I consider the entire Firefox extension mechanism one big vulnerable open door. On Windows, it's no big deal. There is no vulnerability that Firefox enables under Windows that Windows itself doesn't already provide. Under other operating systems with correct separation of programs and data, though (such as anything Unix-like), the extension mechanism is bypassing the operating system's protections.
Linux systems provide applications in root-protected directories, providing protection against userland software (such as viruses) modifying program files. Install Firefox, though, and extensions go into unprotected user directories. This opens the door for viruses to propagate through Firefox itself.
Cryptographically signing extensions won't matter much either, as the people who don't understand how to manage signed packages represent the vast majority of Firefox users.
"If programmers could write code ten times faster, that executes a tenth as quickly, that would actually be a beneficial trade-off for many (most?) organisations."
This sound perfectly reasonable in theory. In practice, however, it's not. Users want speedy development AND speedy execution. I developed a Java image management program for crime scene photos, and the Sheriff Patrol's commander told me flat out: we'll never use this. It's too slow.
I rewrote the program using C++ and Qt, and gained a massive speed improvement. The Sheriff Patrol and detective units have been using it ever since, and they love it. I had been a Java booster for upwards of eight years until then. That was (roughly) three years ago, and I haven't written a line of Java since. I have, however, run my historic Java programs in SUN's most recent JVM. The newer hardware runs it faster, but Qt/C++ still smokes Java. Qt gives me speedy development, and C++ gives me fast execution. It's the best of both worlds.
"I take issue with the assertion that Microsoft or Borland's (bleh, Borland) compiler are that much better."
I write cross platform C++ applications using Linux and Windows, as far down the Windows chain as M.E. My Linux development machine is massive compared to the Windows M.E. machine. The Windows compiler I've been using is Borland's free command line compiler (Visual Studio 6 just royally sucks for language compatibility). The GUI responsiveness on the Windows machine when resizing widgets that automatically layout, using the exact same code as on Linux, is only marginally worse than that of the Linux machine.
It's entirely possible that GCC isn't the main culprit. In this particular case, Windows may simply be making better use of video acceleration than X11. However, I have never seen a benchmark where GCC outperformed either of the other two compilers in runtime speed. I can also see a noticeable difference in speed between two applications compiled on the Windows machine with GCC and either of the other two compilers.
XGL and AIGLX will probably eliminate the visual artifacts, and I hope that the next optimization pass through GCC's C++ system will effectively eliminate the performance disparity between it and the other compilers.
"Even though Win98 is blazing fast on my machine, Xubuntu (light-weight Ubuntu with XFCE) has been as sluggish as Win95 on my other computer..."
My experience over the years leads me to believe there are two major factors (maybe three) working together to cause Linux desktops to continue to be slow loaders, and to give the impression of much worse rendering artifacts (on average):
1) XFree86's (and by inheritance, X.org's) very limited 2D hardware acceleration. This has long been a sticking point, and is FINALLY being resolved by XGL and AIGLX. With the 3D card hardware now doing all the rendering work (even 2D rendering), window movement is like smooth flowing water.
2) GCC, while top notch in adherence to language specifications and portability, does not generate binary code that is as efficient as Microsoft or Borland's compilers. This is very noticeable when compiling the same code base (especially C++ code) on Linux via gcc, and on Windows using Borland and/or Visual C++. The latter two, though, have significant problems adhering to language standards. They also have the advantage of not having to work on anything but x86, so they can make assumptions that GCC has not been able to make. GCC 4 saw a big change in its optimization framework which promises to allow future versions of GCC to substantially catch up.
3) The file loader. Waldo Bastian did a good analysis of the loader problem a few years ago, and the problem still stands. Massive amounts of address fix-ups occur when loading most major Linux applications, causing a noticeable load lag.
For all intents and purposes, Linux has already reached the desktop of everyone who values Freedom over performance. For the vast majority of users, performance trumps liberty many times over. None of these performance issues are insurmountable, and the top two are indeed being actively addressed much more than they have been in the past (they weren't being ignored. They just were not visibly fixed).
The Theora bitstream format is complete and frozen. The reference implementation is alpha, but the format specification is done. It also works quite well (from my end-user perspective).
