Microsoft is big because it defines the standards.
No, Microsfot is big because they picked up IBM's fumble and used that advantage to bugger the third-party apps developers, and hold the hardware companies hostage.
So anytime Microsoft looks to add to an open-standard (you know, the thing open standards are meant to enable) they shouldn't be allowed?
"Allowed" isn't really in question here. MS can of course ship any extension to any standard they feel like, except where limited by contract, as in the case of how they buggered Java. The question at hand is whether anyone else should play along.
My immediate reaction to any "standards" proposed by MS is "eat flaming death, you pack of incompetent marketroids", but I'm open to being convinced that this time will be different. YMMV, but so far, I havent seen an instance where they meant well and delivered.
Manu thousands of people have personally experienced the fact of Windows' unsecurability. That is a fact, which isn't altered by your vitriolic outbursts.
Windows has come a long way in the last 5/6 years and vista should ship reasonably secure out of the box.
How many times have we heard this now?
Sorry, but it wasn't true for NT, it wasn't true for 2K, and it's still not true for XP. Why exactly should anyone expect that this time will be any different?
writing a secure app for Windows is like putting a padlock on a paper bag.
That analogy is very apt. I also like to describe script kiddies as arsonists, and MS as the contractor who keeps building houses out of balsa wood and flash paper, and kindly leaves barrels of kerosene and boxes of matches in easy reach.
When the leader of the Free S/WAN project went up to MS to do some interoperability testing, the first thing he asked was: "Ok, what crypto protocols have you implemented that we can test?" They told him "40-bit DES". That was all. Once he realize that they were serious, he just left.
To MS, "Security" is nothing more than a checkbox on a feature list. They don't care about your data security, and they really don't have the skill to help you if they did care.
was "I do the VeeBee."...which is almost half a step up from "I'm an HTML programmer".
I find that listing MS certs on a resume is a wonderful timesaver. Any resume I get that leads with MS Certified [whatever] is swiftly disposed of, into a strong metal container.
No, people don't take Slashdot seriously because it reeks of ignorant and over-opinionated dorks.
Not opinionated, but experienced. There are reasons why Windows has its dismal reputation, and they have something to do with a decade and a half record of incompetence.
Seriously, you're all pretty much side-show attractions to the rest of the web. Even (your hero) Linus Torvalds thinks of this site as one long, inane, shouting crap-fest.
Be careful with those assumptions, kid. Linus is a nice enough guy, but he's not my hero. I'm not a Linux user myself.
Slashdot Mirror
when they finally do come out with something "on time" (whatever that means) and it's not up to par we give them shit.
So they can't win.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. It is possible to hit promised ship dates with a quality product. Other companies do it all the time.
-jcr
Why? Well, simply because we don't like Microsoft."
More like, we don't trust Microsoft. Keep in mind that this animosity is not undeserved.
-jcr
Microsoft is big because it defines the standards.
No, Microsfot is big because they picked up IBM's fumble and used that advantage to bugger the third-party apps developers, and hold the hardware companies hostage.
-jcr
So anytime Microsoft looks to add to an open-standard (you know, the thing open standards are meant to enable) they shouldn't be allowed?
"Allowed" isn't really in question here. MS can of course ship any extension to any standard they feel like, except where limited by contract, as in the case of how they buggered Java. The question at hand is whether anyone else should play along.
My immediate reaction to any "standards" proposed by MS is "eat flaming death, you pack of incompetent marketroids", but I'm open to being convinced that this time will be different. YMMV, but so far, I havent seen an instance where they meant well and delivered.
-jcr
I'm sure that Thompson could do a better job of arguing a case. (Yes, I know he's dead.)
-jcr
Yes, I truly hate the man
How can you hate someone who is so ineffectual? I reserve hate for people who are actually dangerous to my liberty.
-jcr
Maybe the judge bounced his ass out of there so that the trial would be about the plaintiff's case, rather than Jack's agenda?
Just a thought...
-jcr
I don't find someone believing in young-earth Creationism, or even teaching it to their kids, to be offensive.
I don't know about offensive, but I certainly find it contemptible, and worth of derision.
-jcr
Just because you say that something is a fact, doesn't mean that it actually is.
Do you actually think you can make Windows secure with a "nuh-uh"?
-jcr
But Windows' IPSec supports 56-bit DES, and 3DES.
It does now. It took several years from the time they claimed to offer IPSEC to the time that it was actually worth using.
-jcr
Experienced?!?!! HA!
Manu thousands of people have personally experienced the fact of Windows' unsecurability. That is a fact, which isn't altered by your vitriolic outbursts.
-jcr
Windows has come a long way in the last 5/6 years and vista should ship reasonably secure out of the box.
How many times have we heard this now?
Sorry, but it wasn't true for NT, it wasn't true for 2K, and it's still not true for XP. Why exactly should anyone expect that this time will be any different?
-jcr
writing a secure app for Windows is like putting a padlock on a paper bag.
That analogy is very apt. I also like to describe script kiddies as arsonists, and MS as the contractor who keeps building houses out of balsa wood and flash paper, and kindly leaves barrels of kerosene and boxes of matches in easy reach.
-jcr
When the leader of the Free S/WAN project went up to MS to do some interoperability testing, the first thing he asked was: "Ok, what crypto protocols have you implemented that we can test?" They told him "40-bit DES". That was all. Once he realize that they were serious, he just left.
To MS, "Security" is nothing more than a checkbox on a feature list. They don't care about your data security, and they really don't have the skill to help you if they did care.
-jcr
was "I do the VeeBee." ...which is almost half a step up from "I'm an HTML programmer".
I find that listing MS certs on a resume is a wonderful timesaver. Any resume I get that leads with MS Certified [whatever] is swiftly disposed of, into a strong metal container.
-jcr
Don't forget: the third one is sinking. ;-)
-jcr
No, people don't take Slashdot seriously because it reeks of ignorant and over-opinionated dorks.
Not opinionated, but experienced. There are reasons why Windows has its dismal reputation, and they have something to do with a decade and a half record of incompetence.
Seriously, you're all pretty much side-show attractions to the rest of the web. Even (your hero) Linus Torvalds thinks of this site as one long, inane, shouting crap-fest.
Be careful with those assumptions, kid. Linus is a nice enough guy, but he's not my hero. I'm not a Linux user myself.
What are you, an MSCE or something?
-jcr
With snippets like that starting off an article, you start to see why people have trouble taking Slashdot seriously.
/. seriously if its contributors exhibit a keen grasp of the obvious?
What, people won't take
-jcr
Instead of bashing MS and Windows, prove that you're the better programmer by compensating for the sometimes flawed security.
You can't build a solid wall out of mashed potatoes.
-jcr
It is not theft, it is fraud.
No, it's not even fraud. It's just a very bad deal for the musician.
Let's none of us pretend that the RIAA labels actually intend in good faith to pay out to the artists the amounts stipulated in their contracts.
Prove it in court, and you'll make a fortune on the contingency fee, counselor.
-jcr
Sorry, can't take this seriously at all.
-jcr
Well, intelligence can certainly be ruled out.
-jcr
You can't sue the maker of a legitimate product just because the person using said product has an addictive personality.
You can sue for anything at all. If your suit is frivolous, the court will bitch-slap you.
-jcr
But, won't this cause runaway inflation? Imagine if every guy who's been rejected got rich!
-jcr
and yes, I AM an industrial designer you unsensitive clod!
Is "unsensitive" a typo, or a word they use in Industrial Design school?
-jcr