This is PROOF that Microsoft KNOWS they are producing bad code. They put something out there, and then when they had to open source the code, they were all like "Well now everyone will see how bad our coding is, better take a week to fix it up before releasing it to the public!"
Having been involved with open source at Microsoft, I'd guess that the real reason for the delay was to "scrub" it to make sure that no intellectual property was inadvertently being given away.
When you search for words, you get hits with words. If you want to search for phrases, put the words in quotes. When I search for the phrase "Windows worse than OSX", I only get one hit on both Google and on Bing -- so it's no surprise that this single site isn't found in all of the hits for pages that contain each of the words "Windows" "worse" "than" "OSX"
regarding Bill's comments on it being a bad idea for Google to have two OS's (Chrome and Android)... MS HAS MORE THAN ONE OS, DUMBSHIT! Is Gates so out of touch that he thinks that win mobiles run Vista?
While that was probably the right decision at the time it was made (Windows CE is over ten years old, after all), I think that most people here at MS would do it differently if creating a new mobile OS today.
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs actually believes that Apple invented GUIs, MP3 players and smart phones. In general, no big company has truly original ideas -- or if they do, it's in a research arm like PARC or MSR and the ideas are never properly monetized.
It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly." It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.
It's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.
PostScript isn't some kind of open standard that anyone can implement. It's owned by Adobe. The whole reason that Microsoft invented "TrueType" was to avoid paying royalties to Adobe for their Type 1 font format.
C is not a safe language, and stupid programmers will always find ways to mess it up. There are safer languages where you can't hang yourself as easily, and if you don't understand C, you should use them.
The idea that smart people don't make mistakes is thoroughly ridiculous.
Because everyone is not just going to add a line of code to one of the base headers: #define memcpy(dst, len, src) memcpy_s((dst),(len),(src),(len))
Smart people recognize that they make mistakes, so they create systems that help them catch and prevent their own mistakes. If you're foolish enough to believe that you can't make mistakes, then you should just turn off all the warnings on the compiler and not bother with lesser workarounds like redefining a single symbol.
The goal of asking you to specify the length of the destination buffer is to force you to think about the data you're working with *while* you're writing the code and not afterwards in an unconnected security audit. Furthermore, it provides documentation to other people reading the code who may not have the same mental model of what's going on as you do. And as usual "other people" includes you, six months after you wrote the code.
The most likely reason that Microsoft is suing TomTom is to force TomTom to cross-license these patents -- that's what most big companies use their patent portfolios for.
Furthermore; the small, leaked part of the source code for Windows contains comments such as "Changing X seems to fuck up the goddamn C compiler" and "Removing this seems to break Office 98" which implies that not a lot of people at Microsoft still know what is realy going on in the subsystems.
Heh. I work at Microsoft and I think there's a lot of truth to that. But no programmer anywhere seems to like to document stuff -- so I'd guess that what's on MSDN is better than you can find for most other bodies of code.
Of course, the best documentation is the code itself and the unit tests for the code, which isn't generally an option for closed source software.
Microsoft is going to fight this decision tooth and nail.
Well, duh. Why wouldn't you fight something that's bad for you? But at some point, the appeals process is over and then you have to comply with the governing legal authority.
Show me one EU order with which Microsoft hasn't complied.
You can't build pure.NET implementations by adding to the existing codebases; you have to start from scratch. The same is true for the pure Java implementations of both languages.
The goal isn't to create "Python for Windows" -- as you point out, CPython already works quite well under Windows. The goal is to allow expand the language choice of developers targeting.NET (and Mono) for application development.
Part of our attempts to be a part of the open source community include encouraging others to implement their favorite dynamic language on top of the DLR. We don't honestly believe that we can implement all the software in the world.
So if you want IronPerl, go ahead and download the DLR and get to work!
I guess one difference is that it has a long history, since it was first distributed in 1991. In those days nobody talked about "open source", and Richard Stallman [founder of the Free Software Foundation] wasn't very well known and the GNU General Public License didn't exist.
