"There's something seriously wrong with your infrastructure (OS, application, hardware, etc) for that to be happening."
Not to point fingers, but I've also worked on plenty of Linux installs that have crapped their pants (mostly because of X, I'll admit).
"I really hope you never work on medical equipment or airlines or weapons systems or anything else that matters"
Do you really think that we would approach a medical, airline, or governmental system in the same way we'd approach a consumer device like a tablet?
The tablet runs a version of XP that's been beefed up with tablet support. Like XP, this OS comes bundles with the ability to handle a wide array of hardware/software combos. It's been pretty well demonstrated that the *vast* majority of XP (and cousins) crashes are due to bad third-party drivers, particularly where video is concerned.
If we were building a device for a medical purpose, for example, we'd probably start with Windows XP Embedded and only include the components absolutely necessary for the system to run (note that Windows CE would also be a good bet). We certainly wouldn't include things that weren't needed. I'm guessing, for example, that many pieces of medical equipment will get by fine without drivers for the latest Audigy, or whatever, and so we wouldn't include support.
A consumer device needs to be ready to deal with many hardware and software scenarios that Microsoft can only begin to guess at. A vertical need, like medical or airline equipment, can be put together in a very targeted way so as to avoid the problems normally associated with consumer hardware.
Look at Apple - they own almost the entire hardware and software stack. They control everything from the OS to the mail app to the web cam drivers, and their machines *still* crash like crazy (I own a PowerBook, and although I love the thing, it *does* crash, and when it does, it *really* crashes).
Think about that, and then think about every cheap piece of unsupported hardware that actually works with XP. Will all of them? No, but many do, and that's incredible. It's something for which we don't get enough credit.
So, yeah. I understand your concerns, but we know better than to treat specialized devices like general purpose consumer platforms.
"You are open source and therefore evil. I was created using millions of dollars in r&d capitol. You were made from donations, and other open source contributors, and are therefore an inferior product."
Of course...
"Donations."
Like from IBM:)
(And, for future reference, "capitol" refers to a building where state government functions are carried out.)
I figured the comments would be full of negative little "ha ha" moments.
But, if you've ever given a presenation, then you *know* how tough it can be. Demos and talks which have been working fine for days, weeks, and months have a way of suddenly breaking down when you need them most. Don't know why this is.
So, this guy (if this is true) did what he had to so that the presentation could continue.
Is that really something worth laughing at?
Plus, it just goes to show that not everybody at Microsoft feels the same way about certain... "other" technologies. Yeah, it might be a fine "ha ha" for other people at the company, but those of you who are pushing the OSS agenda should really be congratulating this guy for sticking his neck out.
And, had this been a presentation on some Linux subject and something had gone wrong with the presentation machine (Linux machines *do* crash, too, you know), then what would the presenter have done?
People are laughing, but many of us on the Windows side of things have no problem firing up an alternative operating system. We have our loyalties, but it doesn't mean we're all totally pig-headed.
"Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?"
I don't think it's a matter of "acceptance."
I don't mind, for example, that slashdot has banner ads. I've read a bit about the infrastructure required to support the site, and I have *some* idea of how much it must cost to keep this thing up, and I feel that the least I can do is let someone push some relevant ad on me.
Ads are irritating, yes, but *somebody* has to pay for these sites.
We can wrap this argument in whatever fancy-shmancy terms we'd like, but whether we call it a "social contract" or something else, the fact is that a lot of the sites we all love are being floated by advertising revenue. You aren't required by any sort of "contract" (your conscience) to support these sites, but don't come whining when some of them shut down because, financially, it just wasn't worth it to keep pushing content out the door.
"still sore because they were right about the WMD eh?"
Toi, tu dis "they," mais je suis ne dans une maison francaise - ma famille, c'est francaise, et je sais *tres bien* que les francais savent pas quoi faire avec le savon.
"According to this guy, every Mac OS system since 10.0 has been an update."
He's wrong.
Everything since 10.2 has been an expensive service pack.
I loved 10.2, but felt that most of what followed was just marketing hype (although I bought this stuff anyway, and happily, because I'm a geek and I feel like a loser if my systems aren't all running the latest bits).
"So the best way to think of OSX vs XP is that OSX is a generation ahead of XP in many ways, but it was pretty much brand-new in its 10.0 incarnation."