"Do not lie to your customers when you make a quote for them just to get one contract. Be honest about everything. The most important customers are repeat customers, and you will be #1 on their list if you get them a quality product on time and on budget."
My most recent client tried hounding me for a completion estimate when the project first started, but I refused to give one. I also refused to give a flat bid. I explained to my client that any estimates I gave him would be wild ass guesses, and would reflect reality in any way, shape, or form only by a phenomenal stroke of good luck. I told him that anyone who could give him a realistic estimate would be either lying or padding his bid enormously. I told him that since he has unique needs, and since he didn't know the totality of those needs, the time to completion could not be derived from any past experience anyone had.
I told him that the only way I would be willing to write his software was on an hourly basis, and with weekly deliveries of my progress. He could terminate our contract at any time he became dissatisfied with my progress. I already had a full time job, and could afford to be brutally honest with him. I knew that I was also already his last resort, as he had tried locally and nationally to find someone willing and able to rewrite his entire office operation system.
I held nothing back, promised nothing I couldn't deliver, and kept all the promises I made. He was not happy at first, as he wanted the whole thing done yesterday. However, he accepted my terms -- no promised completion date, no promise that it would even be completed, an hourly rate, and he had a right to weekly demonstrations of my progress.
The software was completely in exactly one year (I started January 1, 2004 and finished January 1, 2005), went into production the day it was completed (to my terror and against my advice) as a total replacement for the old system, and has worked like a champ for over a year and a half.
"After the pigs sprout wings and Macs take over the 95% market share lets see how many proffesonal hackers turn there attention away from Microsoft's products."
That sounds perfectly reasonable, but isn't supported by the evidence. Microsoft Windows has a minority presence in web servers, yet it represents the VAST majority of web site compromises. Windows is successfully targeted the most because it is the easiest to compromise.
"oops, bad math, they can hold out for 666 years based on their market value, forever if you assume they get 4% interest."
You probably forgot to include all of MS' operating costs in that estimate, especially employee salaries and wages. Throw in all the costs of running a huge corporation, and the number of years Microsoft can hold out goes down quite a bit. Add in the likelihood of the fines going way up if Microsoft continues to not comply, and Microsoft will eventually have to either comply or completely pull out of the EU. If the latter, throw in the loss of all of Microsoft's income (Windows + Office) from the EU, and the EU action becomes very significant.
Then the final stroke: development houses around the world find a ripe market for their software on a non-MS system. With Windows no longer having a lock on big software titles, Microsoft's monopoly goes away. Without a monopoly to sustain it, Microsoft goes away.
Microsoft's problem isn't JUST a daily fine. It's the domino effect that follows that would kill the company.
"Where might I find the information indicating that it was due to the "Bush Administration", as opposed to life-long government workers that keep their jobs even when the President swaps out?"
I can't point you to the interview source, but Bush indicated in his first campaign, during a Press interview, that he believed the anti-trust suit against Microsoft should never have been brought. When he got elected, he then appointed an anti-trust chief who went on record saying he didn't believe in anti-trust. This same chief then resigned the position just days after his department essentially dismissed the case against Microsoft.
It's not a smoking gun, but Bush's fingerprints are all over the crime scene.
Re:HFS++ looking pretty sharp now eh?
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 1
"But these are not statements about the physical arrangement of bytes on disk, but the code that manipulates them."
That is neither here nor there. You did not specify which part of the filesystem you were talking about. You just blanketly stated that it could not be done with FAT16, which is not true at all. If you had qualified it with "Microsoft's current implementation of FAT16", then you would have had a point.
Re:HFS++ looking pretty sharp now eh?
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"For example, with FAT16, there's no way to get the file-changed notifications that Spotlight needs to know when to reindex a file."
Of course it can. The filesystem is irrelevant. A feature like this would be present in the driver's "write" function (or at a similar level), and could be implemented in several ways (which I'll skip so as to not get bogged down in details). The storage medium matters not one bit.
"Microsoft buys a bunch of freaking wireless appliances that happen to use Linux, and this warrants a big freaking article?"
Let's recap:
Microsoft: Windows is the be-all and end-all of operating systems. It will obsolete everything else. It is a better Unix than Unix. Blah, blah, blah.
