America is always asleep. That's why you bastards got such a shock when your "pro-Israel" and "get-all-the-oil" chickens all came home to roost on 9/11. Shit, you yanks have been paying the micks to bomb fuck out of us, out of our offices, shops and policemen for years. It's about time you lot got some.
No good reason? The reason stuff ended up in \Win(dows/NT)\System(32) was because, in order to get your program to work, you had to make sure that system files, common controls and third party controls were up to date. Prior to "side by side" bullshit, if you installed a DLL into the same directory as your executable, and it was used by another program, you could get interesting effects - eg Excel first and everything works, launch your prog first and Excel doesn't work. Reason? Older copies of the COM DLLs in your program's directory (severe slapping required for someone). Same applies to third party controls.
If the COM DLLs hadn't changed every 3 months (normally with the latest IE or Office) then you would never have to update the damn system files. SFP? Fucking brilliant solution to a problem which Microsoft created. I've been in charge of big shrink-wrapped stuff to go on MS OSes and, trust me, getting an installation which works is the hardest thing.
... when taken to extremes (my Pair agrees with this and we've got several test cases to prove it).There are good cases though for mixing a few languages.
Using 6 or more languages on a project is clearly not a good thing. but I can think of two reasons for using more than one language:
1. Cost. An example, C++ is fast, powerful, flexible but good C++ programmers are scarce, incredibly sexy and expensive (although not expensive enough). It's also a painful way of doing GUIs. Given that you need the performance of C++ but only for part of the application, why not just right the performance critical bit in the "expensive language"?
2. Architecture. Separating a system into parts written in different languages forces you to think about clean interfaces. If there is a language barrier, then there's no way of shortcutting. May seem painful to some, but the benefits will show.
I don't think that you can ever say that you should never do mixed language programming. How many systems have, in addition to their main code, a load of SQL?
Re:one more step towards total integration
on
New Nokia Phone
·
· Score: 2
...pretty much enything you want except act as a sextoy
You can use any port you choose. A bit "security through obscurity" this one, but no harm there>
You don't really need a full web server. All you're going to get is an HTTP request with a SOAP envelope thingy inside. If it doesn't match the WSDL (or whatever) schema thingy you've published, then just ignore it. You only need give the information to people who are going to be legitimately calling your service. Of course you're still vulnerable to normal DoS, but then isn't everyone.
It is quite possible to digitally sign SOAP requests. Just ignore anything not signed/not signed by a recognized customer.
If you are only exepcting SOAP requests from a few other servers, then consider client-side SSL. Since only a few servers will be calling you, then you'll only need a few client certs.
Like everything, it's as secure as you make it. If you expose "FuckMyOS" as a SOAP method and publish it through UDDI or something then... well... you get what you ask for. Signatures on SOAP requests aren't (easily) supported by everything yet - but then SOAP implementations differ (eg MS SOAP has no types, IBM SOAP does). This isn't a major issue as it's pretty easy to roll your own request - it's only XML after all.
Not so sure myself. I was working on a plan for a SOAP type web service which does a shedload of complex calculations then throws the answer back. The only way I could see to get the performance was C++. OK, in VB/C# etc. 7 there is finally some control over things like threads, but the performance isn't there.For this sort of job, I like to be able to control exactly what the machine is doing (do you believe in the Windows task scheduler?) so I can adjust for amounts of memory, number of processors etc. Whilst this isn't impossible in other languages, it is damn hard.
Admittedly, this is an obscure example, but I'm sure there are others. If you want the performance and features of C++, then the language you want is probably... well... C++. Put the features into VB and all you do is make is as complex as C++ - which is not what you want for a moron's dev tool. Horses for courses.
Oh yeah, and if anyone says that performance doesn't matter - just wait for the hardware to get faster, well you obviously don't work with actuaries. The complexity of calculations they want to do moves a lot faster than Moore's Law.
Didn't they get the old zApp class libraries (mostly GUI) as well? They don't seem to be pushing C++ stuff much on their website (traitors!) so I can't tell.
A few years ago I used zApp. I coded up about 250,000 lines of C++ on OS/2 2.1, then ported it to 16 bit Windows. The port took less than a week - IIRC, there was about 50 lines of platform specific stuff. Mind you, OS2 and Windoze aren't that different and I am a genius.
The old Tools/threads/stuff.h++ stuff sounds like what's needed for the non GUI stuff.