I completely fail to see how OS X is a "generation ahead." It's a fantastic operating system, but in terms of its core and its development tools, it's actually a bit of a relic.
Cocoa (the "proper" OS X framework) is just carried over from NeXTStep, and the ideas behind the OS are older than I am.
Granted, OS X has the best desktop Java integration I've ever seen, and I give it points for that, but the gurus out there will tell you to stick with Objective-C and Cocoa, which means that they're telling you to stick with the technology that was sitting in a corner of Steve Jobs' garage until he came back to Apple and found a use for it.
Not saying it's bad - I love OS X - but just that I don't see how it's a "generation ahead."
Especially considering that the vast majority of "new features" announced in each release can already be found in another prominent OS...
"a poor village of 100 people...can have the equivalent of a small library, with reference material on construction, farming, basic medical care, etc"
I don't want to be Mr. Gloomy here, but if we're talking about a *poor* village of *100* people who need reference materials on things like construction and farming, then what are the chances they have *electricity*?
They can't plug these things into rocks.
Well, actually, they *could*, but it wouldn't do any good.
We might as well start shipping them zero fat, zero calorie diet milkshakes, too.
"Hi there, poor Indian - here's a computer you can't use, and food that has absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever. You're welcome."
Also, where are they going to get the "reference material" on this stuff anyway? I doubt they'd have a net connection. A few used books on these subjects would be a much better resource.
Of course, providing books *or* a computer assumes literacy, and IIRC, we're talking about a *poor* village here.
I don't mean to sound so negative, but geeks (myself included) need to get real about some of this technohippie stuff. There are people out there who have *real* problems that go way beyond the cost of computers.
"Ad clicks? You are implying that the firefox site includes ads AND adblock? What's the point of the ads?"
No - I'm not implying that.
I'm saying that that's part of the Nielsen strategy for collecting usage data.
Their system seems to be modular, so you only include the bits that make sense to you. Some customers might *only* want ad clicks, while others might not want them at all - you can pick and choose.
At least that's the impression I get from actually having read the site.
It looks like there's a lot of confusion about the gender data gathered, mostly along the lines of "How'd they do that?"
I know it sounds crazy, but I went ahead and visited the the Nielsen site and read up on their strategy. I realize this goes against the techie tradition of never RTFM, but that's a risk I was willing to take.
Turns out they use a "holistic" approach to their data gathering. Everything from "server side blabbity-blah blah blah" to conducting surveys, hiring people to browse, and tracking ad clicks.
I'm guessing that the gender comes from the surveys, but I don't want to upset anybody who might be really excited about a new gender-aware version of HTTP.
If you want to read up on this stuff yourself, you can check out some info here:
You have to keep things in perspective - Windows isn't open source, so publishing the vulnerabilities ahead of time, in many cases, wouldn't actually do much good.
As you know, with OSS, announcing a vulnerability is like a call to arms, getting devs out of bed and coding fixes. With a closed source product, it's like saying "Cooooooooooooome 'n get it!"
If users could plug these holes with their fingers, then telling them would help. As things are, though, this is probably the safer way to do it for our product.
An update to BITS is critical because it's part of the mechanism that should be keeping your average user's Windows machine clean by downloading updates in the background without disturbing their usual browsing activities (it uses opportune moments to grab chunks of updates - once all the pieces are down, it lets you know).
One of the reasons we have so many problems with security vulnerabilities is that users don't make use of Automatic Updates, and they wind up running unpatched systems for days... weeks... months......years.
Sometimes there's a good reason for this, but I suspect that, more often than not, it's a lack of understanding about *why* Automatic Windows Updates is important.
So, in that context, although I can see why you might not think it's an important update, BITS is actually something you want updated with everything else unless you're *really* on top of patching your system manually.
I just realized that I said the wrong thing:
"Windows is a little different from *nix in the sense that, although an application is a process, a process is *not* necessarily an application."
To clarify, think about what happens when you run "ps" - you get a list of your processes, right? That includes applications *and* daemons.
With Windows, although your apps will be included in the Task Manager's "Processes" list, not all of your processes will show up in the "Applications" list.
That's all.
Sorry for the confusion.
