I've made Win2K crash pretty spectacularly: I played a videogame (I think it was called Revolution) which would periodically BSOD me. Out of nowhere, I'd frag one of the shock troops trying to kill me, and BLAM! A nice, pretty blue screen with white text across the top two lines (which is an NT blue screen, kinda cool actually). I was going nuts trying to figure out how they managed to pull that off, so I asked a coworker who's done API work on Windows. He said they were probably trying to make Windows 98-related API calls and choking NT, which is the basis for 2000.
Or something like that. I'm not up on that level of Windows development, so it sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.
Anyway, never underestimate an application's ability to BSOD windows! Heh heh...
The segment of the pro-linux population which is frothing at the mouth always tries to attack Windows on stability grounds, which I think is unfortunate. I wish they would concentrate on FAIR criticisms, because then they'd get a lot further.
Here's MY fair criticism of Windows with reference to Linux and Mac OS/X:
Windows DEFINITELY has security problems. Serious ones. It is VERY DIFFICULT to keep a Windows box connected to the net without having something happen to it sooner or later. This is a very good reason to not use Windows, and it is the real reason people should shift to Linux, *BSD, and Mac OS/X. The Unix model in general is architected from the ground up to be more secure than Windows. It was multiuser back in '73, ok? THINK about that. Unix-based systems have a TWENTY YEAR HEAD START on Windows when it comes to multiuser security. That's an advantage that's hard to beat.
Although it is true that an unpatched, unsecured Linux is just as vulnerable as Windows (so maybe a naiive user shouldn't attempt to use it) in the hands of a techie who knows what he's doing, Linux can be armored in no time at all. And once armored, it's more secure than ANY Windows machine. This is even more true for the BSD's, especially OpenBSD. Would I inflict a Linux/BSD operating system on a naiive user, say, an aunt? No, of course not. Although some recent distros are getting much easier to use, so my opinion on that might change soon.
For naiive users, you just can't beat Mac OS/X. It's easy to use, it's secure, it doesn't auto-install worms and trojans...
And, I don't mean to be rude, but how exactly do you KNOW your XP box hasn't been attacked? If a worm or trojan had been successfully installed, you would never see any sign of it (other than a slight slowdown, which on a fast machine would be VERY hard to notice). The basic fact is, you don't have any idea whether your XP box has been compromised or not.
This is a real problem for Windows. Whether the O/S is more stable now or not is irrelevant. The PROBLEM is the hacking/virus activity. And, Microsoft only has their own business unit to blame, they made the decisions that led to this point.
While I admit that the main article DOES seem to be astroturfing, and the article on software development (although definitely interesting philosophically) is definitely a PR exercise for Microsoft, this poster was just saying that there are some good teams at Microsoft so it's not fair to tar them all with the same brush. What's wrong with that?
Visual Studio is a great development system, for example. Obviously at least SOME people at Microsoft really know what they're doing. So what's wrong with his point?
Be nice, come on. We're all supposed to be friends here.
And, by the way: I don't work at Microsoft, and I don't even use their products at home (I use Mac OS/X and Slackware). I use them at work, but that's not by choice. So you can't really call me an astroturfer, can you?
I think a lot of people like to simplify and generalize, because it means they don't have to actually THINK about the points they're making -- like the people who say all Microsoft software is buggy. They can't tolerate shades of grey, so they boil everything down to black and white. You're absolutely right when you say Microsoft is a big place, with a lot of great teams. And it isn't fair to tar them all with the same brush.
I'm personally not very fond of Microsoft software because I don't like the BUSINESS DECISIONS they make. Specifically, when they trade security for functionality, and overbuild certain products (like Outlook, for instance, in which they put WAY too much "functionality" and shot themselves in the foot). But I don't think for an instant that they're bad at software development. I think their business decisions result in poorly designed consumer software. I think a lot of people totally miss this point, and end up misdirecting their criticism. It's not the programmers; it's the business strategy types that are screwing things up (IMHO).
Their development tools are top-notch, probably because programmers in those groups are allowed to build what they actually want to use. I absolutely LOVE Visual Studio.Net. I wish to GOD there was an equivalent for Java and non-Windows C++ development (I don't think any of the products currently on the market really hold up in comparison -- not that they're bad, just, you know, not quite as good).
Intellisense alone has saved me a humongous amount of time. Let alone their magnificent form design tools.
Well, I just discovered my iBook is in the range affected, so I'm going to be selling it on Ebay and replacing it with a Panasonic Toughbook 28. Freakin' indestructible, and very Linux friendly!
Actually, I posted earlier about my huge, frying-pan like hands. Now, I post under my nickname! And elaborate:
My hands are HUGE. I mean, when I spread out my fingers, they're nine inches across. They're these huge, hairy-knuckled mitts, ok? When I make a fist, it's half the size of a guy's entire FACE.
I really love the XBox controller, because it's so roomy. My hands feel really comfortable wrapped around it. I find it a lot more comfy than the Playstation controller (I was like, Man, the Japanese must have really tiny hands!), which was just TEENSY. I cramp up in no time on the PS2 controller.
Don't get me wrong; I ADORE my PS2. I bought a third-party controller which was a lot bigger, and I'm really comfortable with that one. But the stock ones drove me nuts.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Remember us big, hamfisted guys when you consider the XBox controller. Maybe Microsoft's controller design team grew up in a blue-collar town like me?
Hell, yeah! Ok, let me add my light to yours, maybe Microsoft will find it illuminating...
