from thin air and completely ludicrous. "Look, this justifies it."
One of the developers put together some statistics that were more realistic, regarding time to break even (it was over 20 years, in an ideal situation) His first draft didn't use enough pictures, so he added some charts. They still didn't get it.
Now said company is a spam marketing agency, using someone else's distribution lists, and someone else's servers to do the distribution.
I am ashamed to say I ever worked for such a place, but at least I know what not to do.
Moral of the story: Listen to your developers; anyone who can grok perl is probably better at math than your average marketroid.
I recall reading an article about hard drives and their sensitivity to contamination. Companies that make drives, and companies that take them apart for data recovery usually do so in ultra clean environments.
An average particle of dust is several times the gap between the drive's heads and it's platters. Having a head run into such a particle causes the head to bounce up and crash onto the platter. That can't be good.
IMHO his drive still works out of pure luck, but he's probably increased his bad sector count somewhat significantly.
But that's not what the iMac is. I think you want a PowerMac.
The iMac is a consumer box, not a power users upgradable machine.
Ultimately, as the price of computers drops, they will become commodity components with virtually no replaceable parts. I can see the near future containing systems that put one or two GB of RAM right on the mobo, and tell you you can't add any more and opening the case will void your warranty.
Do you open up your receiver to add a better DSP, or a bigger amp? Silicon is cheap, and we are entering the age of the disposable computer.
Is "Office for UNIX" kind of like using your Ferrari (which is often given away for free, and has a replacable dashboard, but no standard dashboard) to haul a very large trailer full of cow droppings that you just took out a second mortgage to purchase?
What about the black hole between the third and fourth sheets of paper? You can never be certain, unless you look. =)
It all comes down to black holes in the end... =)
Re:Before the flame wars start...
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The problem with this question is that the replies are likely to degenerate quickly into a C vs. C++ rant-a-thon. Yes, GTK is entirely written in C. But it *is* object oriented. It seems strange to everyone at first, but just because a language doesn't support particular features, doesn't mean that you can't use a particular programming style. OO methodology is just as relevant to C programmers as to C++ or Java programmers.
Of course. The OO features of C++ can be largely implemented in C, using structs and function pointers. Both ObjC and C++ are just C with some extra syntactic sugar...not that that is a bad thing. =)
Re:No, this is scary, not funny. I mean that.
on
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
·
· Score: 1
The article seems to imply that their robots will download the files very slowly, presumably under the theory that they will simply fill all the download slots. This would actually reduce the network traffic.
Of course, the filesharing boys won't stand for this. It will be a few weeks before someone lets slip with some software that circumvents the RIAA. Perhaps a server that "registers DoS attackers" and "provides DoS addresses to client dynamically"
This entire battle has been measure vs countermeasure. The problem is that the RIAA cannot move fast enough against all the open source hackers who love their music.
No one can say that the RIAA has "got it" until they finally give this up, and just sponsor "buy this album" links inside the file sharing programs. They need to realize that people who starting listening to music they download online BUY MORE MUSIC.
I agree with the idea, but what happens if the name of the company is "News Corportation" or "Sports Store"? What if you're the only company in the world to sell widgets, do you keep the "widget.com" domain until someone else makes them? Not to mention that there is no overall definition to the term "generic". Is "Xerox" a generic term or not? Does it give them an advantage in the copier market?
This is definately a valid point. AFAIK, companies are not allowed to register generic names for their corporation. When I created my company, I had to register the company's name with the provincial government. It's a $30 fee, and they'll approve your name, if it's appropriate.
"Xerox" is a trademark, and it started as such. However, they coined the term to mean photocopier. That happened simply because they started(?) the copier business. Kleenex is also a brand name...in fact, few people I know use the term "facial tissue."
I didn't register a.com name either, because I don't need to be known as a.com company. There are currently a lot of people using.com who don't nessicarily fit the original idea people had in mind when it was created.
Perhaps a TLD should be created for adult material, and all the existings sites moved over to it. ".pr0n" It would unload the.com namespace and make filtering software really easy. =)
When the original TLDs were created, there was very little competition for names on the internet. Everybody pretty much got what they wanted, because there were so few companies who needed domains.
It seems that once, long ago, before NSI became a money machine, that they would not register generic terms (sports.com, beer.com) or explitives.
I believe that any contested names should be given to the person who owns the most similar trademark. Names that are generic terms shouldn't be registered at all, it's unfair for one company to get that much marketing advantage over another. If Joe Shmoe is looking for sprockets, the first thing he's probably going to type is www.sprockets.com. It's really not fair to hand that domain over to Cogswell Cogs and exclude Spacely's Sprockets.