(Linux enters the market and does Unixy stuff way better than Windows)
Microsoft: Linux is no threat to us. Penguins are committing suicide at our Gates (pun intended). Linux has no chance on the desktop, it's usage is diminishing on the server in favor of Windows, and it has almost no presence in the embedded market. Even if it did, Windows still blows it away. Nobody in their right mind would use Linux in an embedded device in favor of Windows. Blah, blah, blah.
Microsoft, the largest and most powerful software company in the world, is now using yet another non-Microsoft software product (embedded Linux) to get things working right; a product that is in direct competition with one of Microsoft's own flagship products, and a product which Microsoft is actively combatting in the marketplace. Yes, this is news. This says that Microsoft doesn't believe in its own products, so why should anyone else?
This would be like a hard drive manufacturer continually bashing a competitor's product to the Press, but then being found to use that same competing product instead of its own.
Microsoft had exactly zero to do with spawning Linux. Linus and RMS did not start Linux and GNU, respectively, for any reason that involved Microsoft. Linus started Linux to access his school account, and RMS started GNU in moral opposition to being otherwise not allowed to share software Freely.
"Microsoft doesn't make a PDF reader, so there's no reason for them to "extend" the PDF spec."
Yes they do, and yes there is. The reader is called "Microsoft Office". Microsoft wants you to have to buy an expensive piece of Microsoft software in order to read what is otherwise a freely available document format (PDF). That is the reason Microsoft will gladly EEE Adobe's PDF.
Adobe may be evil for what they did to Dmitry Skylarov, but they don't hold a candle to Microsoft.
I let Konqueror measure my speed. I am subscribed to a 3mb (megabit) down/512kb up DSL plan. Konqueror measures my downloads at a consistent 300KB+/sec. When uploading to my home computer from work (through sftp), I get a consistent 50KB+/second.
"To the best of my knowledge you get no SLA with commercial DSL or cable accounts either (at least I don't and don't know of anyone who does)."
My workplace had (we have since moved up) a commercial DSL account which was guaranteed xMB (my boss doesn't want me advertising our infrastructure capabilities) throughput at all times. SBC's technicians monitored the lines continuously, and would call us within minutes if their monitoring showed any type of performance degradation.
I went from being a big VB fan (in the early 1990s) to being completely disgusted with it (early 2000s). The reasons why are irrelevant to this discussion.
My suggestion to the original poster is to do what your boss wants. VB will either prove itself useful for this particular project, or prove itself useless for that particular project. If the latter, then you will have all the ammunition you need.
Despite my disgust with VB, rewriting large applications that are already based on it in another language will be even less productive than continuing to maintain the VB versions. The tactic I have taken, however, to rid myself of all my old legacy VB programs is to write all my new applications in a better, more future-proof framework. My bosses eventually came around to see my point of view, and the old applications are being allowed to lapse and die as new applications evolve to replace them.
That approach allows us to continuing functioning under the old applications while giving us all the time we need to develop reliable replacements. This takes all the pressure off of us and allows us to continue working towards the future rather than spending all our time running in place rewriting what we already have.
"However, the student should be taught the 'manual' way first."
That was almost exactly what DaveAtFraud was saying. The introductory courses should not use an IDE. Those courses should expose the students to the underlying principles of the language (including the command line tools). Advanced courses should use an IDE since it will take care of all the little things that are not germane to (and will simply overshadow) what is being taught in the advanced course.
That's not true. On Microsoft Windows, these things tend to happen automatically. Without a whole raft of illegally obtained 3rd party Microsoft Windows security software, I have little chance of blocking most forms of Microsoft Windows malware. Shit will happen automatically without me knowing, and it will automatically affect my entire system. This behavior is built-in and systemic to Microsoft programming practices.
On Linux, I have to first be running a trojan program. I have to either seek out the program or receive it in a spam email.
Nothing will stop a user from intentionally seeking out, installing, and running malware. In this respect, you are correct that all operating systems are on an even keel.
If I receive a precompiled binary through email, I will have to explicitly save it to disk, set the execution bit(s), and explicitly run the program. In a worst case scenerio, my home directory becomes so scrambled by my repeated stupidity that I can't operate under my user account. I then login as the superuser, blow away and recreate my user account, restore my user files from backup, and continue on my way (even if I want to continue doing the stupid stuff that got me into this predicament). My system (and other user accounts) are completely unaffected. For my user files backed up to CD or DVD, I may be looking at a half hour at the most. For my user files backed up to another user account or another hard drive, I'm looking at 5-10 minutes.
