"That's mind-boggling. Why not just switch to Firefox?"
Opera's UI kicks Firefox's around the block. There are lots of little things Opera lets you do that FireFox doesn't (yes, I use FF too...). There's a reason us Opera users are zealots, it earned it.
To be fair, FireFox is about 90% of the way there, but all these little things are there that really makes Opera a pleasure to use. Maybe when FF catches up...
"If that was your criteria, then why did you even say anything about Win95 and sound cards? Oh, I see. You're attempting to change your criteria now."
I didn't originally specify that I was talking about PCs. I'm guilty of not being that specific early on, no contest. I can see how you read it that way the first time around due to the error on my part, but now after I have clarified you're still harping on it.
"So, you've flip-flopped from money back to technology now? Again, the race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line."
Heh. Don't you think you're trying a little too hard?
"I think the point is to protect your data and your pc. If you choose to use Windows you should expect to make the necessary precautions or get nailed."
You have to do that anyway. Hard drives can fail. Lightning can strike. No OS is completely secure.
"The race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line. Not when the most popular guy crosses."
Perhaps. However, we're talking about product sales, not a race. The guy with the most money at the end of the day wins. Is it right? Nah. it's the way it works sometimes. It was quite fortunate for MS that Apple had ideas for them to steal.
" You just have a bit of trouble telling the two apart."
Um, no. What you have trouble understanding is that MS didn't just publish fliers, they actually had to make something. They couldn't copy and paste Apple's stuff, they had to rewrite it. They also had to account for the backwards compatibility of their previous Win 3.1 and DOS apps. On top of all that, it had to run on a plethora of hardware that Macs simply didn't have access to.
"someone is trying to be sensationalist and not thinking about things."
Heh. The Register ran a story about how Internet Explorer was being used at an airport and it crashed bringing the whole place down. Their evidence of this was a picture somebody took of a display showing IE saying "page not found". I submitted the story under the headline "New Exploit Prevents IE from Finding Web Pages when Internet Connection is Broken". I don't think the Slashdot editors were amused.
" Sure windows sucks - what about putting news about how much it sucks instead of all this senseless FUD?"
It generates comments, and comments generate ad hits, and ad hits generate revenue. Somebody chimes in and says "That proves it, Microsoft utterly and completely dropped the ball, may they go down in flames!" Slashdot gets money. That's a gross oversimplification of how Slashdot generates revenue, but I have to admit, I'm seriously impressed on how they capitalized on anti-MS FUD.
My point? Well, your beef really isn't with Slashdot. It's with the people commenting in stories like this. Lots of people are competing to get that +5 comment, and a lot of people with mod points out there (not all of them, maybe not even most) mod up the "this is proof that MS is OCP evil!" comments.
I agree with you that the idea of not visiting is interesting. I'm rather sick of odd conclusions being drawn then lauded.
(before I go any farther, I wanna apologize for the hypocrite comment. I doubt you'll find my views are much more to your liking, so I thought I'd get that out here.)
"What that message says to me is that the volunteers at Mozilla should be held to the same standard as the professionals at Microsoft, just because they both make software."
I'd like to clarify that.
1.) In my original post, I referred to a post about how MS should be liable for some exploit in the JPEG code. I was trying to point out that the majority of what was interesting about his post was that it dinged MS. It was not that I believe that MS or the OSS Community should be responsible for exploits caused by hackers/script kiddies. (While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that I'm only focusing on that, not on defects that cause these apps to self destruct.) I think that in the middle of all my shitheadedness in this thread it came off like I was supporting that Mozilla's team should be sue-able, I regret not spelling that out more clearly.
2.) I know you're not going to agree with my view here, and I doubt this will change your mind. I'm cool with that. When somebody or a group of people makes an app available and actively gets people to use it, there is an expectation that they are working to make it as flaw-free as possible. The end user, unless he or she has looked a little deeper into it, has no clue that it's being done by people in their spare time. Mozilla, for example, is a well polished app and is made available in such a way that it looks like a product. Now if Mozilla was still a SourceForget type of download, I believe the expectation would be different, and that they'd be far less liable for problems that arise. (Since I'm not in an argue mode right now, I hope you'll see I'm a little closer to your view now.)
I'm sorry I degraded this into an argument befor. Have a good weekend.