On a somewhat related note, free speech seems to be threatened from several directions lately. An article was in the papers here a couple days ago. This poor woman has been accused of hate crimes for criticizing US foreign policy.
Was I the only person upset by their "Digital Angel" product. The concept of a device that will use my body heat as power, receive GPS signals, and broadcast my vital signs and location is downright disturbing.
Perhaps I've read too much George Orwell, but passing off something like that as medical technology sounds good. It's only a matter of time until some politician thinks it's a good idea to use that to track criminals. Then it'll be criminal suspects. Pretty soon we'll all be complacent enough to get one installed because it provides "a tamper-proof means of identification for enhanced e-commerce security"
300 channels? This has got to be worse than cell phones. "Damn, nothing good on this station, lets surf...how does this thing work.." *crash*
I listen to a lot of electronic music, which there is very little of on FM. (And I'm very tired of Darude) When I am forced to listen to radio, it's CBC Radio Two (classical) But I digress. The point is, that I spend the bulk of my time in the car listening to CDs...so much so that I've worn out two CD players!
When you're flipping CDs, you know what you have, and you know what's on a disc, for the most part. It's not that distracting. Give someone 300 choices, and they're going to be staring at their dash, not the road.
If you don't like the radio, there is always CD, and if you can't afford new, buy used. Or burn (legal) MP3s onto disc (from MP3.com) You may choose to ignore phrases in parenthesis. =)
While *NIX systems are not impervious to various forms of attack, they are less vulnerable for several reasons.
1. People using *NIX systems are usually administering servers, or just love computers. The end result is that they're better (not nessicarily great) at keeping their machines patched.
2. People using NT/2000 often don't even realize they have exposed ports. The worst of the Code Red/Nimda infections are coming from machines on Cable/DSL...home users who probably don't even know their machine is a server.
3. Maturity. Any given piece of software will mature in features and stability/security. Most often, growth in security is sacrificed for features in commercial software. When software is free there tends to be less people trying to add marketing based features to a product. Most features come as modules which you must chose to install. With the focus on security, the number of vulnerabilities shrinks until there are virtually none.
4. Development environment. This may not be immediately obvious as a cause, but it is very relevant. IIS is written in C++, and many people think that C++ is better than C. The real truth is that while C++ provides many benefits, it also can make auditing code more difficlt. The language contains so many features that it becomes very difficult to trace a path of execution just by looking at some code.
I am sad to admit that every day I write code in C++, using MFC. My conclusion is that development is more difficult on Windows in C++ than on any other platform/language I have used. M$ has an idea of how an application should be laid out that very rarely fits my idea of how an application should be laid out.
Compare Apache with IIS. Apache has been around for quite some time now, it aims to be a decent general use webserver with a useful set of features. Things such as dynamic content and indexing are provided by various modules which communicate through a well-defined API. It's written in nice, linear easy-to-read C.
IIS has been around for a while, but the push is on features and integration with Windows. IIS integrates into many aspects of Windows, and it uses COM for it's extensions. Because all COM objects are handled at an OS level, there is much potential for a bad module to blow up the system.
Of course, even the holes in M$ software have patches available long before they become a headline for the day.
I've seen mention of this three times on./, except that it has yet to be posted correctly or without bias. A paragraph prior to the one currently in question defines the use of the term "the Software" as the FrontPage Server extensions. I have copied the relevant portion of the EULA below.
FrontPage web components. For purposes of this
section, the Software means the FrontPage Web
components, including the MSNBC news headline
compone nt, the MSN MoneyCentral Stock Quote
component, and the MSN Search component.
I am not one who supports M$, their practices often disgust me, and I find their software to be cumbersome. However, I think that there are far too many people who will jump at any opportunity to cry murder. I am dissapointed that no one took two minutes to read the appropriate section of the EULA.
The real question should be; "What constitutes 'severely disabled'?"
Are children who are autistic disabled? Do they need to have leukemia? How can anyone draw the line?
The question is whether the child will live a happy life, or if it would be a miserable life. That depends largely on the child. Humans are very adaptable creatures, and tend to compensate for shortcomings. People who are blind have exceptional hearing, in most cases.
Finally, how would you feel if you had a child with a disability, and euthanised it only to find that a year later, a cure was developed?
The decision is not only moral, but can be spiritual for many people aswell. Spirituality is something that many people interpret differently.
Slashdot Mirror
...now complete with DragNet Backdoor! (TM)
I think I saw the eyes in that jpeg watching me...
