Ranks right up there with "noone."
No one writes "noone" anymore.
Did anyone else happen to read these lines...
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Gary McGraw, Cigital's chief technology officer, said Microsoft apparently adopted a technique for improving its compiler that has been used with the Linux operating system and shown to be vulnerable to attack. As a result, he said, Visual C++.NET isn't actually more safe than earlier versions; in fact, it could lead programmers to write more programs that are vulnerable to buffer-overflow attacks.
"They were trying to avoid flaws, but instead managed to create a flaw seeder," Mr. McGraw said.
... in the MSNBC article? This sounds like the flaw came from a Linux source. Did everyone just stop at the Salon article and start the blind Microsoft bashing without perusing the other articles?
Besides, we've got to face the facts: It really isn't Bill, and it really isn't Microsoft. If IBM or Apple or some Linux distro had achieved the same degree of insane success that Microsoft has with Windows, everyone would be pissing and moaning about them instead, every security consultant would be pointing out their flaws (and it would be "news" when they did it), and every virus writer and security hacker would be targeting that platform instead of Windows. Scott McNealy and Larry Ellision, Gates's greatest detractors, really don't want to see the world improved or innovation protected... they just want to trade places (or at least wallets) with Bill.
Any zealous Mac, Linux, Amiga, BeOS, or [insert OS here] user thinks that their OS should have "won." If they had, would anything really be any different? The major difference would be in the targets, not in the ammunition.
You can certainly remove IE as a program, since it's just a container for the browser components. However, Microsoft has integrated these same components deeply into the OS so that Help, installation wizards, and other types of content and documents (Word, Excel) are rendered using the same engine. It's certainly modularized, but to remove the browser component would have farther reaching effects on the OS (as well as many third party applications) than many want to admit.
There is the notion of the right tool for the right job and, as you can tell from these threads, everyone seems to have a different idea about what the right tool is. I don't quite understand why your boss feels like you need to find this one super-language. Most development projects these days span multiple platforms and software domains, from desktop to server to web. Different languages offer different strengths in different areas. Different programmers have different skill levels in different languages, and different preferences in development environments. What is the percentage in attempting to enforce such a heterogenous environment? Wouldn't you be better off to find a compatible suite of tools based upon the platform and the problem? Couldn't you better capitalize on the strengths of your development team by choosing appropriate languages and tools for each application layer? One size doesn't fit all, otherwise we'd all be programming in Java.
Along the same vein I cant believe Xerox hasnt made a stink about this. You think they would have learned their lesson after not screaming about the mouse, GUI, etc . . .
Xerox is busy going after Palm (USR) over Graffiti, so it appears that maybe they have learned their lesson.
Slashdot Mirror
Ranks right up there with "noone." No one writes "noone" anymore.
Gary McGraw, Cigital's chief technology officer, said Microsoft apparently adopted a technique for improving its compiler that has been used with the Linux operating system and shown to be vulnerable to attack. As a result, he said, Visual C++.NET isn't actually more safe than earlier versions; in fact, it could lead programmers to write more programs that are vulnerable to buffer-overflow attacks.
"They were trying to avoid flaws, but instead managed to create a flaw seeder," Mr. McGraw said.
Besides, we've got to face the facts: It really isn't Bill, and it really isn't Microsoft. If IBM or Apple or some Linux distro had achieved the same degree of insane success that Microsoft has with Windows, everyone would be pissing and moaning about them instead, every security consultant would be pointing out their flaws (and it would be "news" when they did it), and every virus writer and security hacker would be targeting that platform instead of Windows. Scott McNealy and Larry Ellision, Gates's greatest detractors, really don't want to see the world improved or innovation protected... they just want to trade places (or at least wallets) with Bill.
Any zealous Mac, Linux, Amiga, BeOS, or [insert OS here] user thinks that their OS should have "won." If they had, would anything really be any different? The major difference would be in the targets, not in the ammunition.
You can certainly remove IE as a program, since it's just a container for the browser components. However, Microsoft has integrated these same components deeply into the OS so that Help, installation wizards, and other types of content and documents (Word, Excel) are rendered using the same engine. It's certainly modularized, but to remove the browser component would have farther reaching effects on the OS (as well as many third party applications) than many want to admit.
There is the notion of the right tool for the right job and, as you can tell from these threads, everyone seems to have a different idea about what the right tool is. I don't quite understand why your boss feels like you need to find this one super-language. Most development projects these days span multiple platforms and software domains, from desktop to server to web. Different languages offer different strengths in different areas. Different programmers have different skill levels in different languages, and different preferences in development environments. What is the percentage in attempting to enforce such a heterogenous environment? Wouldn't you be better off to find a compatible suite of tools based upon the platform and the problem? Couldn't you better capitalize on the strengths of your development team by choosing appropriate languages and tools for each application layer? One size doesn't fit all, otherwise we'd all be programming in Java.
Along the same vein I cant believe Xerox hasnt made a stink about this. You think they would have learned their lesson after not screaming about the mouse, GUI, etc . . .
Xerox is busy going after Palm (USR) over Graffiti, so it appears that maybe they have learned their lesson.