Whoopee, in my original post I didn't clarifiy that I was talking about the PC architecture. Never mind that it was far more prolific than Apple's architecture was, meaning most machines didn't have all that stuff. Never mind that I never once said MS invented any of it or was first to market with it.
"Accuracy. It's a good thing. You should try for it a bit more often."
This coming from a guy who's still harping over my original post even though I clarified it. You're not running with up to date info either, my friend.
"why this concept is so hard to accept as rational."
Because you're not listening. It's not as simple as that.
"And since you seem to be a nanny state loving crybaby "oh my! My computer is insecure! Help me uncle sam! I want you to regulate these gift horses I've obtained!", I don't think I'll continue trying to convince you."
Go back and read what sparked this. I wasn't proposing that the gov't should come in and save us, I'm against that. In all honesty, even though we've butted heads here, I *don't* want you to be liable for some other jackasse's exploits. My point was that if they were liable, it should be equal. (You seem to have gotten that later point. But no, I'm not all for it.) To expand on that point, how the program is presented plays a big part in this. The general assumption is that if you put something out there, you want people using it. Now if you take adequate steps to warn people that it's a half-assed weekend effort that could leave then vulnerable, then no, I think you'd be far less liable if at all. But, alas, you brought up Open Source. Their efforts are to replace some software with their own 'free' software. They're making that effort, they have an obligation to try their hardest to make sure it doesn't break people's machines. If they warn people, fine, no problem. But they're not. Go look at Mozilla's page.
" I have better things to do with my time than try to convince you that corporations and professionals should be, and are, held to a different standard in law than weekend warriors who donate their work to the public domain or Open Source."
You're right. You do have better things to do. For starters, you could be discussing and trying ot understand where I'm coming from instead of flatly arguing your point. I don't care if you agree with me. We can disagree, no big deal. But you're not even trying to listen. If you were, you wouldn't be trying to attack my character.
"Maybe for you. But Apple had already solved that problem."
Not on PC architecture. Apple would have made a killing if they had written a PC OS. I kmow I'd be happier right now.
"You seem to be confusing the marketing push that Microsoft did with some form of technical excellence... Win95 was not any technical advance over the existing (see Apple) technology."
Nope. I'm not claiming MS invented anything. I'm not claiming Apple didn't beat them to it. It seems you ignored my bit about 'build your own machine to boot'. I was actually thinking of Apple when I wrote that.
" You seem to be claiming all the computer advances to be a result of Microsoft's efforts."
Nope. I claimed that more people bought machines because of MS's efforts. (efforts != inventions, don't you dare try to put more words in my mouth.) We're not really all that divergent in opinion here, actually. Pity you're doing more accusing than asking.
>Seriously. Where in the hell did you get that fucked up idea?
When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over. You didn't have to memorize a bunch of stupid dos commands. Installation of apps was as simple as putting in the CD and hitting 'ok' a couple of times. All this, and you could build your own machine to boot.
And since when did filtering out automatic-MS-hate make my ideas 'fucked up'? You can't tell me that the surge of computer purchases starting around the mid-90's wasn't because of the launch of Windows 95.
XP (pro) supports multithreading, just so ya know. I have a dual proc machine at work running it.
Is there a big screaming reason to need XP? Eh, maybe not. But I really do prefer running it on my laptop. I kind of wish my desktop at home (running 2k currently) was running XP. Not so much because I need it to, but it is a friendlier OS. A lot of my day to day normal boring stuff has been enhanced one way or another through XP.
I sort of agree with your statement, though. I mean, it's not like I'm interested enough in shelling out $150 for the upgrade. But if I did, I know I wouldn't look back. XP definitely had a lot of attention paid to the end user experience. *Sigh* I wish Apple'd make a PC OS that would run my existing apps.
The solution seems to me to pick a name that few others would care much about. JADE is a bit too common, IMHO.
Wish I had a better suggestion for you, but I don't. I see an interesting opportunity for you here, though: When you pick a new name, make sure it's so unique that a Google search will turn you up.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't this have been done right in the beginning itself?"
Depends on which question you're asking.
"I want Windows to run faster, should we be performing buffer checks?"
"I want Windows to be more secure, should we be performing buffer checks?"
This is not a rebuttal to your post, simply pointing out that it's not as black and white as that. Security is important, but usability is what made Microsoft a success.