1. You can't compare the PS1->PS2 changeover to an XBox1->XBox2 changeover for one major reason: the videogames available on XBox2 are already very high quality, both in graphics and interface. I think that around 2000 (maybe a little before; when was Quake II released?) game graphics reached a quality level where they were "good enough" to be realistic and immersive. They weren't clunky anymore, they weren't pixellated, and the level of detail was high. The Playstation II started out at this level, and the XBox started out at a slightly higher level. These two consoles, as a result, were the first that could really compete head-on with PC gaming.
If you think about it, this is kind of a tipping point, a point at which additional improvements are incremental rather than revolutionary. You could make the case that some of the things that are going on right now, like normal mapping, are semi-revolutionary, but I don't think they add that much. For example, I thought Deus Ex Invisible War looked pretty good, and although Riddick was a little more high-definition, Deus Ex did shadows better (IMHO).
The point is, any additional improvements XBox2 adds will be just incremental rather than the huge leap that happened before (like between PS1 and PS2).
2. Microsoft wants to kill off the older games because it's convenient for them. First of all, they can force people to buy a load of new games (at least, they think they can). Second, they can get away with totally changing the platform to save money (chip, graphic card, etc) without having to worry about all that pesky backwards compatability. Third, they can stick it to all the people who modded the XBox1 by leaving out the hard drive and changing the processor. They think they can act like they have a monopoly here, even though they're kind of a small fish in the console market so far. I think it's arrogant and stupid of them, but we'll see what happens.
3. Now that I know Microsoft is going to do this to me, I won't be buying an XBox2. I'll save my money for a PS3 instead, because backwards compatability IS important to me. I'm not going to want to throw out my fairly good collection of excellent games just because BillG wants to play rough.
And here we get back to point number 1: The existing set of XBox games is really great! They look great, they play very well, they're just a lot of fun. Because they've already passed that tipping point I mentioned. So, if Microsoft expects us to trash all our existing, high-quality games and pay them our hard-earned cash for their new console, I say they can kiss my ass. I'll keep my existing XBox, I'll buy and trade used games, and for new games, I'll stick with Sony -- who actually CARES about what I want to do with my console.
Ok, that's just my personal take on it, I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. But I think you and I are in agreement about this, at least. Backwards compatability, BillG -- or else we'll ignore your new console and you'll have a money pit on your hands.:)
Of course Windows clusters! It's the system of choice for initiating top-quality clusterfucks. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to figure out a way to get your linux and OS/X boxes clusterfucked anywhere NEAR as bad as Windows is right out of the box!
My, my my. You poor, unfortunate soul. Surely you're on the list for a sense of humor transplant? I hope someone sufficiently humorous dies soon so you can GET THE FUCKING JOKE.
Dipshit.
Of course, your counterpoints were even more full of shit than anything I've ever said. But, that's ok, I don't mind. It adds to the humor. I know, you don't get it. Be patient, it'll come to you.
Nah... The way I see it, Kurtz represents full-time employees who have to handle the upgrade, and are basically already bonkers from past upgrades. It's not too far off; I almost put some tiki torches and faux shrunken heads outside my cubicle (the boss vetoed it, said it would frighten the already skittish users -- I said, "Yes.").
Kilgore represents consultants who are having the time of their lives racking up zillions of billable hours while the IT systems they're working on get more clusterfucked (like Kilgore's men surfing while an entire village is destroyed in a cataclysmic battle and non-surfers become casualties). Charlie don't surf!
I think maybe Willard could be played by Tux, coming in to quietly put us out of our misery, steal the consultant's surfboards, and end the chaos that is Microsoft... Maybe?
Mac OS/X 10.2.8, with all services turned off and the firewall turned on, denying everything, and all Directory Access protocols turned off (what can I say, I'm a little paranoid). I also have a hardware firewall between my laptop and my cable modem. Belt and suspenders, right?
I don't use Safari because it doesn't seem to be too stable on my machine for some reason (gypsy curse?). If I install it, it crashes on some of the sites I visit (I think this is a Java issue of some kind). So I deleted it.
For a browser, I generally use Mozilla 1.6, although I like to play with Firefox and Camino, too. I'll probably switch to Firefox permanantly when they get past the 1.0 hurdle. In my browsers, I have killed most of the plugin handlers except for the obvious ones, like mp3 and so on. Plus, I'm sadistic about popup windows and cookies.
OK, enough introduction.
I tried the vulnerability links on the site, and they didn't work on my system. The first link produced an error message claiming a "type 2" error, then a popup which said that the protocol in use was not a registered protocol. The second link didn't produce an error, but it did produce the registered protocol warning. Neither link resulted in a file being saved to my machine, or indeed any other visible effect.
Note that the website did mention that users of Jaguar might not be vulnerable, and that there was anecdocal evidence for this. So, let me add my anecdote to the collection of anecdotes already present, and say that if you're running a similar setup to mine, you might be alright.
I'm running 10.2.8 also, and for the first test link he offered, I got the error message you mentioned, but I also got a popup in Mozilla which said the protocol was not registered. For the second link, I got no error message, but I got the "protocol not registered" popup. In both cases, no files were downloaded to my machine and nothing seemed to have happened.
He mentioned that there was "anecdotal evidence" that users of Jaguar (10.2.x) are not affected by this vulnerability. Maybe it's a good thing we haven't upgraded!;)
In the immortal words of Colonel Kurtz, "You must make a FRIEND of the horror".
What horror, you ask? A major Microsoft upgrade. We cal look forward to the following exciting experiences in the coming Longhorn apocalypse ("I love the smell of burning CPU in the morning... It smells like... Job Security!"):
1. Indigo, the new.Net secret sauce coming with Longhorn, will no longer use Remoting "over the wire". Everything is going to be SOAP and web services. Sounds wonderful, right? I think so too. BUT, many consultants are busy writing all your company's apps using remoting between servers! Guess what THAT means?