I've recently upgraded to VC++.NET I did so hoping that some of the issues I had to v6 would go away. I was pleased to learn that they did.
I was horrified to learn that they had been replaced by far more severe bugs. I will list a few of the ones which perterb me more.
- Cannot dock the properties window, the UI will hang when I switch from viewing a resource to a source file.
- Intellisense is better than in v6, but doesn't resolve properly if you create a typedef to a parameter type
- If the complete definition is not available for a class when you wish to pass it as a template parameter, the generated code will have no knowledge of that type. This is a problem if you define a CAutoPtr for some type for which you provide a forward declaration, but haven't included the header for that type beforehand. This is a bit of sneaky bitch, because the compiler will only create a given template once, and if it generates the one without the declaration, you're fsckd.
- Finally, it just up and locks up on me. Usually after a build, I think. I've really started getting in the habit of saving. (I hit ctrl-s ever time I pause to think, lest the system be unresponsive the next time I touch the keyboard)
So obviously C# is not the silver bullet. Neither is Java, mind you. The only cross-platform language is Perl (or Python, for those who's minds work that way)
I can show you a better tool for development, it's not hard...there are so many. Apple gives on away. MetroWerks makes a schweet product. Even Borl...Inpri...Borland's stuff is better.
Maybe my criteria for an IDE are different than yours.
Not that what your server looks like is a huge benefit, but these things are the most beautiful little servers I've ever seen.
I used to work for a little dot-gone, and the couple racks of VA FullOn 2x2 servers looked really impressive to me, especially the blue power lights. Of course, a couple racks of those sounded like a jet taking off. (Actually, one sounded like a jet taking off...those twin high-rpm fans in the front.)
Then later I saw a full rack of Cobalt RaQ servers, and all those blinking lights were impressive looking...
This has over 24 little lights on the front of it...must be so impressive looking in a darkened server room. I could probably read a book from the light off a rack full of these.
The titanium(?) enclosure is just the icing on the cake.
You force me to drag this one up again. =)
...
Apple's primary reason for selling a one button mouse (IMHO) is simplicity. The help desk for our (Windows) software can attest to the confusion that two buttons makes in inexperienced users. The call usually goes something like this...
Help Desk: "Right click on the icon and click properties"
Stupid User: "Right click?"
HD: "Click with the right mouse button on the icon"
SU: "Okay...I see a little menu"
HD: "Now click on 'Properties'"
SU: "Right or left?"
... and later
HD: "Double click on the icon"
SU: "Left or right?"
HD: "Double left click on the icon"
It's fairly safe to say that everyone here has a good understanding of the purpose behind two different buttons. However, from the perspective of the desktop metaphor itself, more than one button does not make sense.
The philosophy is that if you know what you're doing with a computer, and you need another button, you go buy a mouse with 253 buttons. (As of OS X, multiple buttons are supported natively, and without third party software)
The greatest problem with NeXT hardware was how proprietary it was. Even the monitor interface was proprietary.
Compared to NeXT, the current Apple hardware is very standard. (Some people would disagree, but my TiPB has USB, FireWire, VGA, and a PC Card slot) There is also a substantially larger installed base of Apple hardware than there ever was of NeXT hardware.
I think that more people will be buying computers based on aesthetic style, rather than pure performance. While the currently available processors in Macs are less powerful than their PC cousins, I don't think that the difference is significant enough to matter. (The average user just doesn't need that much power)
I think the combination of NeXT Generation (apologies for the pun) software with nice looking Apple hardware is the most sexy general purpose computing option. (My PC loving boss is getting tempted by the new iMac even!)
PS I'll hear nothing about how many buttons the mouse has...that's been done to death!
This isn't really providing virtual desktops. This little app just shows and hides programs as you switch between "desktops" Because of that, VNC is only going to see the one screen.
It's a nice implementation though. The only caveat is that you can't have windows from the same app across multiple virtual desktops.
There are two kinds of *effective* DoS attacks.
1. You find and exploit a software vulnerability... (or you're a skript kiddie, and you grab a 'sploit from some l33t d00d)
2. You obtain some level of control over a large number of systems across several networks. Thus, the DDoS attack.
Both of these scenarios still require some vulnerability to be exploited. So the solution is to patch, patch, patch.
This pretty much eliminates #1. If you didn't patch your box, it's your fault you got killed. (Unfixed vulnerabilities excepted...)
Of course, the solution is flawed when applied to #2, since it is not common behaviour for everyone with a Win* box to update all the time. Behaviour has been proven very difficult to change.