Even if the user is running the malware as the superuser, Linux -still- beats out Microsoft Windows. The Linux user will still have to explicitly save it to disk, set the execution bit(s), and explicitly run the program. At this point, though, the user has explicitly chosen to disable most of his system's security. There is nothing Linux can do about that (while still being a usable system).
Linux even beats Microsoft Windows on protecting the user from buffer overflow attacks. On Linux, there are multiple popular programs that perform the same task. A buffer overflow attack must target a specific application, or it will be stopped cold. Even attacking the kernel doesn't guarantee successful malware, as there are multiple versions of the Linux kernel in active use. On Microsoft Windows, it can be reasonably assumed that a large majority of users are using the exact same application, or are using the exact same version of Microsoft Windows, and are therefore equally vulnerable. Even in this area, where Windows has the best chance of being on even footing, Linux wins. The only thing Windows has going for it here is that buffer overflows still happen on Linux. That victory is mitigated, though, because the damage will be naturally quarantined by Linux diversity.
Windows will not, and cannot, be made to be secure as Linux. It is simple against Microsoft's best interests. I could go on for hours with reasons why this is so, but others already have.
"That might be a little harsh. We're seeing increasingly sophisticated phishing stuff -- right down to building a look-alike site of the bank which they are pretending to be."
There is absolutely nothing sophisticated about phishing. It is rudimentary at best, and 100% avoidable.
1) If you get business-looking email from someone you don't have an existing business relationship with, it's not legitimate.
2) If you get email with a link to a site you have a business relation with, then type in the URL from the paperwork you got when that business relationship originated; or create a bookmark with the URL manually entered, and use that bookmark to go to the site (all bets are off, though, if you're using Microsoft Internet Explorer). This is especially crucial for banking.
3) If in doubt, use the contact information on the original business paperwork to discuss business.
That's it. You are now phishing free. The sharp-eyed among you may have recognized that these steps are no different than those used for postal mail. These types of scams have been in operation since the dawn of commerce. The only thing that has changed is the delivery mechanism.
I am astonished that people abandon their common sense at the modem (this isn't aimed at the poster. It's just a general observation made at a convenient moment).
I am a complete automotive layman. If you wanted to give me a free alternator, I would ask what was wrong with it. If I didn't know you personally, I would decline. If you wanted to give me an entire crate of free alternators, I would probably call the cops to find out if they were stolen.
I am also a banking know-nothing. If I got a random (smail)mailing from my bank saying I won a cruise if only I would supply my bank account number and a copy of my signature, I would discard it without a second thought (or a first one). I wouldn't even call my bank to see if there were any truth to it.
One doesn't have to be even remotely computer literate to classify and filter phishing and spam. A person only has to rub together two simple brain cells to stay safe. These scams have been going on since the dawn of commerce. The only thing that has changed is the transport medium.
All of the examples listed on that site are spam. Period. I don't know any of the people in the emails, so they would get (correctly) designated as spam. It doesn't matter if the emails originated at legitimate sites or not.
"No, internet was brought on as a collbration tool used by universities."
You're at least closer than the parents. The Internet was created as a U.S. Defense Department research experiment. Universities were (relatively) early adopters.
"While I have great hopes for the Wii and its controller, I've never found the I/O device to a game to have too much of an impact on my enjoyment."
The controllers are the primary reason my consoles don't see a lot of action compared to my PC. The Wii's Nunchuck controller is the single reason why I will buy one. I won't buy another Playstation, despite the relatively killer visuals and otherwise interesting gameplay of its main titles, and the X-Box is a non-starter. If not for the Nunchuck, I wouldn't be buying a Wii either.
Even if the Wii's graphics were not as good as the other consoles, the dramatic increase in playability created by the Nunchuck would compensate for it many times over.
Slashdot Mirror
"Note that this isn't a Firefox vulnerability."