2. All your computers are going to be landfill fodder, because Longhorn's hardware requirements are going to SMOKE 'em. Ah, well, we didn't need those 20,000 PCs anyway. And, the budget looks so much better cratered. It's like a big empty swimming pool. Makes me think of summer.
3. Performance? The users are asking about performance? Um... HUSH! Look at the pretty screens, children! Ooh, transparency!
4. Filesystem? We don't need no stinkin' filesystem. Let's put everything in a DATABASE!!! Ok, they might not get this into Longhorn, but it's coming. All your apps that touch the filesystem? Kiss 'em goodbye.
5. More DRM. What's that? the users didn't ask for it? Let's surprise 'em; they'll be so happy!
6. A new, different and strange iteration of IE to worry about. Sigh; better set up resources for the recoding of all your web pages, just in case.
Ah, well. It should be exciting! And, who knows? Maybe the Indians will find it all just too ugly to work with and offshore all the work back here ("Oh, this is just too UGLY, you may take it back, please... No, really. No, I must insist. Oh, you are too kind, sir, but NO, I REALLY must insist... Oh you are making me very ANGRY sir, do not make me go medaeval on your unruly buttocks in the manner of Marcellus!").
Ah, the guy's a lightweight. When I was in university, I used to prepare for exams thusly:
1. Stay up all night, drinking Mountain Dew laced with Vivarin hourly to remain alert.
2. An hour before the exam, get breakfast. Drink much coffee.
3. 30 Minutes before the exam, consume a couple of candy bars, some Mountain Dews, several Vivarin, and two or three double expressos from the coffee machine in the basement of the engineering building.
4. Bring a Mountain Dew or a Jolt into the exam to maintain your effervescence.;)
One time, when I went in, my hands were vibrating, and I snatched the exam from the prof so rapidly his eyes bugged out. I think he thought I was tripping; I don't know what I looked like, but I imagine it was somewhat Manson-ish.
Makes the whole finals experience SO much more fun!
But I'm not advocating that you give all your users root access and set up their own O/Ses... As I'm sure you're aware, you can determine the ideal install centrally, set it up so that only root can change it, and distribute images to new PCs that match your ideal configuration. Then your individual users are stuck in their configuration, and everyone's happy (except that guy you mentioned who wants to tinker, ha ha).
Note that using a traditional Linux ends up being much cheaper and more effective than JDS because A) you only have to buy or download one copy and you can distribute it throughout your organization, and B) it comes with everything, not just a hobbled subset Sun has chosen, so you can decide what to give your users.
JDS seems like a ripoff to me. As I said, I don't get why anyone would use it instead of a traditional distro.
NOTE: I wouldn't go with Mandrake, personally. I can't afford the 13,000 bucks!
1. There are a bunch of already-existing and very high quality Linux distributions, all of which make a huge number of very useful packages available. So, Sun weighs in with a Beta distribution which includes almost no packages other than their custom Sun stuff?
2. With all the aforementioned very high quality Linux distros out there which are more or less unencumbered by license issues (besides GPL, which we all like), Sun encumbers its new O/S with a seven page license agreement?
3. With all the downloadable distros which can be had for no more than bandwidth costs, Sun goes with a subscription model? And then provides shaky support to boot?
4. With all the other distros offering a league of choices, KDE, Gnome, Blackbox, etc, configurable on a user-by-user basis, Sun forces you into using only one specific window manager across the board?
5. And, sun releases this system without (apparently) adequately testing their installer against popular types of hardware?
Like I said, maybe it's me, but this is kind of a "WTF" moment for me. Why is Sun trying to reinvent the wheel like this? Why are they doing so much to make their distro much weaker than existing ones? What's going on?
I thought their rotating windows trick was kinda cool, but I think I'm going to stick with Slackware and OS/X on my machines. I've got the JDK installed on both, and Eclipse, too. It seems to be working a lot better than their new setup...
1. Basically, a Mac user installed a port of GIMP onto his Mac, and didn't like it. Right off the bat, this isn't an entirely fair comparison, because he's using a PORT. Ports are always a little wonky, aren't they? To compare Photoshop for the Mac, which was probably originally written for the Mac by a full-time technical team and thus native to it, with a third-party port of a piece of Linux software written by volunteers in their free time, and then use this as a metaphor for the suitability for all open source? Nice job, sparky.
2. Photoshop is a fantastically expensive, small-niche market, professional tool. Who's going to buy it? Photography and graphic design types. Why? Because they ALWAYS throw huge amounts of money at stuff. Look at the cameras they use: 10,000 for this one, 15,000 for that one. But what about the rest of us? We're buying 500.00 digital cameras, you know? And we don't want to have to drop the price of a whole computer on a single application. So, the GIMP takes care of US. It gives us most of the tools Photoshop gives its users, only it gives them to us for FREE, with no restrictions, forever. In my view, that grants the GIMP a lot of slack.
3. People who complain about the GIMP's supposedly awful user interface should think about this from another perspective: Ok, so you say GIMP's user interface is bad. Is it worth blowing a thousand bucks and locking yourself into Mac just to have prettier buttons and menus? Maybe it is. If so, buy Photoshop. If you'd rather spend that thousand on something else, use GIMP and relax.
4. FINALLY, why the hell does everyone get so hell-bent for leather about comparing every single open source project with an expensive proprietary alternative? WHO CARES if they're the same. Consider GIMP as its own application, and give it some credit for what it does well.
And if you're going to try it out, try the native Linux version, for cryin' out loud, with a decent size monitor, and give it a chance -- work through the learning curve before you put it away. I mean, come ON. You weren't Mario Andretti the first time you got behind the wheel of a car, were you?