Obviously, these kind of attacks must be prevented closer to the source than the destination. At the destination network, having a router rejecting packets won't be very effective, because your network is still congested.
Installing some form of IDS at an ISP which can kill outgoing DoS attacks would be effective, but only if the attack could be recognised by the IDS without error.
Even so, any new attacks launched would not likely be in the IDS database until after the damage was done.
The most difficult problem would be getting virtually every ISP in the world to sign on.
Without much more advanced protocols, it is unlikely that the DoS problem will go away soon.
I once worked for a dot-bomb banner advertising company in Vancouver.
We spent a lot (5 man years worth) of money developing an ad serving system. After it was put online, the upper management decided to change direction! They began to resell DoubleClick's ad space. Bizarre.
Once, when they cooked up one of their hair-brained schemes to make money, the developers had to cry out for a business plan to justify their decisions. As usual, they came up with numbers that were pulled from thin air and completely ludicrous. "Look, this justifies it."
One of the developers put together some statistics that were more realistic, regarding time to break even (it was over 20 years, in an ideal situation) His first draft didn't use enough pictures, so he added some charts. They still didn't get it.
Now said company is a spam marketing agency, using someone else's distribution lists, and someone else's servers to do the distribution.
I am ashamed to say I ever worked for such a place, but at least I know what not to do.
Moral of the story: Listen to your developers; anyone who can grok perl is probably better at math than your average marketroid.
I recall reading an article about hard drives and their sensitivity to contamination. Companies that make drives, and companies that take them apart for data recovery usually do so in ultra clean environments.
An average particle of dust is several times the gap between the drive's heads and it's platters. Having a head run into such a particle causes the head to bounce up and crash onto the platter. That can't be good.
IMHO his drive still works out of pure luck, but he's probably increased his bad sector count somewhat significantly.
Wow, Taco said he likes an Apple product...and there wasn't even any whining about mouse buttons!
But that's not what the iMac is. I think you want a PowerMac.
The iMac is a consumer box, not a power users upgradable machine.
Ultimately, as the price of computers drops, they will become commodity components with virtually no replaceable parts. I can see the near future containing systems that put one or two GB of RAM right on the mobo, and tell you you can't add any more and opening the case will void your warranty.
Do you open up your receiver to add a better DSP, or a bigger amp? Silicon is cheap, and we are entering the age of the disposable computer.
Perhaps you should consider the Torvalds method? =)
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Is "Office for UNIX" kind of like using your Ferrari (which is often given away for free, and has a replacable dashboard, but no standard dashboard) to haul a very large trailer full of cow droppings that you just took out a second mortgage to purchase?
What about the black hole between the third and fourth sheets of paper? You can never be certain, unless you look. =)
It all comes down to black holes in the end... =)
The article seems to imply that their robots will download the files very slowly, presumably under the theory that they will simply fill all the download slots. This would actually reduce the network traffic.
Of course, the filesharing boys won't stand for this. It will be a few weeks before someone lets slip with some software that circumvents the RIAA. Perhaps a server that "registers DoS attackers" and "provides DoS addresses to client dynamically"
This entire battle has been measure vs countermeasure. The problem is that the RIAA cannot move fast enough against all the open source hackers who love their music.
No one can say that the RIAA has "got it" until they finally give this up, and just sponsor "buy this album" links inside the file sharing programs. They need to realize that people who starting listening to music they download online BUY MORE MUSIC.
This is definately a valid point. AFAIK, companies are not allowed to register generic names for their corporation. When I created my company, I had to register the company's name with the provincial government. It's a $30 fee, and they'll approve your name, if it's appropriate.
"Xerox" is a trademark, and it started as such. However, they coined the term to mean photocopier. That happened simply because they started(?) the copier business. Kleenex is also a brand name...in fact, few people I know use the term "facial tissue."
I didn't register a .com name either, because I don't need to be known as a .com company. There are currently a lot of people using .com who don't nessicarily fit the original idea people had in mind when it was created.
Perhaps a TLD should be created for adult material, and all the existings sites moved over to it. ".pr0n" It would unload the .com namespace and make filtering software really easy. =)
When the original TLDs were created, there was very little competition for names on the internet. Everybody pretty much got what they wanted, because there were so few companies who needed domains.
It seems that once, long ago, before NSI became a money machine, that they would not register generic terms (sports.com, beer.com) or explitives.
