Perhaps because it may solve the problem better than the other code out there? Ruling their code out automatically just because it was made by MS is just stupid.
Granted; I rule it out because of the assumption I have about their code quality. I should not have presented that as two separate arguments.
Perhaps you should leave personal beliefs out of your evaluation and stick to facts. All code has bugs. Sometimes the bugs are irrelevent. But MS' software (especially XPSP2, Vista and server 2003) is very stable.
I'm stuck using Office at work. If you had Excel crash on you as often as I have it, you wouldn't consider their code stable. Granted, I do more advanced things than your average Excel address book, but there's no excuse for a piece of software they've been working on for well over a decade (coming up on two decades if I'm not mistaken) to crash this often.
Of course not, because you have not evaluated them recently. You think that they could not have changed and fail to realize the company is so big that some divisions want to work with OSS while others may not.
I'm using XP sp2 and Office 2003. Maybe they've changed significantly since they produced those POSs. Based on word of mouth, Vista's supposed to fix all previous flaws, right?
Frankly, the only mail clients I use are GMail and Thunderbird. However, I don't know anyone else (outside of online contacts) who use Thunderbird. My wife uses the Apple mail client, at work we use Lotus Notes, etc. There just seem to be a lot more options, even in the FLOSS spectrum (eg, KMail, Pine, Mutt, etc).
For whatever reason, it seems like mail clients are much more about taste than a web browser is.
* Are we guaranteed that the code is patent-free and will always be open for continued use?
You are not guaranteed that with any other free software program. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that it does infringe software patents (both those existing now, and those that will be granted in the future).
Let me rephrase: Are we guaranteed that Microsoft won't claim that it has patented the code after we start using it?
* Does their shared-source license allow easy mixing with other FLOSS code, eg GPL and BSD licenses?
The GPL doesn't allow easy mixing with code under any other licence, so this seems a little unfair - but yes, practically speaking it may be a problem. Mixing with MIT-style or new-style BSD code is usually unproblematic since you can just relicense that code to match the fussier licence.
Using GPLed code under an M$ would almost certainly be problematic. I was talking about the other way. It's a lot easier to make OSS code GPLed than GPLed code go to a different license (aka, impossible).
* Is there another, more well-established solution to the problem their code is solving?
Almost all free software projects fail this test.
What does that mean? Most FLOSS software reinvents the wheel? True. But if you're looking to use someone else's code, why start at Microsoft?
* And considering the "stability" of M$ products, do we even trust the code to do what they claims
The whole point is that you can read the code for yourself, so you don't have to trust anyone.
It's possible to do so, but debugging something that's as buggy as I believe M$ code to be is probably a bigger undertaking than writing from scratch.
I think a better list of things to consider is whether you have freedom to (1) use, (2) share, and (3) change the software. If you can do all those then it's free software, no matter which company it came from. There's no reason to hold Microsoft-written code to a different standard to other code. If it's free it's free.
But there is reason to be more suspicious of M$ code for the reasons I mentioned. If I knew for a fact that ABC's OSS code had the flaws I refer to, I wouldn't use it either. I just don't trust Microsoft.
It could just be that when it comes to e-mail, there are plenty of competitors. It's not that Thunderbird is bad in anyway, but it's a matter of taste. Some people like Evolution, some like GMail, some (for some reason) like Outlook. There are many more freely available mail clients than web browsers. It would be very unlikely for Thunderbird to meet the reception that Firefox did.
If the Mozilla Foundation isn't as interested in Thunderbird, why would a subsidiary of it (ala the 2nd option) or a brand-new entity (ala the 1st) bring a whole lot of enthusiasm? Let the users have it.
Well, maybe Microsoft started off using someone else's tools and then once they become "large and successful" they switched to their own solution. That would explain a lot actually...
So, I'll take it as a given that no one reading this would ever consider contributing code to M$ "OSS" sites. So then the only other use for us would be to utilize their code in our products. I would recommend considering the following:
Are we guaranteed that the code is patent-free and will always be open for continued use?
Does their shared-source license allow easy mixing with other FLOSS code, eg GPL and BSD licenses?
Is there another, more well-established solution to the problem their code is solving?
And considering the "stability" of M$ products, do we even trust the code to do what they claims
For me, it would be more trouble than it's worth to use M$ code in any of my projects.
However, for the current purposes (ie, how M$ relates to it) I think it's fair to put FOSS and OSS in the same camp: Microsoft has in the past attacked both of them.
Also the US doesn't really have a history of shooting down aircraft over our air space.
If you compare the number of Soviet recon aircraft the US has shot down vs the number the US has lost you will see that the US really isn't that trigger happy
A support system like Redhat (which I'm assuming is not what you want)
A system like the old-style commercial software. Remember when you would buy a disk and install it on as many computers as you'd like? And yet, companies still made lots of money off of it. I suppose that even though it would be legal for one of your purchasers to redistribute your software, it wouldn't necessarily be feasible, especially if you charge modest prices and thereby don't piss people off.
