It is plain that Microsoft's internal testing is insufficient. I don't really fault them for this -- it's simply impossible to have enough configurations, testcases, and procedures to cover more than a small percentage of the actual ways the product is used.
IMO, Microsoft would benefit by issuing public release candidates for new OS versions and patches. It would greatly reduce the impact of problems with patches and new releases.
The Evans survey doesn't prove Linux is taking more market share from Unix than Windows. It only proves that of *existing* Linux developers, more than 50% came from a Windows background. Which ought to be no surprise to anyone, as for every Unix developer there are about fifteen bajillion Windows developers. (Remember kids, anyone who's ever put together a VBA script is a Windows developer!)
What I want to ask IT managers and CIO's is the following:
My organization's usage of Linux over the past year has:
o Increased
o Decreased
o Stayed about the same
I expect my organization's usage of Linux over the next year to:
o Increase
o Decrease
o Stay about the same
In the past year, my organization has (check all that apply):
o Moved some functionality from Windows to Linux
o Moved some functionality from Unix to Linux
o Moved some functionality from Linux to Windows
o Moved some functionality from Linux to Unix
o Created new applications on Windows
o Created new applications on Unix (non-Linux)
o Created new applications on Linux
In the next year, I expect my organization to (check all that apply):
o Move some functionality from Windows to Linux
o Move some functionality from Unix to Linux
o Move some functionality from Linux to Windows
o Move some functionality from Linux to Unix
o Create new applications on Windows
o Create new applications on Unix (non-Linux)
o Create new applications on Linux
You know, after looking at it for a while I don't even see the colored pixels and lines... all I see is driver functions, memory management routines, process management code....
When I was first shown this technique in a creperie in Normandy, by the end of the evening I could flip them up to ceiling height and still recover them occasionally.
Well thanks. I'm really just quoting some other people whose opinions I happen to agree with. (They deserve the "+1 Insightful" moderation:).)
But yeah. It seems that there is an undercurrent that suffering, tragedy, loss are somehow wrong and shouldn't happen. That we have a right to happiness, Mom, and apple pie. And so our response to tragedy when it does occur is of the "OH MY GOD ARE YOU HURT??" form, followed by a sort of righteous indignation -- that's the "I'M GONNA SUE" part.
In the old days, "just deal with it" meant burying it -- whether it was grief, rage, whatever. You just buried the feelings and got on with your life.
Now, we've swung the pendulum the other direction. We're so super-sensitive to "trauma" we exaggerate tragedies way out of proportion. And we try to prevent our kids from experiencing any, which only makes them unable to deal with it as adults.
Counselors offer a way for people to work through a loss or other trauma. So do friends, family, ministers, etc.
Suffering is a part of life. It should neither be swept under the rug nor exaggerated.
You're not likely to see 128- or 512-bit general-purpose computers in your lifetime, I'm afraid.
With advances in medicine, regeneration, nanotech, and cybernetic replacements/augmentations, I fully expect to live at least 200 years. Did you take that into consideration when making your prediction?:)
"Q:Would you consider yourself a Linux advocate now? A:I consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively. And today, for us, that certainly is Linux because it's free; it has a good modular design; you can modify it to meet your needs. There is nothing else that can meet our needs like that.
Q:Do you think Linux will be an obstacle to an effective partnership between Quantum and Microsoft? A:If Microsoft gives us a better idea and a better alternative, we could change. Our customers, by and large, don't really care what the operating system is. That's what's different about an appliance -- the customer really doesn't care what the components are."
It doesn't say he prefers Linux or thinks it is inherently a better solution; it says they're using Linux right now for certain (very valid) reasons and nothing else has those advantages, but if a better idea or alternative shows up from Microsoft they could change. Which is exactly how he should act: technology-agnostic.
My point wasn't that he doesn't think Linux is a good solution, but that Linux-ites want to hear how great Linux is and how it is much better than Windows. So this rather mundane piece gets spun to make it seem more like he's a Linux advocate/convert.
Good points in your last paragraph, and I agree -- it is important to remind people that Linux is a good solution.
Articles like this point out just how desperate the Linux community is for approval and validation. "Oooh look, an ex-Microsoftie is using Linux!! That must mean he thinks it's better!! We rock!!"