1. Sun decided not to open-source Java, at least for the time being.
2. Shortly later, Microsoft paid Sun 2 billion dollars to settle a bunch of old lawsuits that were languishing in court anyway, and the two companies teamed up, agreeing to cross-license patents and share research info, work on mutually beneficial plans and so forth.
3. Sun isn't crazy about Linux because it's better than Solaris. Microsoft isn't crazy about Linux because it's better than Windows. Linux is making strong advances against BOTH operating systems, thereby costing both Sun and Microsoft a LOT of money. And, yes, I know Sun has made some moves towards offering Linux on Sun equipment, but I suspect McNealy prefers Solaris despite this.
4. Microsoft and Sun have both helped SCO in various ways over the past two years, both for their own reasons I imagine.
SPECULATION:
1. If Sun decides that they'll make more money partnering with Microsoft and pushing Solaris, then they'll consider stabbing Linux in the back. As we all know, they could fairly easily stop supporting Java on Linux. They could make it Windows-only if they wanted. Or they could sell it to Microsoft once and for all. Consider what this would do to corporate takeup of Linux.
2. If Sun decides to partner with Microsoft temporarily until the Linux threat is dealt with, and then go rogue and try and push Solaris instead of Windows, that would be just as bad.
3. Remember all that patent cross-licensing and the agreement to share research with Microsoft? I'm guessing this is going to be used against Linux shortly. Massive licensing fees would put a big dent in "free" whether as in beer or freedom.
4. Everyone focusing on Java for the past few years has had the amusing effect of distracting large numbers of programmers from working on alternative programming systems that might have been better than Java. Linux is now in a Java rut. What happens if -- whoops! -- Sun pulls the Java rug right out from under us? That would be worth 2 billion to Microsoft, wouldn't it?
POSSIBLE APPROACHES FOR OPEN-SOURCE PROGRAMMERS:
1. Back to C++. It does everything except applets, anyway (and you can do all of THAT with Shockwave and Flash).
2. Python, Perl and PHP (pick your favorite).
3. Everybody, start working on GCJ and CLASSPATH! Somebody start a beer and coffee fund...
"Joey! Man! He's right there... I dare you. Say it..."
"I dunno, man... It sounded like fun on the way over here, but now... I mean, LOOK at these guys. It's like a cult. We'd probably get skinned alive. I dunno..."
"Joey, you puss... You ain't gonna wuss out on me now, are ya? Come on, he's RIGHT THERE. Ya GOTTA say it."
"I'm tellin ya, man, I dunno. These cats are WEIRD. Something weird is gonna happen. Let's just go."
"You big puss."
"Come on, man, you don't have to be like that."
"You're a wuss. Just admit it: say 'I'm a great big wuss'".
"Dude, it's not cool, ok? There are like a million of 'em, and only two of us. It'd be a slaughter."
"Ok, if you're not gonna do it, I'm gonna. You big puss."
"Dude! DO NOT SAY IT."
"I'm gonna say it."
"DUDE, I'm SERIOUS. Dude, come on, don't do it."
"I'm gonna say it..."
"If you say it, I'm leaving."
"HEY, RICHARD! Sign a copy of this here Linux book? It's for my boss, DARL MCBRIDE, who's RIGHT OVER HERE!"
Besides, LOOK at the guy. He's SOOOOO happy about his square "I work for a dot-com" glasses... What is UP with the square glasses, already? Why is it everyone I see online or off who wants to grab a little geek cred buys square glasses? Did I miss a memo?
Sorry about the car gaffe... I'm not well versed, I drive a beat up little mini-pickup.;)
As for the BSODs, yeah, it was really shocking. Suddenly, it would be like, WHAM! Crazyphilman has reached his fun limit for the evening and must reboot! And, I'd usually have to fight through all kinds of crap just to get back to where I was before the crash, because in the heat of things, you don't always save your game. Ugh. And, it was an NT-style BSOD, not the old Win98 style. You know where the text is in a small font along the top of the screen, with some core-dump looking crap mixed in and a stern message about whatever caused the crash, segfault or whatever? Sheesh.
A friend of mine at work said it was usually caused by programmers who were used to windows 98, and were trying to use the same kind of system calls under NT. Ick. I'm SO glad I'm not a Windows system programmer. It must be like being the jockstrap-washer for a football team...
I think someone over at PC Magazine once said that it's not a bad idea, every couple of months, to totally reinstall your copy of Windows and all the apps, because the system directory gets cluttered with dlls which don't always interoperate correctly. Reinstalling cleans out all the goo, you know? And cleans out the registry, which over time gets all chewed up.
With a Mac, on the other hand, you've got the application folder, the individual user's preferences folder, and the system folder for that app, IF that app puts anything in "system". So, to uninstall something, you just kill off the folders corresponding to it -- there's no registry, no central folder full of dlls, just simplicity.
You've gotta love that. I mean, Macs don't accumulate cruft the way Windows machines do. It's nice.
Slashdot Mirror
I've made Win2K crash pretty spectacularly: I played a videogame (I think it was called Revolution) which would periodically BSOD me. Out of nowhere, I'd frag one of the shock troops trying to kill me, and BLAM! A nice, pretty blue screen with white text across the top two lines (which is an NT blue screen, kinda cool actually). I was going nuts trying to figure out how they managed to pull that off, so I asked a coworker who's done API work on Windows. He said they were probably trying to make Windows 98-related API calls and choking NT, which is the basis for 2000.
Or something like that. I'm not up on that level of Windows development, so it sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.
Anyway, never underestimate an application's ability to BSOD windows! Heh heh...
The segment of the pro-linux population which is frothing at the mouth always tries to attack Windows on stability grounds, which I think is unfortunate. I wish they would concentrate on FAIR criticisms, because then they'd get a lot further.
