Is this improvement purely because of the change in software technology or were there simultaneous infrastructure and process modifications? The article doesn't really say.
Agreed. It's a bunch of amateurs writing "production-quality" code and expecting it to be flawless the first time. "Yes mommy, it works! I wrote the code through the night and look, she drives! I don't know why she keeps dying every 40 minutes - must be a Microsoft bug. Those idiots can't even write a decent compiler."
From the description, it sounds very much like their objects were being promoted through to Gen2 and staying alive because they were referenced from the application root. They could have attempted to alleviate this by switching to WeakReferences or queuing calls to run a full garbage collection across all generations. And, hopefully, they were not using finalizers (whole new ball game). Also sounds like they had design issues. I'd like to know why they subscribed already seen obstacle objects to an event. Is the source available somewhere?
If only they had read Jeffrey Richter's book or the articles on garbagecollection on MSDN, they could have got a faint idea with what may be going wrong. Remind me to never ever hire Bryan Cattle as a software dev. He deserves to be in sales or marketing, touting his Princeton credentials and selling bars of soap.
On a much more interesting note, which version of the framework were they using on Windows? Or were they using mono on Windows/Linux?
If the servers are down, why don't you just assume the systems are genuine?
We do. It's important to clarify that this event was not an outage. Our system is designed to default to genuine if the service is disrupted or unavailable. In other words, we designed WGA to give the benefit of the doubt to our customers. If our servers are down, your system will pass validation every time. This event was not the same as an outage because in this case the trusted source of validations itself responded incorrectly.
Sounds like they let a sql n00b into the production database...
"Jimmy, could you get me a report for user #12345678?"
"Sure boss, I'll use my awesome SQL skillz"
clacketty clack... osql.exe... clacketty clack clack
select * from IcqUsers
wait wait wait
"Hmmm, that user is very far down the list. I'll get rid of these earlier records so that record will show up faster."
clacketty clack... delete from IcqUsers where UserID
wait wait wait
"JIMMY WTF ARE YOU DOING???? CANCEL THAT QUERY NOW. YOU'RE RUNNING IT AGAINST THE PRODUCTION DB"
"Yessirsirright now sir!!!!!!!!!"
Good point. However, most Windows vulnerabilities affect Office or IIS or libraries that are not part of the Windows kernel. Still talked about as Windows vulnerabilities.
Sounds like there are two yardsticks. A Linux vulnerability is anything that affects only the kernel. A Windows vulnerability is anything that affects anything that runs on Windows.
Vista does security right. Any kernel exploits discovered till now, inspite of years of beta and RC testing? Why is it that an article tagged with "microsoft" and "vista" has "haha" as a tag, no matter what the content?
Seems Vista's security initiative paid off. No security-related issues to report so Slashdot begins posting headlines about every little twitch that Vista suffers as a serious issue.
I must make it a point to recommend this awesome tool called a "Search Engine" to you. In my humble opinion (IMHO), the best "Search Engine" I know is named Google and is available at www.google.com. It's free and easy to use.. To go there, please click the text that is underlined in the previous sentence. There is a rectangle that us geeks call a "text box" where you can type "words". For example, why don't you type "skype dead hookers" or "skype police investigation" into it and click the button named "Google Search"? You will then be magically transported to a page with lots of things on it that you can click and figure out the answer to your question.
Fellow slashdotters, please add to this comment with more detailed instructions on how to search using Google (screenshots welcome).
Chinnery says he's accepted the fact that he'll have to use the utility to fix his Windows 2000 systems. But, lacking an easily deployable patch, it means he must walk around to tweak each machine in his organization.
Mr. Chinnery needs to stop surfing porn in the office and figure out how to use new-fangled toolkits like Windows Scripting and PsExec. And hire someone with a clue.
You really need to pull your head back onto your shoulders and wonder *why* would Microsoft release a kit to customize IE. Is there a good reason? I mean, do they want anyone besides Microsoft to customize IE? C'mon use your head. Think retro. Think late 1990s. Think *REAAALLLL* hard (cough netscape cough)...
omg yet another slashdot-published microsoft-bashing (love those -s) article. let's try and figure out which email client (outlook, evolution, hotmail, gmail or the one that your mom wrote) currently uses emoticons to tag messages.
c'mon people. this is slashdot. surely there's emoticonmail on sourceforge that lets you collect your email and tag it by emoticon and runs on gentoo (or another esoteric linux distro which could be cited as prior art).
NO?
oh well. so microsoft has no precedent to worry about. definitely no precedent regarding LABELLING email with EMOTICONS. so why is everyone so teen-angsty about microsoft's patent? you didn't think about it first and didn't patent it so they patented it. y'know what... the simplest ideas often bring about a feeling of "oh that's so stupid i coulda done that" but you didn't. too bad. now why don't you stop talkin' sh*t about it and get ready to pay them whatever licensing fees they demand for the next 17 years?
yet another slashdot article bashing microsoft just 'cause it's an article about microsoft.
Have you used Windows Vista or Office 2007? Quoting what you "read somewhere" as authorative without appropriate references is aliased as FUD.
The new Office UI is definitely easier to use than the menu-based hierarchy of previous releases. It's not that Microsoft made the change on a whim - a lot of research went into it. Spend some time reading the Office UI Bible, a series of blog posts by the Office UI Lead PM and try and understand the motivation for the change.
Slashdot Mirror
Do these space planes have the technology to be a viable space shuttle replacement?
Is this improvement purely because of the change in software technology or were there simultaneous infrastructure and process modifications? The article doesn't really say.