I installed SP2 on my TabletPC. Other than the firewall working like it should, it's been just fine. No stability problems. It's nice getting a little thing saying "Are you sure you want this program hitting the internet?" etc.
For you TabletPC owners out there, you'll probably like some of the nicities that pop up. Now when you hover your stylus over a text input field, an icon indicating an On-Screen-Keyboard appears. If you click it, a miniature one appears. This means you don't have to keep the OSK on all the time. Kudos MS.
" Since I haven't made a penny on my project, since I haven't ASKED a penny for my project, since the only reason I even distribute it is because I think other people might enjoy using or modifying it, I am absolutely to be held to a different standard than a piece of commercial software."
Whether money exchanges hands or not, you could be causing damage to other people's machines. The whole point is to protect people, right? They only deserve to be protected if money changes hands? I can't believe that this isn't some "I hate Microsoft" idea if you're not willing to stand behind it.
Sorry, I'm just not sold that you're not a hypocrite. A.) You're spending a lot of energy hiding behind the "I didn't ask anybody for money" excuse, B.) You've tried to justify MS being singled out, C.) We both know that viruses/trojans/exploits aren't always made available because somebody sold somebody else defective software. If you really cared about making software more secure, you wouldn't say "Only companies I don't like would be affected." In other words, you haven't demonstrated to me that you've thought much of the ramifications past "Yay we could ding M$!"
Slashdot Mirror
"That's mind-boggling. Why not just switch to Firefox?"
Opera's UI kicks Firefox's around the block. There are lots of little things Opera lets you do that FireFox doesn't (yes, I use FF too...). There's a reason us Opera users are zealots, it earned it.
To be fair, FireFox is about 90% of the way there, but all these little things are there that really makes Opera a pleasure to use. Maybe when FF catches up...
"It tracks everything you surf so it can display relevant ads. No thanks, I'll stick with Firefox."
Somebody tell me again why ads (relevant ads, no less) are evil?
"Or perhaps, I'm talking out my ass."
Oh, I been meaning to tell ya, you need a breath suppository.
"You know, if everyone just stuck with the standards, this would be a non-issue."
If nobody can stick to the standard, then doesn't that imply that the standard is ambiguous?
"If that was your criteria, then why did you even say anything about Win95 and sound cards? Oh, I see. You're attempting to change your criteria now."
I didn't originally specify that I was talking about PCs. I'm guilty of not being that specific early on, no contest. I can see how you read it that way the first time around due to the error on my part, but now after I have clarified you're still harping on it.
"So, you've flip-flopped from money back to technology now? Again, the race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line."
Heh. Don't you think you're trying a little too hard?
"I think the point is to protect your data and your pc. If you choose to use Windows you should expect to make the necessary precautions or get nailed."
You have to do that anyway. Hard drives can fail. Lightning can strike. No OS is completely secure.
"Could we "accidentally" print out goatse on Bills computer."
Bill: I am getting a video from a Mr. Valenti, it looks like he's opening his mouth to talk...
"god you're an idiot"
"God you're an idiot", Jrockway
"Jrockway was an idiot", God
"The race is over when the first guy crosses the finish line. Not when the most popular guy crosses."
Perhaps. However, we're talking about product sales, not a race. The guy with the most money at the end of the day wins. Is it right? Nah. it's the way it works sometimes. It was quite fortunate for MS that Apple had ideas for them to steal.
" You just have a bit of trouble telling the two apart."
Um, no. What you have trouble understanding is that MS didn't just publish fliers, they actually had to make something. They couldn't copy and paste Apple's stuff, they had to rewrite it. They also had to account for the backwards compatibility of their previous Win 3.1 and DOS apps. On top of all that, it had to run on a plethora of hardware that Macs simply didn't have access to.
Like it or not, MS did a lot of technical work.
"his a serious bug"
Well, to be fair, what Slashdot's headline says is a serious bug...
"someone is trying to be sensationalist and not thinking about things."
Heh. The Register ran a story about how Internet Explorer was being used at an airport and it crashed bringing the whole place down. Their evidence of this was a picture somebody took of a display showing IE saying "page not found". I submitted the story under the headline "New Exploit Prevents IE from Finding Web Pages when Internet Connection is Broken". I don't think the Slashdot editors were amused.