Mind you, it stop people doing these elaborate flash sites where there's no server reqests (example).
It's a good question though. If you only get half the page, do you only pay half a penny? How much for a 404 - or even a 500?
Seems to me that you can't charge for something unless you can prove that the "customer" got it. You can't do that with the web. I might be able to prove what my server sent, but I can't prove that you got it.
Oh yeah, and forget popups - what about redirects?
It says on the Honda site that the max it can lift with either hand is 5Kg (that's about 11lb for those of you that work at NASA). Not enough to do serious damage - and anyway, running time is only 15-25 minutes so running away is a good option.
Re:IDE - Editor or round trip engineering tool?
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 1
UML is nice for meetings and sketching things out
Can't agree really. I started with OMT back in '94 and at the time, "class diagrams" were presented as the be-all and end-all of design. This was rubbish. Man cannot design by class-diagram alone - it's all too static. These days, things are better though.
Judicious use of things like sequence diagrams before you start to code can save a whole heap of trouble. One of my favourite techniques is, especially for distributed systems, to use sequence diagrams to verify/decide what runs where. If you've got a shedload of messages running between two objects, then don't divide the system at that point! (OK, it's not really that easy.)
UML/documentation shouldn't be a chore, it should be an integtral part of the development process. This is one thing I like about Together. I must point out that I've only evaluated TCC - I can't get my company to stump up the dosh (which is lots). Best feature has to be the reverse engineering (I've spent the last 3 days trying to get 50,000 lines of C++/ATL/STL into Rose and I'm about ready to crap in a bag and send it to Rational). Being able to generate sequence diagrams from code is a real help when you're trying to understand someone else's spaghetti.
... but a couple of years ago, I was investigating OODBMSs. The sales bloke for (I think it was) Objectivity claimed that CERN were using their database for holding all the information from the particle detector things - which I can see being a shedload of data (3d position + time + energy). He was suggesting figures of 10 petabytes a year for database growth (so it must be frigging huge by now).
Of course, this was probably salescrap. Does anyone know the truth on this?
Not sure I agree. Maybe I'm getting a bit long in the tooth at this game, but in most systems I see, the majority of code is the same structural/functional stuff holding it together. The "application specific" algorithms make up quite a small part of the code. I've got someone else's "advanced calculation code" in front of me right now, and 98% of what I see can be described by standard patterns. They are put together in what appears to be a creative fashion (although a bit lacking in performance - but I'll fix that).
I'm not saying that there's no skill or creativity in designing software (I have to justify my salary somehow), but in the past I have had great problems where wheels have been re-invented.
With software, the first part of that expression tends towards zero since most things we know how to do we can reuse code, whereas with building it remains a large accurate estimate.
I thought that's where GoF patterns could help. When I've been asked to explain design patterns to PHBs, the analogy I've always used is structural engineering - eg. for a bridge, we could have: box girder, suspension, cantilever etc. Design patterns are just like that.
Of course, in the real world, this is only a partial solution. Over 90% of software project failures are down to requirements. If we could get that right, then software development could, indeed be a "proper" engineering discipline. The only place it is, though, is where people are prepared to pay what it takes to get it right - flight control systems etc. IIRC, one of the few people to have achieved the SEI CMM level 5 are the lot who develop the space shuttle software. At the last count, their code was costing them over $1m a line. How many people would put up with what that would do for the cost of their text editor?
(Maybe someone should do a survey to find out how many of us are pros?)
Likewise, I've been developing (C++) for a living for about 12 years now and I've come to some conclusions:
There are estimating techniques/metrics which will work. They depend upon going round a few times to "calibrate" and consistent application. "Task Points" was a good one - basically break your use cases down and down until you have a series of one-line statements about the system. Multiply these by your magic number and that's the estimate. This, like all estimating techniques, is built on sand because:
It depends upon a development team sticking around long enough to do a few projects to calibrate you method.
It depends upon the exact functions of the system being known at the time you do the estimate. This is the killer.
I have never worked on a project where the exact functioning is known at the time coding starts. I have, however, observed that the more analysis/design you do before estimating, the more accurate the estimate is. The problem is, that people always want the answer (estimate) before they've given you the problem (spec).
FWIW On small projects (which are generally better defined), I run through the spec, do a rough n' ready count up of the number of classes, multiply by a factor (decided by the complexity of each class and who I think is going to code it) add a QA+debugging allowance and come up with figures which aren't too wide of the mark.