Here's MY fair criticism of Windows with reference to Linux and Mac OS/X:
Windows DEFINITELY has security problems. Serious ones. It is VERY DIFFICULT to keep a Windows box connected to the net without having something happen to it sooner or later. This is a very good reason to not use Windows, and it is the real reason people should shift to Linux, *BSD, and Mac OS/X. The Unix model in general is architected from the ground up to be more secure than Windows. It was multiuser back in '73, ok? THINK about that. Unix-based systems have a TWENTY YEAR HEAD START on Windows when it comes to multiuser security. That's an advantage that's hard to beat.
Although it is true that an unpatched, unsecured Linux is just as vulnerable as Windows (so maybe a naiive user shouldn't attempt to use it) in the hands of a techie who knows what he's doing, Linux can be armored in no time at all. And once armored, it's more secure than ANY Windows machine. This is even more true for the BSD's, especially OpenBSD. Would I inflict a Linux/BSD operating system on a naiive user, say, an aunt? No, of course not. Although some recent distros are getting much easier to use, so my opinion on that might change soon.
For naiive users, you just can't beat Mac OS/X. It's easy to use, it's secure, it doesn't auto-install worms and trojans...
And, I don't mean to be rude, but how exactly do you KNOW your XP box hasn't been attacked? If a worm or trojan had been successfully installed, you would never see any sign of it (other than a slight slowdown, which on a fast machine would be VERY hard to notice). The basic fact is, you don't have any idea whether your XP box has been compromised or not.
This is a real problem for Windows. Whether the O/S is more stable now or not is irrelevant. The PROBLEM is the hacking/virus activity. And, Microsoft only has their own business unit to blame, they made the decisions that led to this point.
Cheers!
Wow, that's not very nice.
While I admit that the main article DOES seem to be astroturfing, and the article on software development (although definitely interesting philosophically) is definitely a PR exercise for Microsoft, this poster was just saying that there are some good teams at Microsoft so it's not fair to tar them all with the same brush. What's wrong with that?
Visual Studio is a great development system, for example. Obviously at least SOME people at Microsoft really know what they're doing. So what's wrong with his point?
Be nice, come on. We're all supposed to be friends here.
And, by the way: I don't work at Microsoft, and I don't even use their products at home (I use Mac OS/X and Slackware). I use them at work, but that's not by choice. So you can't really call me an astroturfer, can you?
I think it's pretty much like this:
Business analyst type: "So, Ok, we need you to build in these specific features, asap."
Project manager: "But that's stupid."
Developers: "Yeah, why the hell would you want to do THAT???"
Business Analyst: "None of your business. Just do it."
Project manager: "Come on, think about it, this thing is going to get hacked ten ways from tuesday. You can't be serious."
Developers: "I can think of three ways to attack that right now."
Business analyst: "I don't want to hear about it! The decision has been made! So just do it!"
Project manager: (grumbles)
Developers: (grumble)
Business analyst: "Need I remind you who butters your bread?"
Project manager: "Oh, fine, whatever. But I want this on paper so it's YOUR ass when it blows up in all our faces."
Business analyst: "Here you go."
Seriously, I think that's how it ends up happening. Some suit comes up with an idea they want to see happen, and the programmers have to toe the line.
What are they going to do, say no?
I think a lot of people like to simplify and generalize, because it means they don't have to actually THINK about the points they're making -- like the people who say all Microsoft software is buggy. They can't tolerate shades of grey, so they boil everything down to black and white. You're absolutely right when you say Microsoft is a big place, with a lot of great teams. And it isn't fair to tar them all with the same brush.
.Net. I wish to GOD there was an equivalent for Java and non-Windows C++ development (I don't think any of the products currently on the market really hold up in comparison -- not that they're bad, just, you know, not quite as good).
I'm personally not very fond of Microsoft software because I don't like the BUSINESS DECISIONS they make. Specifically, when they trade security for functionality, and overbuild certain products (like Outlook, for instance, in which they put WAY too much "functionality" and shot themselves in the foot). But I don't think for an instant that they're bad at software development. I think their business decisions result in poorly designed consumer software. I think a lot of people totally miss this point, and end up misdirecting their criticism. It's not the programmers; it's the business strategy types that are screwing things up (IMHO).
Their development tools are top-notch, probably because programmers in those groups are allowed to build what they actually want to use. I absolutely LOVE Visual Studio
Intellisense alone has saved me a humongous amount of time. Let alone their magnificent form design tools.
Well, I just discovered my iBook is in the range affected, so I'm going to be selling it on Ebay and replacing it with a Panasonic Toughbook 28. Freakin' indestructible, and very Linux friendly!
Actually, I posted earlier about my huge, frying-pan like hands. Now, I post under my nickname! And elaborate:
My hands are HUGE. I mean, when I spread out my fingers, they're nine inches across. They're these huge, hairy-knuckled mitts, ok? When I make a fist, it's half the size of a guy's entire FACE.
I really love the XBox controller, because it's so roomy. My hands feel really comfortable wrapped around it. I find it a lot more comfy than the Playstation controller (I was like, Man, the Japanese must have really tiny hands!), which was just TEENSY. I cramp up in no time on the PS2 controller.
Don't get me wrong; I ADORE my PS2. I bought a third-party controller which was a lot bigger, and I'm really comfortable with that one. But the stock ones drove me nuts.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Remember us big, hamfisted guys when you consider the XBox controller. Maybe Microsoft's controller design team grew up in a blue-collar town like me?
Hell, yeah! Ok, let me add my light to yours, maybe Microsoft will find it illuminating...