" Sure windows sucks - what about putting news about how much it sucks instead of all this senseless FUD?"
It generates comments, and comments generate ad hits, and ad hits generate revenue. Somebody chimes in and says "That proves it, Microsoft utterly and completely dropped the ball, may they go down in flames!" Slashdot gets money. That's a gross oversimplification of how Slashdot generates revenue, but I have to admit, I'm seriously impressed on how they capitalized on anti-MS FUD.
My point? Well, your beef really isn't with Slashdot. It's with the people commenting in stories like this. Lots of people are competing to get that +5 comment, and a lot of people with mod points out there (not all of them, maybe not even most) mod up the "this is proof that MS is OCP evil!" comments.
I agree with you that the idea of not visiting is interesting. I'm rather sick of odd conclusions being drawn then lauded.
"Now you're fscked for sure!"
Argh. That'd be annoying if some script kiddie caused my files to get checked.
Ok. I understand what you're saying.
(before I go any farther, I wanna apologize for the hypocrite comment. I doubt you'll find my views are much more to your liking, so I thought I'd get that out here.)
"What that message says to me is that the volunteers at Mozilla should be held to the same standard as the professionals at Microsoft, just because they both make software."
I'd like to clarify that.
1.) In my original post, I referred to a post about how MS should be liable for some exploit in the JPEG code. I was trying to point out that the majority of what was interesting about his post was that it dinged MS. It was not that I believe that MS or the OSS Community should be responsible for exploits caused by hackers/script kiddies. (While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that I'm only focusing on that, not on defects that cause these apps to self destruct.) I think that in the middle of all my shitheadedness in this thread it came off like I was supporting that Mozilla's team should be sue-able, I regret not spelling that out more clearly.
2.) I know you're not going to agree with my view here, and I doubt this will change your mind. I'm cool with that. When somebody or a group of people makes an app available and actively gets people to use it, there is an expectation that they are working to make it as flaw-free as possible. The end user, unless he or she has looked a little deeper into it, has no clue that it's being done by people in their spare time. Mozilla, for example, is a well polished app and is made available in such a way that it looks like a product. Now if Mozilla was still a SourceForget type of download, I believe the expectation would be different, and that they'd be far less liable for problems that arise. (Since I'm not in an argue mode right now, I hope you'll see I'm a little closer to your view now.)
I'm sorry I degraded this into an argument befor. Have a good weekend.
Whoopee, in my original post I didn't clarifiy that I was talking about the PC architecture. Never mind that it was far more prolific than Apple's architecture was, meaning most machines didn't have all that stuff. Never mind that I never once said MS invented any of it or was first to market with it.
"Accuracy. It's a good thing. You should try for it a bit more often."
This coming from a guy who's still harping over my original post even though I clarified it. You're not running with up to date info either, my friend.
"why this concept is so hard to accept as rational."
Because you're not listening. It's not as simple as that.
"And since you seem to be a nanny state loving crybaby "oh my! My computer is insecure! Help me uncle sam! I want you to regulate these gift horses I've obtained!", I don't think I'll continue trying to convince you."
Go back and read what sparked this. I wasn't proposing that the gov't should come in and save us, I'm against that. In all honesty, even though we've butted heads here, I *don't* want you to be liable for some other jackasse's exploits. My point was that if they were liable, it should be equal. (You seem to have gotten that later point. But no, I'm not all for it.) To expand on that point, how the program is presented plays a big part in this. The general assumption is that if you put something out there, you want people using it. Now if you take adequate steps to warn people that it's a half-assed weekend effort that could leave then vulnerable, then no, I think you'd be far less liable if at all. But, alas, you brought up Open Source. Their efforts are to replace some software with their own 'free' software. They're making that effort, they have an obligation to try their hardest to make sure it doesn't break people's machines. If they warn people, fine, no problem. But they're not. Go look at Mozilla's page.
" I have better things to do with my time than try to convince you that corporations and professionals should be, and are, held to a different standard in law than weekend warriors who donate their work to the public domain or Open Source."
You're right. You do have better things to do. For starters, you could be discussing and trying ot understand where I'm coming from instead of flatly arguing your point. I don't care if you agree with me. We can disagree, no big deal. But you're not even trying to listen. If you were, you wouldn't be trying to attack my character.