WTF? The GPL didn't exist in 1991? I guess I was hallucinating when I was using GNU Emacs and GCC in the 80s.
You've posted this twice now, BrianH. Is Novak paying you? Or maybe you are Novak?
If you really read the lawsuit, you'd see that he's suing because the search terms "pets warehouse" (two words) are bringing up the competing sites. This is as much copyright infringement as the dictionary, which also contains the word "pets" and the word "warehouse". The sites in question have not put the word "petswarehouse" or "petswarehouse.com" in their metatags -- they've put "pets" and "warehouse".
I didn't see any information in Windows NT 4.0. Does this mean that the vulnerability doesn't exist, or that they haven't tested it? (The site doesn't say.)
I think they want to check to see if the CLR is based on the "illegal" Java VM they sued to have MS stop developing.
Microsoft wrote their own JVM, and therefore owns its source code. Sun didn't sue Microsoft because of theft -- they sued to protect their trademark. Even if the CLR could directly run JVM bytecode, Microsoft could legally redistribute it. They just wouldn't be able to use the name "Java" for it.
"We've taken the PC down to where you can take it home and finish your work," said Kenneth Ocheltree, manager for next generation mobile at IBM Research.
...because pagers and cell phones haven't completely succeeded in making our jobs be 24/7.
We give Muslims trillions of dollars in money for oil. We give them charity, foreign aid, and technology. It's good for us, it's good for them. The fact that THEIR economic systems do not promote a strong middle class is their problem and their choice, not ours. We are blamed because we promote capitalism and trade in Saudi Arabia. But when we refuse to trade and refuse to invest our values in Iraq, we are blamed.
But we don't promote capitalism and trade in Saudi Arabia, and we sure-as-hell don't promote democracy. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a hereditary elite that gets the benefit of the trillions of dollars of oil that we purchase from them each year, and trickles down a small fraction of that wealth to "the little people" in a manner that's not at all capitalist. There can be no free enterprise without freedom. The good things about capitalism have nothing to do with global mega-corporations making fistfuls of money for their shareholders and upper management, and have everything to do with "two guys in a garage."
Slashdot Mirror
I had a DMD5620 in my dorm room in 1989. My roommate called it "the Beast".
This is PROOF that Microsoft KNOWS they are producing bad code. They put something out there, and then when they had to open source the code, they were all like "Well now everyone will see how bad our coding is, better take a week to fix it up before releasing it to the public!"
Having been involved with open source at Microsoft, I'd guess that the real reason for the delay was to "scrub" it to make sure that no intellectual property was inadvertently being given away.
It's a good article, and well-worth reading. But it bears only a marginal resemblence to the teaser headline CmdrTaco has slapped on it...
When you search for words, you get hits with words. If you want to search for phrases, put the words in quotes. When I search for the phrase "Windows worse than OSX", I only get one hit on both Google and on Bing -- so it's no surprise that this single site isn't found in all of the hits for pages that contain each of the words "Windows" "worse" "than" "OSX"
Go down fighting!
regarding Bill's comments on it being a bad idea for Google to have two OS's (Chrome and Android)... MS HAS MORE THAN ONE OS, DUMBSHIT! Is Gates so out of touch that he thinks that win mobiles run Vista?
While that was probably the right decision at the time it was made (Windows CE is over ten years old, after all), I think that most people here at MS would do it differently if creating a new mobile OS today.
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs actually believes that Apple invented GUIs, MP3 players and smart phones. In general, no big company has truly original ideas -- or if they do, it's in a research arm like PARC or MSR and the ideas are never properly monetized.
A real shell? Having to install cygwin is kinda a pain. No powershell does not count.
Why doesn't PowerShell count?
It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly." It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.
It's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.
Sounds like a feature to get you to stop using IE6 already, goddamn it!
PostScript isn't some kind of open standard that anyone can implement. It's owned by Adobe. The whole reason that Microsoft invented "TrueType" was to avoid paying royalties to Adobe for their Type 1 font format.
C is not a safe language, and stupid programmers will always find ways to mess it up. There are safer languages where you can't hang yourself as easily, and if you don't understand C, you should use them.