No. An employee of Microsoft, who may or may not have liked the company's software, is now working for another company, which happens to use Linux quite a bit. And he may or may not like the new company's software better. He'll use whatever gets the job done, be it Microsoft, Linux, or paper-and-pencil.
Right now the cost/benefit analysis favors spammers.
The Spammer's View: First, it's very inexpensive to collect/buy a million email addresses and very inexpensive to send a million emails. Second, the return is sufficient: out of those million emails, all it takes is a handful of replies to make a profit. Third, the risk of being prosecuted or otherwise suffering financial damages is still practically nil, so the worst you have to fear is your ISP cutting you off -- whoop de doo, go uncover another rock and sign up with a new one.
The ISP's View: It costs little more than a little bandwidth to send a million emails. It costs a little in reputation to be weak on busting spammers' accounts. Signing up a new customer is a profit.
The User's View: Here's where the "cost" of spam is high, and consequently where most of the effort in fighting it has been made. Most users either just delete or have software to keep spam out of their inbox. Some people are careful about how they publish their email address. Some use blacklists or (more recently) whitelists. The cost to receive an email is fortunately low or nothing.
When the cost of spam becomes too high to ignore, for spammers to send or ISPs to relay, spam will decrease. It already has started to become more expensive: some ISPs have strong anti-spam policies and measures; some laws have been passed against spam; and there is quite a bit of software to deal with spam at the recipient end. But that's not enough, as evidenced by the continuing growth in spam.
Eventually, spam will be dealt with more strongly at the source. It has to be sufficiently painful first, and the pain is starting to be felt by ISPs and others involved in relaying email. I expect the situation to be much better a couple years from now.
Many people are starting to believe Microsoft is trying to make Open Source software illegal, either directly or by pushing laws requiring software to use DRM/security technologies which -- by happy coincidence of course -- Microsoft will already have implemented.
They can't fight Linux/OSS in price, and they are starting to lose ground in the feature wars. TCO leans more towards Linux/OSS every year. So they have changed the playing field. Instead of fighting just on the technology or business battlefield, they're now moving towards the legal battlefield.
I think we are perhaps making a distinction between the need to express things in a precise and complete fashion, and the difficulty of being both precise and clear.
My original point was simply that legal language fills a need to be precise in the legal realm, just as medical terminology fills a need to be precise. What you've made clear is that legal language is often not very clear. (I just re-read that sentence... the pun wasn't intended but I like it, so it stands.)
So shall we hang all the lawyers and start over?:)
Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that EULAs and most legal documents are, well, written in abstruse legalese. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complex legalese in favor of plain engligh?
Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that most computer documents are, well, written in abstruse 'technicalese'. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complicated 'technicalese' in favor of plain engligh?
Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that most medical documents are, well, written in abstruse 'medicalese'. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complicated 'medicalese' in favor of plain engligh?
Legalese is painful to read, but it exists for a good reason, just like 'technicalese' or 'medicalese' or other 'ese's. I feel your pain though, I do a little patent work in our office and that stuff is a nightmare.
Heh. He feels bad about the way Microsoft shafts people, so he's trying to assauge his guilty conscience by throwing lots of money at charities.
Bill, you are a greedy, self-centered egotist. Find some humility, consideration, and respect for others. You don't "make up" for your company's business practices by funding charities. (Though it's good that you at least have a conscience and are trying to do something right.)
For many people, being anonymous online means "I can do whatever I want" because there are no significant consequences for their misbehavior. To these people, I say: life is much nicer when you are nice to other people. Try it, you might be surprised.
It seems people tend to confuse privacy with anonymity. Privacy means preventing others from getting information about you -- whether it's what kind of toothpaste you use or your SSN. Anonymity means preventing others from finding out who you are. The two are related, in that in practice they often go hand-in-hand. But they are distinct.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true! I had a co-worker once whose older brother's nephew went to school with this kid who was running Windows 98 and it had uptimes of DAYS!
"A hammer claw is... not as useful for removing a splinter from your finger."
Well son, you didn't see the 'splinter' that got jammed into my finger last week. I prolly could've dug it out with a backhoe if I'd had one handy.
(on-topic) XML has its uses, but not the panacea some portray it as. (/on-topic)
(Dammit, I can't even use proper angle brackets for the above.)
It is plain that Microsoft's internal testing is insufficient. I don't really fault them for this -- it's simply impossible to have enough configurations, testcases, and procedures to cover more than a small percentage of the actual ways the product is used.