I consider the entire Firefox extension mechanism one big vulnerable open door. On Windows, it's no big deal. There is no vulnerability that Firefox enables under Windows that Windows itself doesn't already provide. Under other operating systems with correct separation of programs and data, though (such as anything Unix-like), the extension mechanism is bypassing the operating system's protections.
Linux systems provide applications in root-protected directories, providing protection against userland software (such as viruses) modifying program files. Install Firefox, though, and extensions go into unprotected user directories. This opens the door for viruses to propagate through Firefox itself.
Cryptographically signing extensions won't matter much either, as the people who don't understand how to manage signed packages represent the vast majority of Firefox users.
"If programmers could write code ten times faster, that executes a tenth as quickly, that would actually be a beneficial trade-off for many (most?) organisations."
This sound perfectly reasonable in theory. In practice, however, it's not. Users want speedy development AND speedy execution. I developed a Java image management program for crime scene photos, and the Sheriff Patrol's commander told me flat out: we'll never use this. It's too slow.
I rewrote the program using C++ and Qt, and gained a massive speed improvement. The Sheriff Patrol and detective units have been using it ever since, and they love it. I had been a Java booster for upwards of eight years until then. That was (roughly) three years ago, and I haven't written a line of Java since. I have, however, run my historic Java programs in SUN's most recent JVM. The newer hardware runs it faster, but Qt/C++ still smokes Java. Qt gives me speedy development, and C++ gives me fast execution. It's the best of both worlds.
"I take issue with the assertion that Microsoft or Borland's (bleh, Borland) compiler are that much better."
I write cross platform C++ applications using Linux and Windows, as far down the Windows chain as M.E. My Linux development machine is massive compared to the Windows M.E. machine. The Windows compiler I've been using is Borland's free command line compiler (Visual Studio 6 just royally sucks for language compatibility). The GUI responsiveness on the Windows machine when resizing widgets that automatically layout, using the exact same code as on Linux, is only marginally worse than that of the Linux machine.
It's entirely possible that GCC isn't the main culprit. In this particular case, Windows may simply be making better use of video acceleration than X11. However, I have never seen a benchmark where GCC outperformed either of the other two compilers in runtime speed. I can also see a noticeable difference in speed between two applications compiled on the Windows machine with GCC and either of the other two compilers.
XGL and AIGLX will probably eliminate the visual artifacts, and I hope that the next optimization pass through GCC's C++ system will effectively eliminate the performance disparity between it and the other compilers.
"Even though Win98 is blazing fast on my machine, Xubuntu (light-weight Ubuntu with XFCE) has been as sluggish as Win95 on my other computer..."
My experience over the years leads me to believe there are two major factors (maybe three) working together to cause Linux desktops to continue to be slow loaders, and to give the impression of much worse rendering artifacts (on average):
1) XFree86's (and by inheritance, X.org's) very limited 2D hardware acceleration. This has long been a sticking point, and is FINALLY being resolved by XGL and AIGLX. With the 3D card hardware now doing all the rendering work (even 2D rendering), window movement is like smooth flowing water.
2) GCC, while top notch in adherence to language specifications and portability, does not generate binary code that is as efficient as Microsoft or Borland's compilers. This is very noticeable when compiling the same code base (especially C++ code) on Linux via gcc, and on Windows using Borland and/or Visual C++. The latter two, though, have significant problems adhering to language standards. They also have the advantage of not having to work on anything but x86, so they can make assumptions that GCC has not been able to make. GCC 4 saw a big change in its optimization framework which promises to allow future versions of GCC to substantially catch up.
3) The file loader. Waldo Bastian did a good analysis of the loader problem a few years ago, and the problem still stands. Massive amounts of address fix-ups occur when loading most major Linux applications, causing a noticeable load lag.
For all intents and purposes, Linux has already reached the desktop of everyone who values Freedom over performance. For the vast majority of users, performance trumps liberty many times over. None of these performance issues are insurmountable, and the top two are indeed being actively addressed much more than they have been in the past (they weren't being ignored. They just were not visibly fixed).
"theora is still alpha software."
The Theora bitstream format is complete and frozen. The reference implementation is alpha, but the format specification is done. It also works quite well (from my end-user perspective).
"Do not lie to your customers when you make a quote for them just to get one contract. Be honest about everything. The most important customers are repeat customers, and you will be #1 on their list if you get them a quality product on time and on budget."