Stop wondering and figure it out.
Agreed. It's a bunch of amateurs writing "production-quality" code and expecting it to be flawless the first time. "Yes mommy, it works! I wrote the code through the night and look, she drives! I don't know why she keeps dying every 40 minutes - must be a Microsoft bug. Those idiots can't even write a decent compiler."
From the description, it sounds very much like their objects were being promoted through to Gen2 and staying alive because they were referenced from the application root. They could have attempted to alleviate this by switching to WeakReferences or queuing calls to run a full garbage collection across all generations. And, hopefully, they were not using finalizers (whole new ball game). Also sounds like they had design issues. I'd like to know why they subscribed already seen obstacle objects to an event. Is the source available somewhere?
If only they had read Jeffrey Richter's book or the articles on garbage collection on MSDN, they could have got a faint idea with what may be going wrong. Remind me to never ever hire Bryan Cattle as a software dev. He deserves to be in sales or marketing, touting his Princeton credentials and selling bars of soap.
On a much more interesting note, which version of the framework were they using on Windows? Or were they using mono on Windows/Linux?
"It has been said that XML is like violence; if a little doesn't solve the problem, use more."
It is just you. We've upgraded to Office 2007 on XP already (it works perfectly) with minimal training costs and issues.
You're describing an abused L-1 visa.
Let's make this a survey. I'm the highest paid software architect at my work place. And the lowest paid person here makes over six figures.
Sounds like they let a sql n00b into the production database...
"Jimmy, could you get me a report for user #12345678?"
"Sure boss, I'll use my awesome SQL skillz"
clacketty clack... osql.exe... clacketty clack clack
select * from IcqUsers
wait wait wait
"Hmmm, that user is very far down the list. I'll get rid of these earlier records so that record will show up faster."
clacketty clack... delete from IcqUsers where UserID
wait wait wait
"JIMMY WTF ARE YOU DOING???? CANCEL THAT QUERY NOW. YOU'RE RUNNING IT AGAINST THE PRODUCTION DB"
"Yessirsirright now sir!!!!!!!!!"
and you can complete the story.
Good point. However, most Windows vulnerabilities affect Office or IIS or libraries that are not part of the Windows kernel. Still talked about as Windows vulnerabilities. Sounds like there are two yardsticks. A Linux vulnerability is anything that affects only the kernel. A Windows vulnerability is anything that affects anything that runs on Windows.
Vista does security right. Any kernel exploits discovered till now, inspite of years of beta and RC testing? Why is it that an article tagged with "microsoft" and "vista" has "haha" as a tag, no matter what the content?
Do you have any documented proof for that claim? Or, are you one of those folks that runs gcc on Windows and calls it a Microsoft compiler?
The APIs are documented on MSDN. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/ is free. Have you heard of a little something called the internet?
Seems Vista's security initiative paid off. No security-related issues to report so Slashdot begins posting headlines about every little twitch that Vista suffers as a serious issue.
Patch the hole and release Web 2.0.1. Good thing there's already a Web 3.0 in the works.
I must make it a point to recommend this awesome tool called a "Search Engine" to you. In my humble opinion (IMHO), the best "Search Engine" I know is named Google and is available at www.google.com. It's free and easy to use.. To go there, please click the text that is underlined in the previous sentence. There is a rectangle that us geeks call a "text box" where you can type "words". For example, why don't you type "skype dead hookers" or "skype police investigation" into it and click the button named "Google Search"? You will then be magically transported to a page with lots of things on it that you can click and figure out the answer to your question.
Fellow slashdotters, please add to this comment with more detailed instructions on how to search using Google (screenshots welcome).
So much FUD. He's got a pretty looking site though -- with all those links to Apple properties.
Mr. Chinnery needs to stop surfing porn in the office and figure out how to use new-fangled toolkits like Windows Scripting and PsExec. And hire someone with a clue.
You really need to pull your head back onto your shoulders and wonder *why* would Microsoft release a kit to customize IE. Is there a good reason? I mean, do they want anyone besides Microsoft to customize IE? C'mon use your head. Think retro. Think late 1990s. Think *REAAALLLL* hard (cough netscape cough)...
omg yet another slashdot-published microsoft-bashing (love those -s) article. let's try and figure out which email client (outlook, evolution, hotmail, gmail or the one that your mom wrote) currently uses emoticons to tag messages.
c'mon people. this is slashdot. surely there's emoticonmail on sourceforge that lets you collect your email and tag it by emoticon and runs on gentoo (or another esoteric linux distro which could be cited as prior art).
NO?
oh well. so microsoft has no precedent to worry about. definitely no precedent regarding LABELLING email with EMOTICONS. so why is everyone so teen-angsty about microsoft's patent? you didn't think about it first and didn't patent it so they patented it. y'know what... the simplest ideas often bring about a feeling of "oh that's so stupid i coulda done that" but you didn't. too bad. now why don't you stop talkin' sh*t about it and get ready to pay them whatever licensing fees they demand for the next 17 years?
yet another slashdot article bashing microsoft just 'cause it's an article about microsoft.
Humor, the hallmark of yet another J. Allard led group.
remember Ross Perot...
Why... haven't you heard of the *other* computer?
Have you used Windows Vista or Office 2007? Quoting what you "read somewhere" as authorative without appropriate references is aliased as FUD. The new Office UI is definitely easier to use than the menu-based hierarchy of previous releases. It's not that Microsoft made the change on a whim - a lot of research went into it. Spend some time reading the Office UI Bible, a series of blog posts by the Office UI Lead PM and try and understand the motivation for the change.