Years of television with shorter and shorter times between cut scenes has destroyed your attention span. Why don't you go watch some TV now? Maybe there will be a 30 second blurb on the subject ala "Ameritrade implicated in SPAM delivery... incompetent or criminal... you decide!!!"
Can't change the channel, gotta get my daily dose of science (ie, CSI)
Well, we all know asians are good with computers, blacks steal them but don't know how to use them, and mexicans are too damned lazy to do anything with the ones they buy with the money they earn from working the jobs americans won't.
How was that?
That was horribly offensive. As a white I feel very excluded.
Given how many vehicles are now only available with an automatic transmission, it won't be too long before a stick shift will be like vinyl records: the only people who will use them will be snobs and old fuddy-duddies.
In the US at least...
Plus, I'm sure they'll always be used for specialty cars (eg, race cars)
If I'm not mistaken, there's no need for those websites to store your password
How else can the compare it when you try to log on?
And yes, there are some that do it like that, because on ocassion I've forgotten my password and I recognised the one emailed to me - it wasn't a new random one.
We're talking about two different things here. The sites being referred to generate hashes of passwords you give them that you then use as your password on a website. For example, let's say I use the password "bubblegum". Then perhaps my GMail password will be MD5(bubblegum-gmail.com) etc etc.
So for that kind of system, no storage would be necesary.
Use an MD5 password generator. You can use the same password across sites, but it won't get compromised. Ever.
Until some idiot admin leaks, or lets leak, all those oh-so-secret passwords.
If I'm not mistaken, there's no need for those websites to store your password, so there's no admin leak to worry about. Unless there's log files and such...
Well, that really depends on how exactly the contest is stated. If you discover a exploit and then make a announcement about it at the same time you try to claim the prize the company might turn around and sue you saying that you didn't have the right to announce the exploit to the general public without their express permission. If on the other hand you discover it and only tell them and they try to sue you, yes, then you could pretty much laugh them out of court.
At least, we'd like to believe so. Remember, justice != logic.
Can someone explain to me why patching the system would break applications? I haven't done any serious programming on Windows, but it seems non-sensical that patching security holes should ever break a properly-coded application to well-defined APIs. And from what I've seen of it, the Win32 API is pretty stable and clear.
This is a stupid idea though. It saves the administrators some hassle, but if Microsoft is putting out a patch for a vulnerability then don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the hackers already know about the vulnerability and are actively exploiting it?
That's a nonsensical argument. You could make the same argument for any piece of software at anytime. So it's a useless factor in your analysis of the criticality of the particular issues addressed by any particular patch.
I think GP's point was that, if M$ delays software patches so that IT departments don't have to hassle with installing every day, the only logical reason is that they assume releasing the patch informs hackers of the flaws. However, it's a two-edged sword since on the other hand delaying patches to know vulnerabilities would have obvious negative effects.
Note: I only *think* that made sense to anyone but me
Slashdot Mirror
Granted; I rule it out because of the assumption I have about their code quality. I should not have presented that as two separate arguments.
Perhaps you should leave personal beliefs out of your evaluation and stick to facts. All code has bugs. Sometimes the bugs are irrelevent. But MS' software (especially XPSP2, Vista and server 2003) is very stable.I'm stuck using Office at work. If you had Excel crash on you as often as I have it, you wouldn't consider their code stable. Granted, I do more advanced things than your average Excel address book, but there's no excuse for a piece of software they've been working on for well over a decade (coming up on two decades if I'm not mistaken) to crash this often.
Of course not, because you have not evaluated them recently. You think that they could not have changed and fail to realize the company is so big that some divisions want to work with OSS while others may not.I'm using XP sp2 and Office 2003. Maybe they've changed significantly since they produced those POSs. Based on word of mouth, Vista's supposed to fix all previous flaws, right?
Frankly, the only mail clients I use are GMail and Thunderbird. However, I don't know anyone else (outside of online contacts) who use Thunderbird. My wife uses the Apple mail client, at work we use Lotus Notes, etc. There just seem to be a lot more options, even in the FLOSS spectrum (eg, KMail, Pine, Mutt, etc).
For whatever reason, it seems like mail clients are much more about taste than a web browser is.
Let me rephrase: Are we guaranteed that Microsoft won't claim that it has patented the code after we start using it?
The GPL doesn't allow easy mixing with code under any other licence, so this seems a little unfair - but yes, practically speaking it may be a problem. Mixing with MIT-style or new-style BSD code is usually unproblematic since you can just relicense that code to match the fussier licence.Using GPLed code under an M$ would almost certainly be problematic. I was talking about the other way. It's a lot easier to make OSS code GPLed than GPLed code go to a different license (aka, impossible).