Oh yeah, and the "who's coding it" is important. Lots of studies show that the difference between "good" and "bad" coders can be a factor of ten. I've been slammed by PMs after estimating how long something would take me, then the PM puts some "cross trained" ex VB dork on it.
To summarise: it is possible if you know who is coding what. Recommendations: 1) read Brooks, 2) keep it small 3) ignore any of the "latest methodologies" that Project Managers try and sell you.
Although it's (allegedly) written into agreements: "thou shalt not (wor)ship any but our OS (signed God)", Windoze is theirs and they can sell it to any OEM for any price they please. Do you not think that OEMs who only ship XP (eXtremely Pricey) might "be able to negotiate" a rather better price for their Windows licenses. All that's changed is that Bill can't write it into the contract. I dare say that pricing is confidential so there wouldn't be an easy way for Honest Ron's PCs to prove that they were paying twice as much for their licenses as Dull Computers because they once shipped a machine with no OS on it.
Yeah - I'm with you. I got modded down for something which I thought was funny on my birthday (my birthday is halloween). That sucks. Might as well burn what little Karma I have.
PS Does it frighten anyone else that this: int i; for(i = 0; i < 5 ; i++) printf("\t\t\b\b\b"); reboots Win2K and XP?
Oh yeah - BSD is dying and imagine a Beowolf cluster of these.
It's an odd one. Someone in the EU is trying to bring a law in makin it an offence to expose minors to pr0n. The problem being, in certain Scandinavian countries, it's part of the school curriculum to view and discuss pr0n. Bearing in mind that these countries have the lowest rates of "sex crimes", teenage pregnancies etc., that doesn't really point in the direction of "harm".
They do, however, have high suicide rates - this could either be to do with the lack of daylight in the winter, or kids realising that they're not hung like Ron Jeremey.
The story is shite - but old-time developer rant still follows:
How many of you ever actually wrote anything significant for DOS? How many of you tried to get a 16bit (really 8 bit) single tasking OS to do more than one thing at a time? Do you remember using INT 33 to get the mouse position? Do you remember checking the contents of the "is in DOS" address to see if you should bail out of your TSR? Did you ever program against EMS? Did you ever use two shifts and an add instead of a multiply to do the multiply by 160 you needed so often in the direct VGA memory access? Did you ever have the nerve to try INT 13? Those were the days.
Still, some things don't change on MS - you still struggle when inadequate documentation doesn't tell you how to frig the OS into doing something useful.
Oh yeah, and I notice a few people confusing DOS with the command line. Idiots. Even MS wouldn't try to get rid of a command line. Anyone who finds it quicker to navigate through all those menus that to just type the damn command shouldn't be running with root priviledges.
Yup - I hated that bit as well. We've all heard about/seen kids at Christmas ignoring the big flashy "thing" and playing with the box. Boxes are great - they can be boats, cars, houses etc. Imagination is a good thing (no TM - no profit). I hate the idea that all toys will be spoonfeeding ideas to kids (especially when you think where those ideas are going to come from) until they have no need for imagination and can only repeat advertising slogans (like my partner's eight year old).
Back (more) on topic, what wont help 3G (in the UK) is that now:
- Companies now need planning permission to put up masts/ariels.
- Higher frequencies = more masts
- The tabloid press has conviced half the population that the microwave radation will give them cancer/AIDS/anthrax.
... that maybe the fact that part of the opposition to this bill comes from other big business might have been a factor? It's a mistake to assume that "big business" is one entity all of whom have the same agenda.
There are two factors here: 1. It will cost hardware and software makers to implement it. 2. Even if a small percentage of hardware/OSs are bought by people who use it for "bad things" then, particularly in hardware (where margins are thin), a small percentage makes a big difference to the bottom line.
More like one set of corps winning a victory over another set. Some seem to think that MS should have been in favour of this as it would "outlaw Linux". Not true - it just might outlaw running Linux without the SSSCA code. Anyone with some skills and a sense of adventure would be able to identify and remove the code from Windoze - hardware access aint hard to spot. Maybe a bit more work if you don't have the source, but still practical.
Slashdot Mirror
... and the computerised tailoring function so you can ...
wait for it...
Make it sew.
America is always asleep. That's why you bastards got such a shock when your "pro-Israel" and "get-all-the-oil" chickens all came home to roost on 9/11. Shit, you yanks have been paying the micks to bomb fuck out of us, out of our offices, shops and policemen for years. It's about time you lot got some.