"Maybe for you. But Apple had already solved that problem."
Not on PC architecture. Apple would have made a killing if they had written a PC OS. I kmow I'd be happier right now.
"You seem to be confusing the marketing push that Microsoft did with some form of technical excellence... Win95 was not any technical advance over the existing (see Apple) technology."
Nope. I'm not claiming MS invented anything. I'm not claiming Apple didn't beat them to it. It seems you ignored my bit about 'build your own machine to boot'. I was actually thinking of Apple when I wrote that.
" You seem to be claiming all the computer advances to be a result of Microsoft's efforts."
Nope. I claimed that more people bought machines because of MS's efforts. (efforts != inventions, don't you dare try to put more words in my mouth.) We're not really all that divergent in opinion here, actually. Pity you're doing more accusing than asking.
>Seriously. Where in the hell did you get that fucked up idea?
When Windows 95 came out the days of setting individual apps to use your hardware (like sound cards) were over. You didn't have to memorize a bunch of stupid dos commands. Installation of apps was as simple as putting in the CD and hitting 'ok' a couple of times. All this, and you could build your own machine to boot.
And since when did filtering out automatic-MS-hate make my ideas 'fucked up'? You can't tell me that the surge of computer purchases starting around the mid-90's wasn't because of the launch of Windows 95.
XP (pro) supports multithreading, just so ya know. I have a dual proc machine at work running it.
Is there a big screaming reason to need XP? Eh, maybe not. But I really do prefer running it on my laptop. I kind of wish my desktop at home (running 2k currently) was running XP. Not so much because I need it to, but it is a friendlier OS. A lot of my day to day normal boring stuff has been enhanced one way or another through XP.
I sort of agree with your statement, though. I mean, it's not like I'm interested enough in shelling out $150 for the upgrade. But if I did, I know I wouldn't look back. XP definitely had a lot of attention paid to the end user experience. *Sigh* I wish Apple'd make a PC OS that would run my existing apps.
The solution seems to me to pick a name that few others would care much about. JADE is a bit too common, IMHO.
Wish I had a better suggestion for you, but I don't. I see an interesting opportunity for you here, though: When you pick a new name, make sure it's so unique that a Google search will turn you up.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't this have been done right in the beginning itself?"
Depends on which question you're asking.
"I want Windows to run faster, should we be performing buffer checks?"
"I want Windows to be more secure, should we be performing buffer checks?"
This is not a rebuttal to your post, simply pointing out that it's not as black and white as that. Security is important, but usability is what made Microsoft a success.
" I don't feel my leisure time programming should be held to the same standard."
You published it. You're responsible for it. That is what entitles you to liability, not whether or not money has changed hands. \
As a self-proclaimed 'professional', I find it unlikely you'd want to risk your job on the creativity of a hacker.
There are other ways to prove you're not a hypocrite, but you're not exactly headed on the right course for that.
I installed SP2 on my TabletPC. Other than the firewall working like it should, it's been just fine. No stability problems. It's nice getting a little thing saying "Are you sure you want this program hitting the internet?" etc.
For you TabletPC owners out there, you'll probably like some of the nicities that pop up. Now when you hover your stylus over a text input field, an icon indicating an On-Screen-Keyboard appears. If you click it, a miniature one appears. This means you don't have to keep the OSK on all the time. Kudos MS.
" Since I haven't made a penny on my project, since I haven't ASKED a penny for my project, since the only reason I even distribute it is because I think other people might enjoy using or modifying it, I am absolutely to be held to a different standard than a piece of commercial software."
Whether money exchanges hands or not, you could be causing damage to other people's machines. The whole point is to protect people, right? They only deserve to be protected if money changes hands? I can't believe that this isn't some "I hate Microsoft" idea if you're not willing to stand behind it.
Sorry, I'm just not sold that you're not a hypocrite. A.) You're spending a lot of energy hiding behind the "I didn't ask anybody for money" excuse, B.) You've tried to justify MS being singled out, C.) We both know that viruses/trojans/exploits aren't always made available because somebody sold somebody else defective software. If you really cared about making software more secure, you wouldn't say "Only companies I don't like would be affected." In other words, you haven't demonstrated to me that you've thought much of the ramifications past "Yay we could ding M$!"
Mods: Hit 'reply' instead of 'overrated'.