:)
1. You can't compare the PS1->PS2 changeover to an XBox1->XBox2 changeover for one major reason: the videogames available on XBox2 are already very high quality, both in graphics and interface. I think that around 2000 (maybe a little before; when was Quake II released?) game graphics reached a quality level where they were "good enough" to be realistic and immersive. They weren't clunky anymore, they weren't pixellated, and the level of detail was high. The Playstation II started out at this level, and the XBox started out at a slightly higher level. These two consoles, as a result, were the first that could really compete head-on with PC gaming.
If you think about it, this is kind of a tipping point, a point at which additional improvements are incremental rather than revolutionary. You could make the case that some of the things that are going on right now, like normal mapping, are semi-revolutionary, but I don't think they add that much. For example, I thought Deus Ex Invisible War looked pretty good, and although Riddick was a little more high-definition, Deus Ex did shadows better (IMHO).
The point is, any additional improvements XBox2 adds will be just incremental rather than the huge leap that happened before (like between PS1 and PS2).
2. Microsoft wants to kill off the older games because it's convenient for them. First of all, they can force people to buy a load of new games (at least, they think they can). Second, they can get away with totally changing the platform to save money (chip, graphic card, etc) without having to worry about all that pesky backwards compatability. Third, they can stick it to all the people who modded the XBox1 by leaving out the hard drive and changing the processor. They think they can act like they have a monopoly here, even though they're kind of a small fish in the console market so far. I think it's arrogant and stupid of them, but we'll see what happens.
3. Now that I know Microsoft is going to do this to me, I won't be buying an XBox2. I'll save my money for a PS3 instead, because backwards compatability IS important to me. I'm not going to want to throw out my fairly good collection of excellent games just because BillG wants to play rough.
And here we get back to point number 1: The existing set of XBox games is really great! They look great, they play very well, they're just a lot of fun. Because they've already passed that tipping point I mentioned. So, if Microsoft expects us to trash all our existing, high-quality games and pay them our hard-earned cash for their new console, I say they can kiss my ass. I'll keep my existing XBox, I'll buy and trade used games, and for new games, I'll stick with Sony -- who actually CARES about what I want to do with my console.
Ok, that's just my personal take on it, I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. But I think you and I are in agreement about this, at least. Backwards compatability, BillG -- or else we'll ignore your new console and you'll have a money pit on your hands.
Of course Windows clusters! It's the system of choice for initiating top-quality clusterfucks. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to figure out a way to get your linux and OS/X boxes clusterfucked anywhere NEAR as bad as Windows is right out of the box!
It's clusterfuckerrific!
My, my my. You poor, unfortunate soul. Surely you're on the list for a sense of humor transplant? I hope someone sufficiently humorous dies soon so you can GET THE FUCKING JOKE.
Dipshit.
Of course, your counterpoints were even more full of shit than anything I've ever said. But, that's ok, I don't mind. It adds to the humor. I know, you don't get it. Be patient, it'll come to you.
Dipshit.
Nah... The way I see it, Kurtz represents full-time employees who have to handle the upgrade, and are basically already bonkers from past upgrades. It's not too far off; I almost put some tiki torches and faux shrunken heads outside my cubicle (the boss vetoed it, said it would frighten the already skittish users -- I said, "Yes.").
Kilgore represents consultants who are having the time of their lives racking up zillions of billable hours while the IT systems they're working on get more clusterfucked (like Kilgore's men surfing while an entire village is destroyed in a cataclysmic battle and non-surfers become casualties). Charlie don't surf!
I think maybe Willard could be played by Tux, coming in to quietly put us out of our misery, steal the consultant's surfboards, and end the chaos that is Microsoft... Maybe?
Ok, my configuration:
Mac OS/X 10.2.8, with all services turned off and the firewall turned on, denying everything, and all Directory Access protocols turned off (what can I say, I'm a little paranoid). I also have a hardware firewall between my laptop and my cable modem. Belt and suspenders, right?
I don't use Safari because it doesn't seem to be too stable on my machine for some reason (gypsy curse?). If I install it, it crashes on some of the sites I visit (I think this is a Java issue of some kind). So I deleted it.
For a browser, I generally use Mozilla 1.6, although I like to play with Firefox and Camino, too. I'll probably switch to Firefox permanantly when they get past the 1.0 hurdle. In my browsers, I have killed most of the plugin handlers except for the obvious ones, like mp3 and so on. Plus, I'm sadistic about popup windows and cookies.
OK, enough introduction.
I tried the vulnerability links on the site, and they didn't work on my system. The first link produced an error message claiming a "type 2" error, then a popup which said that the protocol in use was not a registered protocol. The second link didn't produce an error, but it did produce the registered protocol warning. Neither link resulted in a file being saved to my machine, or indeed any other visible effect.
Note that the website did mention that users of Jaguar might not be vulnerable, and that there was anecdocal evidence for this. So, let me add my anecdote to the collection of anecdotes already present, and say that if you're running a similar setup to mine, you might be alright.
-Phil
I'm running 10.2.8 also, and for the first test link he offered, I got the error message you mentioned, but I also got a popup in Mozilla which said the protocol was not registered. For the second link, I got no error message, but I got the "protocol not registered" popup. In both cases, no files were downloaded to my machine and nothing seemed to have happened.
;)
He mentioned that there was "anecdotal evidence" that users of Jaguar (10.2.x) are not affected by this vulnerability. Maybe it's a good thing we haven't upgraded!
In the immortal words of Colonel Kurtz, "You must make a FRIEND of the horror".
.Net secret sauce coming with Longhorn, will no longer use Remoting "over the wire". Everything is going to be SOAP and web services. Sounds wonderful, right? I think so too. BUT, many consultants are busy writing all your company's apps using remoting between servers! Guess what THAT means?