Will this do?
No good reason? The reason stuff ended up in \Win(dows/NT)\System(32) was because, in order to get your program to work, you had to make sure that system files, common controls and third party controls were up to date. Prior to "side by side" bullshit, if you installed a DLL into the same directory as your executable, and it was used by another program, you could get interesting effects - eg Excel first and everything works, launch your prog first and Excel doesn't work. Reason? Older copies of the COM DLLs in your program's directory (severe slapping required for someone). Same applies to third party controls.
If the COM DLLs hadn't changed every 3 months (normally with the latest IE or Office) then you would never have to update the damn system files. SFP? Fucking brilliant solution to a problem which Microsoft created. I've been in charge of big shrink-wrapped stuff to go on MS OSes and, trust me, getting an installation which works is the hardest thing.
Oh well, I had some karma to burn.
... when taken to extremes (my Pair agrees with this and we've got several test cases to prove it).There are good cases though for mixing a few languages.
Using 6 or more languages on a project is clearly not a good thing. but I can think of two reasons for using more than one language:
1. Cost. An example, C++ is fast, powerful, flexible but good C++ programmers are scarce, incredibly sexy and expensive (although not expensive enough). It's also a painful way of doing GUIs. Given that you need the performance of C++ but only for part of the application, why not just right the performance critical bit in the "expensive language"?
2. Architecture. Separating a system into parts written in different languages forces you to think about clean interfaces. If there is a language barrier, then there's no way of shortcutting. May seem painful to some, but the benefits will show.
I don't think that you can ever say that you should never do mixed language programming. How many systems have, in addition to their main code, a load of SQL?
...pretty much enything you want except act as a sextoy
Too late
You can use any port you choose. A bit "security through obscurity" this one, but no harm there>
You don't really need a full web server. All you're going to get is an HTTP request with a SOAP envelope thingy inside. If it doesn't match the WSDL (or whatever) schema thingy you've published, then just ignore it. You only need give the information to people who are going to be legitimately calling your service. Of course you're still vulnerable to normal DoS, but then isn't everyone.
It is quite possible to digitally sign SOAP requests. Just ignore anything not signed/not signed by a recognized customer.
If you are only exepcting SOAP requests from a few other servers, then consider client-side SSL. Since only a few servers will be calling you, then you'll only need a few client certs.
... well ... you get what you ask for. Signatures on SOAP requests aren't (easily) supported by everything yet - but then SOAP implementations differ (eg MS SOAP has no types, IBM SOAP does). This isn't a major issue as it's pretty easy to roll your own request - it's only XML after all.
Like everything, it's as secure as you make it. If you expose "FuckMyOS" as a SOAP method and publish it through UDDI or something then
PS I have no opinion on Vladinator's website.
I pretty much agree apart from one thing:
.NET-Web-Service world
... well ... C++. Put the features into VB and all you do is make is as complex as C++ - which is not what you want for a moron's dev tool. Horses for courses.
pretty much useless in the
Not so sure myself. I was working on a plan for a SOAP type web service which does a shedload of complex calculations then throws the answer back. The only way I could see to get the performance was C++. OK, in VB/C# etc. 7 there is finally some control over things like threads, but the performance isn't there.For this sort of job, I like to be able to control exactly what the machine is doing (do you believe in the Windows task scheduler?) so I can adjust for amounts of memory, number of processors etc. Whilst this isn't impossible in other languages, it is damn hard.
Admittedly, this is an obscure example, but I'm sure there are others. If you want the performance and features of C++, then the language you want is probably
Oh yeah, and if anyone says that performance doesn't matter - just wait for the hardware to get faster, well you obviously don't work with actuaries. The complexity of calculations they want to do moves a lot faster than Moore's Law.
Surely not for Strom Thurmond.
Can it get a movie past this guy? This man has a sick, sick mind. He manages to read filth and blasphemy into everything.
Didn't they get the old zApp class libraries (mostly GUI) as well? They don't seem to be pushing C++ stuff much on their website (traitors!) so I can't tell.
A few years ago I used zApp. I coded up about 250,000 lines of C++ on OS/2 2.1, then ported it to 16 bit Windows. The port took less than a week - IIRC, there was about 50 lines of platform specific stuff. Mind you, OS2 and Windoze aren't that different and I am a genius.