My most recent client tried hounding me for a completion estimate when the project first started, but I refused to give one. I also refused to give a flat bid. I explained to my client that any estimates I gave him would be wild ass guesses, and would reflect reality in any way, shape, or form only by a phenomenal stroke of good luck. I told him that anyone who could give him a realistic estimate would be either lying or padding his bid enormously. I told him that since he has unique needs, and since he didn't know the totality of those needs, the time to completion could not be derived from any past experience anyone had.
I told him that the only way I would be willing to write his software was on an hourly basis, and with weekly deliveries of my progress. He could terminate our contract at any time he became dissatisfied with my progress. I already had a full time job, and could afford to be brutally honest with him. I knew that I was also already his last resort, as he had tried locally and nationally to find someone willing and able to rewrite his entire office operation system.
I held nothing back, promised nothing I couldn't deliver, and kept all the promises I made. He was not happy at first, as he wanted the whole thing done yesterday. However, he accepted my terms -- no promised completion date, no promise that it would even be completed, an hourly rate, and he had a right to weekly demonstrations of my progress.
The software was completely in exactly one year (I started January 1, 2004 and finished January 1, 2005), went into production the day it was completed (to my terror and against my advice) as a total replacement for the old system, and has worked like a champ for over a year and a half.
"After the pigs sprout wings and Macs take over the 95% market share lets see how many proffesonal hackers turn there attention away from Microsoft's products."
That sounds perfectly reasonable, but isn't supported by the evidence. Microsoft Windows has a minority presence in web servers, yet it represents the VAST majority of web site compromises. Windows is successfully targeted the most because it is the easiest to compromise.
"oops, bad math, they can hold out for 666 years based on their market value, forever if you assume they get 4% interest."
You probably forgot to include all of MS' operating costs in that estimate, especially employee salaries and wages. Throw in all the costs of running a huge corporation, and the number of years Microsoft can hold out goes down quite a bit. Add in the likelihood of the fines going way up if Microsoft continues to not comply, and Microsoft will eventually have to either comply or completely pull out of the EU. If the latter, throw in the loss of all of Microsoft's income (Windows + Office) from the EU, and the EU action becomes very significant.
Then the final stroke: development houses around the world find a ripe market for their software on a non-MS system. With Windows no longer having a lock on big software titles, Microsoft's monopoly goes away. Without a monopoly to sustain it, Microsoft goes away.
Microsoft's problem isn't JUST a daily fine. It's the domino effect that follows that would kill the company.
"Where might I find the information indicating that it was due to the "Bush Administration", as opposed to life-long government workers that keep their jobs even when the President swaps out?"
I can't point you to the interview source, but Bush indicated in his first campaign, during a Press interview, that he believed the anti-trust suit against Microsoft should never have been brought. When he got elected, he then appointed an anti-trust chief who went on record saying he didn't believe in anti-trust. This same chief then resigned the position just days after his department essentially dismissed the case against Microsoft.
It's not a smoking gun, but Bush's fingerprints are all over the crime scene.
"But these are not statements about the physical arrangement of bytes on disk, but the code that manipulates them."
That is neither here nor there. You did not specify which part of the filesystem you were talking about. You just blanketly stated that it could not be done with FAT16, which is not true at all. If you had qualified it with "Microsoft's current implementation of FAT16", then you would have had a point.
"For example, with FAT16, there's no way to get the file-changed notifications that Spotlight needs to know when to reindex a file."
Of course it can. The filesystem is irrelevant. A feature like this would be present in the driver's "write" function (or at a similar level), and could be implemented in several ways (which I'll skip so as to not get bogged down in details). The storage medium matters not one bit.
"Microsoft buys a bunch of freaking wireless appliances that happen to use Linux, and this warrants a big freaking article?"
Let's recap:
Microsoft: Windows is the be-all and end-all of operating systems. It will obsolete everything else. It is a better Unix than Unix. Blah, blah, blah.
(Linux enters the market and does Unixy stuff way better than Windows)
Microsoft: Linux is no threat to us. Penguins are committing suicide at our Gates (pun intended). Linux has no chance on the desktop, it's usage is diminishing on the server in favor of Windows, and it has almost no presence in the embedded market. Even if it did, Windows still blows it away. Nobody in their right mind would use Linux in an embedded device in favor of Windows. Blah, blah, blah.