What horror, you ask? A major Microsoft upgrade. We cal look forward to the following exciting experiences in the coming Longhorn apocalypse ("I love the smell of burning CPU in the morning... It smells like... Job Security!"):
1. Indigo, the new
2. All your computers are going to be landfill fodder, because Longhorn's hardware requirements are going to SMOKE 'em. Ah, well, we didn't need those 20,000 PCs anyway. And, the budget looks so much better cratered. It's like a big empty swimming pool. Makes me think of summer.
3. Performance? The users are asking about performance? Um... HUSH! Look at the pretty screens, children! Ooh, transparency!
4. Filesystem? We don't need no stinkin' filesystem. Let's put everything in a DATABASE!!!
Ok, they might not get this into Longhorn, but it's coming. All your apps that touch the filesystem? Kiss 'em goodbye.
5. More DRM. What's that? the users didn't ask for it? Let's surprise 'em; they'll be so happy!
6. A new, different and strange iteration of IE to worry about. Sigh; better set up resources for the recoding of all your web pages, just in case.
Ah, well. It should be exciting! And, who knows? Maybe the Indians will find it all just too ugly to work with and offshore all the work back here ("Oh, this is just too UGLY, you may take it back, please... No, really. No, I must insist. Oh, you are too kind, sir, but NO, I REALLY must insist... Oh you are making me very ANGRY sir, do not make me go medaeval on your unruly buttocks in the manner of Marcellus!").
Ah, the guy's a lightweight. When I was in university, I used to prepare for exams thusly:
;)
1. Stay up all night, drinking Mountain Dew laced with Vivarin hourly to remain alert.
2. An hour before the exam, get breakfast. Drink much coffee.
3. 30 Minutes before the exam, consume a couple of candy bars, some Mountain Dews, several Vivarin, and two or three double expressos from the coffee machine in the basement of the engineering building.
4. Bring a Mountain Dew or a Jolt into the exam to maintain your effervescence.
One time, when I went in, my hands were vibrating, and I snatched the exam from the prof so rapidly his eyes bugged out. I think he thought I was tripping; I don't know what I looked like, but I imagine it was somewhat Manson-ish.
Makes the whole finals experience SO much more fun!
But I'm not advocating that you give all your users root access and set up their own O/Ses... As I'm sure you're aware, you can determine the ideal install centrally, set it up so that only root can change it, and distribute images to new PCs that match your ideal configuration. Then your individual users are stuck in their configuration, and everyone's happy (except that guy you mentioned who wants to tinker, ha ha).
Note that using a traditional Linux ends up being much cheaper and more effective than JDS because A) you only have to buy or download one copy and you can distribute it throughout your organization, and B) it comes with everything, not just a hobbled subset Sun has chosen, so you can decide what to give your users.
JDS seems like a ripoff to me. As I said, I don't get why anyone would use it instead of a traditional distro.
NOTE: I wouldn't go with Mandrake, personally. I can't afford the 13,000 bucks!
Before you all think I'm a doofus, hear me out:
1. There are a bunch of already-existing and very high quality Linux distributions, all of which make a huge number of very useful packages available. So, Sun weighs in with a Beta distribution which includes almost no packages other than their custom Sun stuff?
2. With all the aforementioned very high quality Linux distros out there which are more or less unencumbered by license issues (besides GPL, which we all like), Sun encumbers its new O/S with a seven page license agreement?
3. With all the downloadable distros which can be had for no more than bandwidth costs, Sun goes with a subscription model? And then provides shaky support to boot?
4. With all the other distros offering a league of choices, KDE, Gnome, Blackbox, etc, configurable on a user-by-user basis, Sun forces you into using only one specific window manager across the board?
5. And, sun releases this system without (apparently) adequately testing their installer against popular types of hardware?
Like I said, maybe it's me, but this is kind of a "WTF" moment for me. Why is Sun trying to reinvent the wheel like this? Why are they doing so much to make their distro much weaker than existing ones? What's going on?
I thought their rotating windows trick was kinda cool, but I think I'm going to stick with Slackware and OS/X on my machines. I've got the JDK installed on both, and Eclipse, too. It seems to be working a lot better than their new setup...
Of course, my Slackware system runs like the wind on a 600Mhz P-II with 128MB of Ram and a 12GB hard disk. Funny, ain't it?
;)
I bet it's more secure, too.
1. Basically, a Mac user installed a port of GIMP onto his Mac, and didn't like it. Right off the bat, this isn't an entirely fair comparison, because he's using a PORT. Ports are always a little wonky, aren't they? To compare Photoshop for the Mac, which was probably originally written for the Mac by a full-time technical team and thus native to it, with a third-party port of a piece of Linux software written by volunteers in their free time, and then use this as a metaphor for the suitability for all open source? Nice job, sparky.
2. Photoshop is a fantastically expensive, small-niche market, professional tool. Who's going to buy it? Photography and graphic design types. Why? Because they ALWAYS throw huge amounts of money at stuff. Look at the cameras they use: 10,000 for this one, 15,000 for that one. But what about the rest of us? We're buying 500.00 digital cameras, you know? And we don't want to have to drop the price of a whole computer on a single application. So, the GIMP takes care of US. It gives us most of the tools Photoshop gives its users, only it gives them to us for FREE, with no restrictions, forever. In my view, that grants the GIMP a lot of slack.
3. People who complain about the GIMP's supposedly awful user interface should think about this from another perspective: Ok, so you say GIMP's user interface is bad. Is it worth blowing a thousand bucks and locking yourself into Mac just to have prettier buttons and menus? Maybe it is. If so, buy Photoshop. If you'd rather spend that thousand on something else, use GIMP and relax.