The idea that smart people don't make mistakes is thoroughly ridiculous.
Because everyone is not just going to add a line of code to one of the base headers:
#define memcpy(dst, len, src) memcpy_s((dst),(len),(src),(len))
Smart people recognize that they make mistakes, so they create systems that help them catch and prevent their own mistakes. If you're foolish enough to believe that you can't make mistakes, then you should just turn off all the warnings on the compiler and not bother with lesser workarounds like redefining a single symbol.
Some of these reactions are quite funny.
The goal of asking you to specify the length of the destination buffer is to force you to think about the data you're working with *while* you're writing the code and not afterwards in an unconnected security audit. Furthermore, it provides documentation to other people reading the code who may not have the same mental model of what's going on as you do. And as usual "other people" includes you, six months after you wrote the code.
The most likely reason that Microsoft is suing TomTom is to force TomTom to cross-license these patents -- that's what most big companies use their patent portfolios for.
"Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, IBM, Borland, and Sun"
Fixed that for you.
Furthermore; the small, leaked part of the source code for Windows contains comments such as "Changing X seems to fuck up the goddamn C compiler" and "Removing this seems to break Office 98" which implies that not a lot of people at Microsoft still know what is realy going on in the subsystems.
Heh. I work at Microsoft and I think there's a lot of truth to that. But no programmer anywhere seems to like to document stuff -- so I'd guess that what's on MSDN is better than you can find for most other bodies of code.
Of course, the best documentation is the code itself and the unit tests for the code, which isn't generally an option for closed source software.
Microsoft is going to fight this decision tooth and nail.
Well, duh. Why wouldn't you fight something that's bad for you? But at some point, the appeals process is over and then you have to comply with the governing legal authority.
Show me one EU order with which Microsoft hasn't complied.
You can't build pure .NET implementations by adding to the existing codebases; you have to start from scratch. The same is true for the pure Java implementations of both languages.
The goal isn't to create "Python for Windows" -- as you point out, CPython already works quite well under Windows. The goal is to allow expand the language choice of developers targeting .NET (and Mono) for application development.
Why should MS need to "want to do IronPerl"?
Part of our attempts to be a part of the open source community include encouraging others to implement their favorite dynamic language on top of the DLR. We don't honestly believe that we can implement all the software in the world.
So if you want IronPerl, go ahead and download the DLR and get to work!
(I work on IronPython and IronRuby at Microsoft.)
I guess one difference is that it has a long history, since it was first distributed in 1991. In those days nobody talked about "open source", and Richard Stallman [founder of the Free Software Foundation] wasn't very well known and the GNU General Public License didn't exist.
WTF? The GPL didn't exist in 1991? I guess I was hallucinating when I was using GNU Emacs and GCC in the 80s.
If you really read the lawsuit, you'd see that he's suing because the search terms "pets warehouse" (two words) are bringing up the competing sites. This is as much copyright infringement as the dictionary, which also contains the word "pets" and the word "warehouse". The sites in question have not put the word "petswarehouse" or "petswarehouse.com" in their metatags -- they've put "pets" and "warehouse".
I didn't see any information in Windows NT 4.0. Does this mean that the vulnerability doesn't exist, or that they haven't tested it? (The site doesn't say.)
Microsoft wrote their own JVM, and therefore owns its source code. Sun didn't sue Microsoft because of theft -- they sued to protect their trademark. Even if the CLR could directly run JVM bytecode, Microsoft could legally redistribute it. They just wouldn't be able to use the name "Java" for it.
...because pagers and cell phones haven't completely succeeded in making our jobs be 24/7.
But we don't promote capitalism and trade in Saudi Arabia, and we sure-as-hell don't promote democracy. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a hereditary elite that gets the benefit of the trillions of dollars of oil that we purchase from them each year, and trickles down a small fraction of that wealth to "the little people" in a manner that's not at all capitalist. There can be no free enterprise without freedom. The good things about capitalism have nothing to do with global mega-corporations making fistfuls of money for their shareholders and upper management, and have everything to do with "two guys in a garage."