IMO, Microsoft would benefit by issuing public release candidates for new OS versions and patches. It would greatly reduce the impact of problems with patches and new releases.
-Thomas
"As for the worst security, I nominate the following password checking code:
gets(userEntry);
if (memcmp(userEntry, correctPassword,
strlen(userEntry)) != 0)
return (BAD_PASSWORD);
"
I just want everyone to know I wrote that code years ago and would never do something like that again. Really!!
-Thomas
The Evans survey doesn't prove Linux is taking more market share from Unix than Windows. It only proves that of *existing* Linux developers, more than 50% came from a Windows background. Which ought to be no surprise to anyone, as for every Unix developer there are about fifteen bajillion Windows developers. (Remember kids, anyone who's ever put together a VBA script is a Windows developer!)
What I want to ask IT managers and CIO's is the following:
My organization's usage of Linux over the past year has:
o Increased
o Decreased
o Stayed about the same
I expect my organization's usage of Linux over the next year to:
o Increase
o Decrease
o Stay about the same
In the past year, my organization has (check all that apply):
o Moved some functionality from Windows to Linux
o Moved some functionality from Unix to Linux
o Moved some functionality from Linux to Windows
o Moved some functionality from Linux to Unix
o Created new applications on Windows
o Created new applications on Unix (non-Linux)
o Created new applications on Linux
In the next year, I expect my organization to (check all that apply):
o Move some functionality from Windows to Linux
o Move some functionality from Unix to Linux
o Move some functionality from Linux to Windows
o Move some functionality from Linux to Unix
o Create new applications on Windows
o Create new applications on Unix (non-Linux)
o Create new applications on Linux
You know, after looking at it for a while I don't even see the colored pixels and lines... all I see is driver functions, memory management routines, process management code....
-Thomas
Minor correction. :)
-Thomas
Well thanks. I'm really just quoting some other people whose opinions I happen to agree with. (They deserve the "+1 Insightful" moderation :).)
But yeah. It seems that there is an undercurrent that suffering, tragedy, loss are somehow wrong and shouldn't happen. That we have a right to happiness, Mom, and apple pie. And so our response to tragedy when it does occur is of the "OH MY GOD ARE YOU HURT??" form, followed by a sort of righteous indignation -- that's the "I'M GONNA SUE" part.
-Thomas
In the old days, "just deal with it" meant burying it -- whether it was grief, rage, whatever. You just buried the feelings and got on with your life.
Now, we've swung the pendulum the other direction. We're so super-sensitive to "trauma" we exaggerate tragedies way out of proportion. And we try to prevent our kids from experiencing any, which only makes them unable to deal with it as adults.
Counselors offer a way for people to work through a loss or other trauma. So do friends, family, ministers, etc.
Suffering is a part of life. It should neither be swept under the rug nor exaggerated.
-Thomas
Fastest duped article ever?
-Thomas
My head hurts. Generate water? Converting distance-units to time-units? Maybe I need more coffee....
-Thomas
With advances in medicine, regeneration, nanotech, and cybernetic replacements/augmentations, I fully expect to live at least 200 years. Did you take that into consideration when making your prediction? :)
-Thomas
Yet more evidence that a sedentary lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end.
Oh boy, what a startling discovery.
So the question to ask is not if Internet transactions will be taxed -- but when and how.
-Thomas
Here are the relevant paragraphs:
"Q:Would you consider yourself a Linux advocate now? A:I consider myself an advocate of whatever allows us to achieve our goals most effectively. And today, for us, that certainly is Linux because it's free; it has a good modular design; you can modify it to meet your needs. There is nothing else that can meet our needs like that.
Q:Do you think Linux will be an obstacle to an effective partnership between Quantum and Microsoft? A:If Microsoft gives us a better idea and a better alternative, we could change. Our customers, by and large, don't really care what the operating system is. That's what's different about an appliance -- the customer really doesn't care what the components are."
It doesn't say he prefers Linux or thinks it is inherently a better solution; it says they're using Linux right now for certain (very valid) reasons and nothing else has those advantages, but if a better idea or alternative shows up from Microsoft they could change. Which is exactly how he should act: technology-agnostic.
My point wasn't that he doesn't think Linux is a good solution, but that Linux-ites want to hear how great Linux is and how it is much better than Windows. So this rather mundane piece gets spun to make it seem more like he's a Linux advocate/convert.