Microsoft, the largest and most powerful software company in the world, is now using yet another non-Microsoft software product (embedded Linux) to get things working right; a product that is in direct competition with one of Microsoft's own flagship products, and a product which Microsoft is actively combatting in the marketplace. Yes, this is news. This says that Microsoft doesn't believe in its own products, so why should anyone else?
This would be like a hard drive manufacturer continually bashing a competitor's product to the Press, but then being found to use that same competing product instead of its own.
..."but [Microsoft] also helped spawn Linux"....
Microsoft had exactly zero to do with spawning Linux. Linus and RMS did not start Linux and GNU, respectively, for any reason that involved Microsoft. Linus started Linux to access his school account, and RMS started GNU in moral opposition to being otherwise not allowed to share software Freely.
"Science does not work to disprove religion..."
That's correct. It's just a happy coincidence.
"Microsoft doesn't make a PDF reader, so there's no reason for them to "extend" the PDF spec."
Yes they do, and yes there is. The reader is called "Microsoft Office". Microsoft wants you to have to buy an expensive piece of Microsoft software in order to read what is otherwise a freely available document format (PDF). That is the reason Microsoft will gladly EEE Adobe's PDF.
Adobe may be evil for what they did to Dmitry Skylarov, but they don't hold a candle to Microsoft.
I let Konqueror measure my speed. I am subscribed to a 3mb (megabit) down/512kb up DSL plan. Konqueror measures my downloads at a consistent 300KB+/sec. When uploading to my home computer from work (through sftp), I get a consistent 50KB+/second.
I am getting what I'm paying for.
"To the best of my knowledge you get no SLA with commercial DSL or cable accounts either (at least I don't and don't know of anyone who does)."
My workplace had (we have since moved up) a commercial DSL account which was guaranteed xMB (my boss doesn't want me advertising our infrastructure capabilities) throughput at all times. SBC's technicians monitored the lines continuously, and would call us within minutes if their monitoring showed any type of performance degradation.
I went from being a big VB fan (in the early 1990s) to being completely disgusted with it (early 2000s). The reasons why are irrelevant to this discussion.
My suggestion to the original poster is to do what your boss wants. VB will either prove itself useful for this particular project, or prove itself useless for that particular project. If the latter, then you will have all the ammunition you need.
Despite my disgust with VB, rewriting large applications that are already based on it in another language will be even less productive than continuing to maintain the VB versions. The tactic I have taken, however, to rid myself of all my old legacy VB programs is to write all my new applications in a better, more future-proof framework. My bosses eventually came around to see my point of view, and the old applications are being allowed to lapse and die as new applications evolve to replace them.
That approach allows us to continuing functioning under the old applications while giving us all the time we need to develop reliable replacements. This takes all the pressure off of us and allows us to continue working towards the future rather than spending all our time running in place rewriting what we already have.
"You didn't read the blurb right, they said it's for WORKING people ..."
Whew, that was close. I've been told my entire life that I must have some serious defects, so I finally hit paydirt!
"However, the student should be taught the 'manual' way first."
That was almost exactly what DaveAtFraud was saying. The introductory courses should not use an IDE. Those courses should expose the students to the underlying principles of the language (including the command line tools). Advanced courses should use an IDE since it will take care of all the little things that are not germane to (and will simply overshadow) what is being taught in the advanced course.
I agree entirely.
That's not true. On Microsoft Windows, these things tend to happen automatically. Without a whole raft of illegally obtained 3rd party Microsoft Windows security software, I have little chance of blocking most forms of Microsoft Windows malware. Shit will happen automatically without me knowing, and it will automatically affect my entire system. This behavior is built-in and systemic to Microsoft programming practices.
On Linux, I have to first be running a trojan program. I have to either seek out the program or receive it in a spam email.
Nothing will stop a user from intentionally seeking out, installing, and running malware. In this respect, you are correct that all operating systems are on an even keel.