I believe that any contested names should be given to the person who owns the most similar trademark. Names that are generic terms shouldn't be registered at all, it's unfair for one company to get that much marketing advantage over another. If Joe Shmoe is looking for sprockets, the first thing he's probably going to type is www.sprockets.com. It's really not fair to hand that domain over to Cogswell Cogs and exclude Spacely's Sprockets.
On a somewhat related note, free speech seems to be threatened from several directions lately. An article was in the papers here a couple days ago. This poor woman has been accused of hate crimes for criticizing US foreign policy.
Was I the only person upset by their "Digital Angel" product. The concept of a device that will use my body heat as power, receive GPS signals, and broadcast my vital signs and location is downright disturbing.
Perhaps I've read too much George Orwell, but passing off something like that as medical technology sounds good. It's only a matter of time until some politician thinks it's a good idea to use that to track criminals. Then it'll be criminal suspects. Pretty soon we'll all be complacent enough to get one installed because it provides "a tamper-proof means of identification for enhanced e-commerce security"
300 channels? This has got to be worse than cell phones. "Damn, nothing good on this station, lets surf...how does this thing work.." *crash*
I listen to a lot of electronic music, which there is very little of on FM. (And I'm very tired of Darude) When I am forced to listen to radio, it's CBC Radio Two (classical) But I digress. The point is, that I spend the bulk of my time in the car listening to CDs...so much so that I've worn out two CD players!
When you're flipping CDs, you know what you have, and you know what's on a disc, for the most part. It's not that distracting. Give someone 300 choices, and they're going to be staring at their dash, not the road.
If you don't like the radio, there is always CD, and if you can't afford new, buy used. Or burn (legal) MP3s onto disc (from MP3.com) You may choose to ignore phrases in parenthesis. =)
Ah, but what will the next major release be?
OS X 11?
OS XI?
OS 2002?
OS XP?
Or perhaps... OS X XP 2002 v11!
While *NIX systems are not impervious to various forms of attack, they are less vulnerable for several reasons.
1. People using *NIX systems are usually administering servers, or just love computers. The end result is that they're better (not nessicarily great) at keeping their machines patched.
2. People using NT/2000 often don't even realize they have exposed ports. The worst of the Code Red/Nimda infections are coming from machines on Cable/DSL...home users who probably don't even know their machine is a server.
3. Maturity. Any given piece of software will mature in features and stability/security. Most often, growth in security is sacrificed for features in commercial software. When software is free there tends to be less people trying to add marketing based features to a product. Most features come as modules which you must chose to install. With the focus on security, the number of vulnerabilities shrinks until there are virtually none.
4. Development environment. This may not be immediately obvious as a cause, but it is very relevant. IIS is written in C++, and many people think that C++ is better than C. The real truth is that while C++ provides many benefits, it also can make auditing code more difficlt. The language contains so many features that it becomes very difficult to trace a path of execution just by looking at some code.
I am sad to admit that every day I write code in C++, using MFC. My conclusion is that development is more difficult on Windows in C++ than on any other platform/language I have used. M$ has an idea of how an application should be laid out that very rarely fits my idea of how an application should be laid out.
Compare Apache with IIS. Apache has been around for quite some time now, it aims to be a decent general use webserver with a useful set of features. Things such as dynamic content and indexing are provided by various modules which communicate through a well-defined API. It's written in nice, linear easy-to-read C.
IIS has been around for a while, but the push is on features and integration with Windows. IIS integrates into many aspects of Windows, and it uses COM for it's extensions. Because all COM objects are handled at an OS level, there is much potential for a bad module to blow up the system.
Of course, even the holes in M$ software have patches available long before they become a headline for the day.
I've seen mention of this three times on ./, except that it has yet to be posted correctly or without bias. A paragraph prior to the one currently in question defines the use of the term "the Software" as the FrontPage Server extensions. I have copied the relevant portion of the EULA below.
I am not one who supports M$, their practices often disgust me, and I find their software to be cumbersome. However, I think that there are far too many people who will jump at any opportunity to cry murder. I am dissapointed that no one took two minutes to read the appropriate section of the EULA.
The real question should be; "What constitutes 'severely disabled'?"
Are children who are autistic disabled? Do they need to have leukemia? How can anyone draw the line?
The question is whether the child will live a happy life, or if it would be a miserable life. That depends largely on the child. Humans are very adaptable creatures, and tend to compensate for shortcomings. People who are blind have exceptional hearing, in most cases.
Finally, how would you feel if you had a child with a disability, and euthanised it only to find that a year later, a cure was developed?
The decision is not only moral, but can be spiritual for many people aswell. Spirituality is something that many people interpret differently.
The only answer is, there is no answer.