Why is it that slashdotters always accuse microsoft of promoting FUD to sell their products, and you then turn around and CONSTANTLY push FUD about the EULAs?
in the name of all thats holy, someone please mod parent up.
when i see people taking issues with posts like this one it makes me wonder if some of the more zealous linux zealots here ever had a real job.
no one is arguing that there is risk associated with running windows vs more secure operating systems. but, common sense should tell you people that the risk of staying needs to be weighed against the cost of moving.
healthcare happens to be the business i work in and i can tell you first hand that this is not a nimble industry when it comes to technology. years back when taking part in a windows 95 migration at a place i worked at (500 desktops or so) i was FLOORED by the number of applications out there being used. maybe 100 or so in total. lots of these were either custom built or specialty applications. when you are in a specific business, sometimes you need REALLY SPECIFIC SOFTWARE. do you jackasses have any idea of what the cost would be to find alternatives for 2 dozen specialized applications, implement them, and retrain potentially hundreds of people? its called common sense!
disclaimer - this post does not imply that i somehow think that windows is very secure or that microsoft is a warm and fuzzy company worthy of everyone's trust.
and the statment: "Regardless of how rhetoric is thrown around, Windows is
everything bad that people say about it" has no rhetoric at all now does it?
should i not buy a general motors vehicle, because what if general motors could go out of business and won't be able to service my automobile?
grow up.
this are all really good points.
estimating work on any large software project is extremely difficult and almost always just comes down to guessing anyways.
a developers estimate isnt necessarily more meaningful than a managers with no hands on development experience, if that manager has lived through enough projects to estimate effectively enough.
developers notoriously under estimate
i can just see the obvious boring replies from the anti MS zealots on this one but....
when windows XP started up the "Send the error message to microsoft" dialog box on crashes they found that something like 1/4 of all crashes reported were due to crappy drivers from a video card company (i've got my guesses but i'll keep them to myself).
so, more hardware and more device drivers produced by more companies is going to equal a greater possibility that consumers will make a bad choice and end up with an unreliable system.
While there is plenty of truth to the problems of lack design, poor coding practices, etc. there are other factors - just as important - that contribute to the state of software today.
many companies have product plans that are put together a year(s) or more in advance, and there is tremendous pressure to meet those dates. rush your time to market and quality is going to suffer every time. thus, buggy commercial software is often the responsibility of executives as much as developers.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that slashdotters always accuse microsoft of promoting FUD to sell their products, and you then turn around and CONSTANTLY push FUD about the EULAs?
i am entirely serious here:
how old are you?
in the name of all thats holy, someone please mod parent up. when i see people taking issues with posts like this one it makes me wonder if some of the more zealous linux zealots here ever had a real job. no one is arguing that there is risk associated with running windows vs more secure operating systems. but, common sense should tell you people that the risk of staying needs to be weighed against the cost of moving. healthcare happens to be the business i work in and i can tell you first hand that this is not a nimble industry when it comes to technology. years back when taking part in a windows 95 migration at a place i worked at (500 desktops or so) i was FLOORED by the number of applications out there being used. maybe 100 or so in total. lots of these were either custom built or specialty applications. when you are in a specific business, sometimes you need REALLY SPECIFIC SOFTWARE. do you jackasses have any idea of what the cost would be to find alternatives for 2 dozen specialized applications, implement them, and retrain potentially hundreds of people? its called common sense! disclaimer - this post does not imply that i somehow think that windows is very secure or that microsoft is a warm and fuzzy company worthy of everyone's trust.
and the statment: "Regardless of how rhetoric is thrown around, Windows is everything bad that people say about it" has no rhetoric at all now does it?
should i not buy a general motors vehicle, because what if general motors could go out of business and won't be able to service my automobile? grow up.
this are all really good points. estimating work on any large software project is extremely difficult and almost always just comes down to guessing anyways. a developers estimate isnt necessarily more meaningful than a managers with no hands on development experience, if that manager has lived through enough projects to estimate effectively enough. developers notoriously under estimate
i can just see the obvious boring replies from the anti MS zealots on this one but.... when windows XP started up the "Send the error message to microsoft" dialog box on crashes they found that something like 1/4 of all crashes reported were due to crappy drivers from a video card company (i've got my guesses but i'll keep them to myself). so, more hardware and more device drivers produced by more companies is going to equal a greater possibility that consumers will make a bad choice and end up with an unreliable system.
While there is plenty of truth to the problems of lack design, poor coding practices, etc. there are other factors - just as important - that contribute to the state of software today. many companies have product plans that are put together a year(s) or more in advance, and there is tremendous pressure to meet those dates. rush your time to market and quality is going to suffer every time. thus, buggy commercial software is often the responsibility of executives as much as developers.
slashdot.org : a bastion of intelligence