The old Tools/threads/stuff.h++ stuff sounds like what's needed for the non GUI stuff.
Mind you, it stop people doing these elaborate flash sites where there's no server reqests (example).
It's a good question though. If you only get half the page, do you only pay half a penny? How much for a 404 - or even a 500?
Seems to me that you can't charge for something unless you can prove that the "customer" got it. You can't do that with the web. I might be able to prove what my server sent, but I can't prove that you got it.
Oh yeah, and forget popups - what about redirects?
It says on the Honda site that the max it can lift with either hand is 5Kg (that's about 11lb for those of you that work at NASA). Not enough to do serious damage - and anyway, running time is only 15-25 minutes so running away is a good option.
Besides, I'm sure it follows the three laws.
UML is nice for meetings and sketching things out
Can't agree really. I started with OMT back in '94 and at the time, "class diagrams" were presented as the be-all and end-all of design. This was rubbish. Man cannot design by class-diagram alone - it's all too static. These days, things are better though.
Judicious use of things like sequence diagrams before you start to code can save a whole heap of trouble. One of my favourite techniques is, especially for distributed systems, to use sequence diagrams to verify/decide what runs where. If you've got a shedload of messages running between two objects, then don't divide the system at that point! (OK, it's not really that easy.)
UML/documentation shouldn't be a chore, it should be an integtral part of the development process. This is one thing I like about Together. I must point out that I've only evaluated TCC - I can't get my company to stump up the dosh (which is lots). Best feature has to be the reverse engineering (I've spent the last 3 days trying to get 50,000 lines of C++/ATL/STL into Rose and I'm about ready to crap in a bag and send it to Rational). Being able to generate sequence diagrams from code is a real help when you're trying to understand someone else's spaghetti.
... but a couple of years ago, I was investigating OODBMSs. The sales bloke for (I think it was) Objectivity claimed that CERN were using their database for holding all the information from the particle detector things - which I can see being a shedload of data (3d position + time + energy). He was suggesting figures of 10 petabytes a year for database growth (so it must be frigging huge by now).
Of course, this was probably salescrap. Does anyone know the truth on this?
Not sure I agree. Maybe I'm getting a bit long in the tooth at this game, but in most systems I see, the majority of code is the same structural/functional stuff holding it together. The "application specific" algorithms make up quite a small part of the code. I've got someone else's "advanced calculation code" in front of me right now, and 98% of what I see can be described by standard patterns. They are put together in what appears to be a creative fashion (although a bit lacking in performance - but I'll fix that).
I'm not saying that there's no skill or creativity in designing software (I have to justify my salary somehow), but in the past I have had great problems where wheels have been re-invented.
With software, the first part of that expression tends towards zero since most things we know how to do we can reuse code, whereas with building it remains a large accurate estimate.
I thought that's where GoF patterns could help. When I've been asked to explain design patterns to PHBs, the analogy I've always used is structural engineering - eg. for a bridge, we could have: box girder, suspension, cantilever etc. Design patterns are just like that.
Of course, in the real world, this is only a partial solution. Over 90% of software project failures are down to requirements. If we could get that right, then software development could, indeed be a "proper" engineering discipline. The only place it is, though, is where people are prepared to pay what it takes to get it right - flight control systems etc. IIRC, one of the few people to have achieved the SEI CMM level 5 are the lot who develop the space shuttle software. At the last count, their code was costing them over $1m a line. How many people would put up with what that would do for the cost of their text editor?
Likewise, I've been developing (C++) for a living for about 12 years now and I've come to some conclusions:
There are estimating techniques/metrics which will work. They depend upon going round a few times to "calibrate" and consistent application. "Task Points" was a good one - basically break your use cases down and down until you have a series of one-line statements about the system. Multiply these by your magic number and that's the estimate. This, like all estimating techniques, is built on sand because:
It depends upon a development team sticking around long enough to do a few projects to calibrate you method.
It depends upon the exact functions of the system being known at the time you do the estimate. This is the killer.
I have never worked on a project where the exact functioning is known at the time coding starts. I have, however, observed that the more analysis/design you do before estimating, the more accurate the estimate is. The problem is, that people always want the answer (estimate) before they've given you the problem (spec).
FWIW On small projects (which are generally better defined), I run through the spec, do a rough n' ready count up of the number of classes, multiply by a factor (decided by the complexity of each class and who I think is going to code it) add a QA+debugging allowance and come up with figures which aren't too wide of the mark.