Good points in your last paragraph, and I agree -- it is important to remind people that Linux is a good solution.
-Thomas
Articles like this point out just how desperate the Linux community is for approval and validation. "Oooh look, an ex-Microsoftie is using Linux!! That must mean he thinks it's better!! We rock!!"
No. An employee of Microsoft, who may or may not have liked the company's software, is now working for another company, which happens to use Linux quite a bit. And he may or may not like the new company's software better. He'll use whatever gets the job done, be it Microsoft, Linux, or paper-and-pencil.
-Thomas
Okay, you can all three put your hands down now. Thanks.
Slashdot. News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. (To at least three people, I suppose.)
Right now the cost/benefit analysis favors spammers.
The Spammer's View:
First, it's very inexpensive to collect/buy a million email addresses and very inexpensive to send a million emails. Second, the return is sufficient: out of those million emails, all it takes is a handful of replies to make a profit. Third, the risk of being prosecuted or otherwise suffering financial damages is still practically nil, so the worst you have to fear is your ISP cutting you off -- whoop de doo, go uncover another rock and sign up with a new one.
The ISP's View:
It costs little more than a little bandwidth to send a million emails. It costs a little in reputation to be weak on busting spammers' accounts. Signing up a new customer is a profit.
The User's View:
Here's where the "cost" of spam is high, and consequently where most of the effort in fighting it has been made. Most users either just delete or have software to keep spam out of their inbox. Some people are careful about how they publish their email address. Some use blacklists or (more recently) whitelists. The cost to receive an email is fortunately low or nothing.
When the cost of spam becomes too high to ignore, for spammers to send or ISPs to relay, spam will decrease. It already has started to become more expensive: some ISPs have strong anti-spam policies and measures; some laws have been passed against spam; and there is quite a bit of software to deal with spam at the recipient end. But that's not enough, as evidenced by the continuing growth in spam.
Eventually, spam will be dealt with more strongly at the source. It has to be sufficiently painful first, and the pain is starting to be felt by ISPs and others involved in relaying email. I expect the situation to be much better a couple years from now.
-Thomas
Add:
4. legal/political
Many people are starting to believe Microsoft is trying to make Open Source software illegal, either directly or by pushing laws requiring software to use DRM/security technologies which -- by happy coincidence of course -- Microsoft will already have implemented.
They can't fight Linux/OSS in price, and they are starting to lose ground in the feature wars. TCO leans more towards Linux/OSS every year. So they have changed the playing field. Instead of fighting just on the technology or business battlefield, they're now moving towards the legal battlefield.
-Thomas
I think we are perhaps making a distinction between the need to express things in a precise and complete fashion, and the difficulty of being both precise and clear.
:)
My original point was simply that legal language fills a need to be precise in the legal realm, just as medical terminology fills a need to be precise. What you've made clear is that legal language is often not very clear. (I just re-read that sentence... the pun wasn't intended but I like it, so it stands.)
So shall we hang all the lawyers and start over?
-Thomas
Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that most computer documents are, well, written in abstruse 'technicalese'. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complicated 'technicalese' in favor of plain engligh?
Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that most medical documents are, well, written in abstruse 'medicalese'. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complicated 'medicalese' in favor of plain engligh?
Legalese is painful to read, but it exists for a good reason, just like 'technicalese' or 'medicalese' or other 'ese's. I feel your pain though, I do a little patent work in our office and that stuff is a nightmare.
-Thomas
Heh. He feels bad about the way Microsoft shafts people, so he's trying to assauge his guilty conscience by throwing lots of money at charities.
Bill, you are a greedy, self-centered egotist. Find some humility, consideration, and respect for others. You don't "make up" for your company's business practices by funding charities. (Though it's good that you at least have a conscience and are trying to do something right.)
Hey, learn from the best. First embrace the existing standard (Microsoft)... then extend it.
-Thomas
For many people, being anonymous online means "I can do whatever I want" because there are no significant consequences for their misbehavior. To these people, I say: life is much nicer when you are nice to other people. Try it, you might be surprised.
-Thomas
It seems people tend to confuse privacy with anonymity. Privacy means preventing others from getting information about you -- whether it's what kind of toothpaste you use or your SSN. Anonymity means preventing others from finding out who you are. The two are related, in that in practice they often go hand-in-hand. But they are distinct.
-Thomas