If I receive a precompiled binary through email, I will have to explicitly save it to disk, set the execution bit(s), and explicitly run the program. In a worst case scenerio, my home directory becomes so scrambled by my repeated stupidity that I can't operate under my user account. I then login as the superuser, blow away and recreate my user account, restore my user files from backup, and continue on my way (even if I want to continue doing the stupid stuff that got me into this predicament). My system (and other user accounts) are completely unaffected. For my user files backed up to CD or DVD, I may be looking at a half hour at the most. For my user files backed up to another user account or another hard drive, I'm looking at 5-10 minutes.
Even if the user is running the malware as the superuser, Linux -still- beats out Microsoft Windows. The Linux user will still have to explicitly save it to disk, set the execution bit(s), and explicitly run the program. At this point, though, the user has explicitly chosen to disable most of his system's security. There is nothing Linux can do about that (while still being a usable system).
Linux even beats Microsoft Windows on protecting the user from buffer overflow attacks. On Linux, there are multiple popular programs that perform the same task. A buffer overflow attack must target a specific application, or it will be stopped cold. Even attacking the kernel doesn't guarantee successful malware, as there are multiple versions of the Linux kernel in active use. On Microsoft Windows, it can be reasonably assumed that a large majority of users are using the exact same application, or are using the exact same version of Microsoft Windows, and are therefore equally vulnerable. Even in this area, where Windows has the best chance of being on even footing, Linux wins. The only thing Windows has going for it here is that buffer overflows still happen on Linux. That victory is mitigated, though, because the damage will be naturally quarantined by Linux diversity.
Windows will not, and cannot, be made to be secure as Linux. It is simple against Microsoft's best interests. I could go on for hours with reasons why this is so, but others already have.
"That might be a little harsh. We're seeing increasingly sophisticated phishing stuff -- right down to building a look-alike site of the bank which they are pretending to be."
There is absolutely nothing sophisticated about phishing. It is rudimentary at best, and 100% avoidable.
1) If you get business-looking email from someone you don't have an existing business relationship with, it's not legitimate.
2) If you get email with a link to a site you have a business relation with, then type in the URL from the paperwork you got when that business relationship originated; or create a bookmark with the URL manually entered, and use that bookmark to go to the site (all bets are off, though, if you're using Microsoft Internet Explorer). This is especially crucial for banking.
3) If in doubt, use the contact information on the original business paperwork to discuss business.
That's it. You are now phishing free. The sharp-eyed among you may have recognized that these steps are no different than those used for postal mail. These types of scams have been in operation since the dawn of commerce. The only thing that has changed is the delivery mechanism.
I am astonished that people abandon their common sense at the modem (this isn't aimed at the poster. It's just a general observation made at a convenient moment).
[free alternator exampled snipped]
I am a complete automotive layman. If you wanted to give me a free alternator, I would ask what was wrong with it. If I didn't know you personally, I would decline. If you wanted to give me an entire crate of free alternators, I would probably call the cops to find out if they were stolen.
I am also a banking know-nothing. If I got a random (smail)mailing from my bank saying I won a cruise if only I would supply my bank account number and a copy of my signature, I would discard it without a second thought (or a first one). I wouldn't even call my bank to see if there were any truth to it.
One doesn't have to be even remotely computer literate to classify and filter phishing and spam. A person only has to rub together two simple brain cells to stay safe. These scams have been going on since the dawn of commerce. The only thing that has changed is the transport medium.
All of the examples listed on that site are spam. Period. I don't know any of the people in the emails, so they would get (correctly) designated as spam. It doesn't matter if the emails originated at legitimate sites or not.
"No, internet was brought on as a collbration tool used by universities."
You're at least closer than the parents. The Internet was created as a U.S. Defense Department research experiment. Universities were (relatively) early adopters.
"While I have great hopes for the Wii and its controller, I've never found the I/O device to a game to have too much of an impact on my enjoyment."
The controllers are the primary reason my consoles don't see a lot of action compared to my PC. The Wii's Nunchuck controller is the single reason why I will buy one. I won't buy another Playstation, despite the relatively killer visuals and otherwise interesting gameplay of its main titles, and the X-Box is a non-starter. If not for the Nunchuck, I wouldn't be buying a Wii either.
Even if the Wii's graphics were not as good as the other consoles, the dramatic increase in playability created by the Nunchuck would compensate for it many times over.