Oh yeah, and the "who's coding it" is important. Lots of studies show that the difference between "good" and "bad" coders can be a factor of ten. I've been slammed by PMs after estimating how long something would take me, then the PM puts some "cross trained" ex VB dork on it.
To summarise: it is possible if you know who is coding what. Recommendations: 1) read Brooks, 2) keep it small 3) ignore any of the "latest methodologies" that Project Managers try and sell you.
Although it's (allegedly) written into agreements: "thou shalt not (wor)ship any but our OS (signed God)", Windoze is theirs and they can sell it to any OEM for any price they please. Do you not think that OEMs who only ship XP (eXtremely Pricey) might "be able to negotiate" a rather better price for their Windows licenses. All that's changed is that Bill can't write it into the contract. I dare say that pricing is confidential so there wouldn't be an easy way for Honest Ron's PCs to prove that they were paying twice as much for their licenses as Dull Computers because they once shipped a machine with no OS on it.
Score -1: Pessimistic
Yeah - I'm with you. I got modded down for something which I thought was funny on my birthday (my birthday is halloween). That sucks. Might as well burn what little Karma I have.
PS Does it frighten anyone else that this:
int i; for(i = 0; i < 5 ; i++) printf("\t\t\b\b\b");
reboots Win2K and XP?
Oh yeah - BSD is dying and imagine a Beowolf cluster of these.
DCOM is easy
Windows 2000 is a stable, "enterprise class" operating system
Anyone can produce professional quality applications with VB
It's an odd one. Someone in the EU is trying to bring a law in makin it an offence to expose minors to pr0n. The problem being, in certain Scandinavian countries, it's part of the school curriculum to view and discuss pr0n. Bearing in mind that these countries have the lowest rates of "sex crimes", teenage pregnancies etc., that doesn't really point in the direction of "harm".
They do, however, have high suicide rates - this could either be to do with the lack of daylight in the winter, or kids realising that they're not hung like Ron Jeremey.
... based on GPL'd code then? Oh dear.
The story is shite - but old-time developer rant still follows:
How many of you ever actually wrote anything significant for DOS? How many of you tried to get a 16bit (really 8 bit) single tasking OS to do more than one thing at a time? Do you remember using INT 33 to get the mouse position? Do you remember checking the contents of the "is in DOS" address to see if you should bail out of your TSR? Did you ever program against EMS? Did you ever use two shifts and an add instead of a multiply to do the multiply by 160 you needed so often in the direct VGA memory access? Did you ever have the nerve to try INT 13? Those were the days.
Still, some things don't change on MS - you still struggle when inadequate documentation doesn't tell you how to frig the OS into doing something useful.
Oh yeah, and I notice a few people confusing DOS with the command line. Idiots. Even MS wouldn't try to get rid of a command line. Anyone who finds it quicker to navigate through all those menus that to just type the damn command shouldn't be running with root priviledges.
Yup - I hated that bit as well. We've all heard about/seen kids at Christmas ignoring the big flashy "thing" and playing with the box. Boxes are great - they can be boats, cars, houses etc. Imagination is a good thing (no TM - no profit). I hate the idea that all toys will be spoonfeeding ideas to kids (especially when you think where those ideas are going to come from) until they have no need for imagination and can only repeat advertising slogans (like my partner's eight year old).
Back (more) on topic, what wont help 3G (in the UK) is that now:
- Companies now need planning permission to put up masts/ariels.
- Higher frequencies = more masts
- The tabloid press has conviced half the population that the microwave radation will give them cancer/AIDS/anthrax.
... that maybe the fact that part of the opposition to this bill comes from other big business might have been a factor? It's a mistake to assume that "big business" is one entity all of whom have the same agenda.
There are two factors here:
1. It will cost hardware and software makers to implement it.
2. Even if a small percentage of hardware/OSs are bought by people who use it for "bad things" then, particularly in hardware (where margins are thin), a small percentage makes a big difference to the bottom line.
More like one set of corps winning a victory over another set. Some seem to think that MS should have been in favour of this as it would "outlaw Linux". Not true - it just might outlaw running Linux without the SSSCA code. Anyone with some skills and a sense of adventure would be able to identify and remove the code from Windoze - hardware access aint hard to spot. Maybe a bit more work if you don't have the source, but still practical.