4. FINALLY, why the hell does everyone get so hell-bent for leather about comparing every single open source project with an expensive proprietary alternative? WHO CARES if they're the same. Consider GIMP as its own application, and give it some credit for what it does well.
And if you're going to try it out, try the native Linux version, for cryin' out loud, with a decent size monitor, and give it a chance -- work through the learning curve before you put it away. I mean, come ON. You weren't Mario Andretti the first time you got behind the wheel of a car, were you?
Patience, people. Patience!
The apparent facts:
1. Sun decided not to open-source Java, at least for the time being.
2. Shortly later, Microsoft paid Sun 2 billion dollars to settle a bunch of old lawsuits that were languishing in court anyway, and the two companies teamed up, agreeing to cross-license patents and share research info, work on mutually beneficial plans and so forth.
3. Sun isn't crazy about Linux because it's better than Solaris. Microsoft isn't crazy about Linux because it's better than Windows. Linux is making strong advances against BOTH operating systems, thereby costing both Sun and Microsoft a LOT of money. And, yes, I know Sun has made some moves towards offering Linux on Sun equipment, but I suspect McNealy prefers Solaris despite this.
4. Microsoft and Sun have both helped SCO in various ways over the past two years, both for their own reasons I imagine.
SPECULATION:
1. If Sun decides that they'll make more money partnering with Microsoft and pushing Solaris, then they'll consider stabbing Linux in the back. As we all know, they could fairly easily stop supporting Java on Linux. They could make it Windows-only if they wanted. Or they could sell it to Microsoft once and for all. Consider what this would do to corporate takeup of Linux.
2. If Sun decides to partner with Microsoft temporarily until the Linux threat is dealt with, and then go rogue and try and push Solaris instead of Windows, that would be just as bad.
3. Remember all that patent cross-licensing and the agreement to share research with Microsoft? I'm guessing this is going to be used against Linux shortly. Massive licensing fees would put a big dent in "free" whether as in beer or freedom.
4. Everyone focusing on Java for the past few years has had the amusing effect of distracting large numbers of programmers from working on alternative programming systems that might have been better than Java. Linux is now in a Java rut. What happens if -- whoops! -- Sun pulls the Java rug right out from under us? That would be worth 2 billion to Microsoft, wouldn't it?
POSSIBLE APPROACHES FOR OPEN-SOURCE PROGRAMMERS:
1. Back to C++. It does everything except applets, anyway (and you can do all of THAT with Shockwave and Flash).
2. Python, Perl and PHP (pick your favorite).
3. Everybody, start working on GCJ and CLASSPATH! Somebody start a beer and coffee fund...
4. Let's all do something different.
Did I miss any?
"Joey! Man! He's right there... I dare you. Say it..."
"I dunno, man... It sounded like fun on the way over here, but now... I mean, LOOK at these guys. It's like a cult. We'd probably get skinned alive. I dunno..."
"Joey, you puss... You ain't gonna wuss out on me now, are ya? Come on, he's RIGHT THERE. Ya GOTTA say it."
"I'm tellin ya, man, I dunno. These cats are WEIRD. Something weird is gonna happen. Let's just go."
"You big puss."
"Come on, man, you don't have to be like that."
"You're a wuss. Just admit it: say 'I'm a great big wuss'".
"Dude, it's not cool, ok? There are like a million of 'em, and only two of us. It'd be a slaughter."
"Ok, if you're not gonna do it, I'm gonna. You big puss."
"Dude! DO NOT SAY IT."
"I'm gonna say it."
"DUDE, I'm SERIOUS. Dude, come on, don't do it."
"I'm gonna say it..."
"If you say it, I'm leaving."
"HEY, RICHARD! Sign a copy of this here Linux book? It's for my boss, DARL MCBRIDE, who's RIGHT OVER HERE!"
"YOU FUCKING IDIOT!"
"RUN, JOEY, RUN! GO FOR THE DOORS!"
"We'll have another unsustainable tech boom as soon as everyone forgets those mistakes entirely..."
(in best Hugh Grant voice):
Well, fingers crossed!
Besides, LOOK at the guy. He's SOOOOO happy about his square "I work for a dot-com" glasses... What is UP with the square glasses, already? Why is it everyone I see online or off who wants to grab a little geek cred buys square glasses? Did I miss a memo?
Sorry about the car gaffe... I'm not well versed, I drive a beat up little mini-pickup. ;)
As for the BSODs, yeah, it was really shocking. Suddenly, it would be like, WHAM! Crazyphilman has reached his fun limit for the evening and must reboot! And, I'd usually have to fight through all kinds of crap just to get back to where I was before the crash, because in the heat of things, you don't always save your game. Ugh. And, it was an NT-style BSOD, not the old Win98 style. You know where the text is in a small font along the top of the screen, with some core-dump looking crap mixed in and a stern message about whatever caused the crash, segfault or whatever? Sheesh.
A friend of mine at work said it was usually caused by programmers who were used to windows 98, and were trying to use the same kind of system calls under NT. Ick. I'm SO glad I'm not a Windows system programmer. It must be like being the jockstrap-washer for a football team...
I think someone over at PC Magazine once said that it's not a bad idea, every couple of months, to totally reinstall your copy of Windows and all the apps, because the system directory gets cluttered with dlls which don't always interoperate correctly. Reinstalling cleans out all the goo, you know? And cleans out the registry, which over time gets all chewed up.
With a Mac, on the other hand, you've got the application folder, the individual user's preferences folder, and the system folder for that app, IF that app puts anything in "system". So, to uninstall something, you just kill off the folders corresponding to it -- there's no registry, no central folder full of dlls, just simplicity.
You've gotta love that. I mean, Macs don't accumulate cruft the way Windows machines do. It's nice.