Almost all free software projects fail this test.What does that mean? Most FLOSS software reinvents the wheel? True. But if you're looking to use someone else's code, why start at Microsoft?
The whole point is that you can read the code for yourself, so you don't have to trust anyone.It's possible to do so, but debugging something that's as buggy as I believe M$ code to be is probably a bigger undertaking than writing from scratch.
I think a better list of things to consider is whether you have freedom to (1) use, (2) share, and (3) change the software. If you can do all those then it's free software, no matter which company it came from. There's no reason to hold Microsoft-written code to a different standard to other code. If it's free it's free.
But there is reason to be more suspicious of M$ code for the reasons I mentioned. If I knew for a fact that ABC's OSS code had the flaws I refer to, I wouldn't use it either. I just don't trust Microsoft.
It could just be that when it comes to e-mail, there are plenty of competitors. It's not that Thunderbird is bad in anyway, but it's a matter of taste. Some people like Evolution, some like GMail, some (for some reason) like Outlook. There are many more freely available mail clients than web browsers. It would be very unlikely for Thunderbird to meet the reception that Firefox did.
If the Mozilla Foundation isn't as interested in Thunderbird, why would a subsidiary of it (ala the 2nd option) or a brand-new entity (ala the 1st) bring a whole lot of enthusiasm? Let the users have it.
Well, maybe Microsoft started off using someone else's tools and then once they become "large and successful" they switched to their own solution. That would explain a lot actually...
So, I'll take it as a given that no one reading this would ever consider contributing code to M$ "OSS" sites. So then the only other use for us would be to utilize their code in our products. I would recommend considering the following:
For me, it would be more trouble than it's worth to use M$ code in any of my projects.
FOSS != OSS
However, for the current purposes (ie, how M$ relates to it) I think it's fair to put FOSS and OSS in the same camp: Microsoft has in the past attacked both of them.
Nah, I'm sure Microsoft uses their own source management tool...
No, the question is "does it run linux?"
2.if answer is yes CONTINUE
else find another JOB.
3.work a little
4.GOTO1
5. PROFIT!
If you compare the number of Soviet recon aircraft the US has shot down vs the number the US has lost you will see that the US really isn't that trigger happy
In Soviet Russia, aliens shoot you
::Ducks::
I suppose two possible methods:
Or maybe they just meant men and women sunbathing together...
Years of television with shorter and shorter times between cut scenes has destroyed your attention span. Why don't you go watch some TV now? Maybe there will be a 30 second blurb on the subject ala "Ameritrade implicated in SPAM delivery... incompetent or criminal... you decide!!!"
Can't change the channel, gotta get my daily dose of science (ie, CSI)
How was that?
That was horribly offensive. As a white I feel very excluded.
In the US at least...
Plus, I'm sure they'll always be used for specialty cars (eg, race cars)
Right, because we want to bring proofs from the impeachment of Andrew Johnson...
And yes, there are some that do it like that, because on ocassion I've forgotten my password and I recognised the one emailed to me - it wasn't a new random one.
We're talking about two different things here. The sites being referred to generate hashes of passwords you give them that you then use as your password on a website. For example, let's say I use the password "bubblegum". Then perhaps my GMail password will be MD5(bubblegum-gmail.com) etc etc.
So for that kind of system, no storage would be necesary.
Until some idiot admin leaks, or lets leak, all those oh-so-secret passwords.
If I'm not mistaken, there's no need for those websites to store your password, so there's no admin leak to worry about. Unless there's log files and such...
Well, that really depends on how exactly the contest is stated. If you discover a exploit and then make a announcement about it at the same time you try to claim the prize the company might turn around and sue you saying that you didn't have the right to announce the exploit to the general public without their express permission. If on the other hand you discover it and only tell them and they try to sue you, yes, then you could pretty much laugh them out of court.
At least, we'd like to believe so. Remember, justice != logic.
Can someone explain to me why patching the system would break applications? I haven't done any serious programming on Windows, but it seems non-sensical that patching security holes should ever break a properly-coded application to well-defined APIs. And from what I've seen of it, the Win32 API is pretty stable and clear.
That's a nonsensical argument. You could make the same argument for any piece of software at anytime. So it's a useless factor in your analysis of the criticality of the particular issues addressed by any particular patch.
I think GP's point was that, if M$ delays software patches so that IT departments don't have to hassle with installing every day, the only logical reason is that they assume releasing the patch informs hackers of the flaws. However, it's a two-edged sword since on the other hand delaying patches to know vulnerabilities would have obvious negative effects.
Note: I only *think* that made sense to anyone but me
We need a trial case against some Fortune 500 that has spam bots. Perhaps a victory in a case like that will turn the tide.