"On the other hand, only three applications simultaneously? Opening up the process manager, I see 54 running processes"
First off, and I know this sounds cheap, but is there really anything *wrong* with only being able to run three apps simultaneously?
I've been thinking about writing an app which would limit the number of apps I could keep open, mostly in attempt to mitigate the technology-produced ADD I seem to have developed since I started multitasking in Desqueview and my Unix dialup account "back in the day."
Also, Windows is a little different from *nix in the sense that, although an application is a process, a process is *not* necessarily an application. It's a weird distinction, but it's there.
Taking a look at my process list, I can see all kinds of crap - I have 69 processes listed right now, and I'm clueless as to what most of them are doing..
However, if I go to the *Applications* tab of Task Manager rather than the *Processes* tab, I can see that I only have four apps open (already over the Brazil limit;) ).
So most of those processes don't count toward the limit.
"I hate it when I come up with a sure-fire, can't miss post and blow it with a typo or incorrect usage that ruins the whole thing."
I like to think that the comment wasn't ruined, but rather that a whole generation of h4x0rz isn't going to really know what "bluegrass" means thanks to my early morning pre-coffee slip:)
While it's entirely possible (and easy) for anybody who's interested to get their hands on Linux, consider the company to which many businesses will go first: Red Hat.
Have any of you looked at the cost of a Red Hat Linux subscription lately?
Sure, you don't have to go with a solution like this, but any company that depends even a little on its IT department is going to want some real support and culpability - they aren't going to just be throwing Slackware on machines willy-nilly.
Slashdot Mirror
"Which is why most of us who know better switched from Windows a long time ago. Mysterious shit doesn't happen with any other O/S."
:)
Of course.
No other OS's crash or exhibit strange behavior while running certain applications.
And that, my friend, is why there's no such thing as a core dump
Hey... wait a minute...
"There's something seriously wrong with your infrastructure (OS, application, hardware, etc) for that to be happening."
Not to point fingers, but I've also worked on plenty of Linux installs that have crapped their pants (mostly because of X, I'll admit).
"I really hope you never work on medical equipment or airlines or weapons systems or anything else that matters"
Do you really think that we would approach a medical, airline, or governmental system in the same way we'd approach a consumer device like a tablet?
The tablet runs a version of XP that's been beefed up with tablet support. Like XP, this OS comes bundles with the ability to handle a wide array of hardware/software combos. It's been pretty well demonstrated that the *vast* majority of XP (and cousins) crashes are due to bad third-party drivers, particularly where video is concerned.
If we were building a device for a medical purpose, for example, we'd probably start with Windows XP Embedded and only include the components absolutely necessary for the system to run (note that Windows CE would also be a good bet). We certainly wouldn't include things that weren't needed. I'm guessing, for example, that many pieces of medical equipment will get by fine without drivers for the latest Audigy, or whatever, and so we wouldn't include support.
A consumer device needs to be ready to deal with many hardware and software scenarios that Microsoft can only begin to guess at. A vertical need, like medical or airline equipment, can be put together in a very targeted way so as to avoid the problems normally associated with consumer hardware.
Look at Apple - they own almost the entire hardware and software stack. They control everything from the OS to the mail app to the web cam drivers, and their machines *still* crash like crazy (I own a PowerBook, and although I love the thing, it *does* crash, and when it does, it *really* crashes).
Think about that, and then think about every cheap piece of unsupported hardware that actually works with XP. Will all of them? No, but many do, and that's incredible. It's something for which we don't get enough credit.
So, yeah. I understand your concerns, but we know better than to treat specialized devices like general purpose consumer platforms.
"You are open source and therefore evil. I was created using millions of dollars in r&d capitol. You were made from donations, and other open source contributors, and are therefore an inferior product."
:)
Of course...
"Donations."
Like from IBM
(And, for future reference, "capitol" refers to a building where state government functions are carried out.)
I figured the comments would be full of negative little "ha ha" moments.
But, if you've ever given a presenation, then you *know* how tough it can be. Demos and talks which have been working fine for days, weeks, and months have a way of suddenly breaking down when you need them most. Don't know why this is.
So, this guy (if this is true) did what he had to so that the presentation could continue.
Is that really something worth laughing at?
Plus, it just goes to show that not everybody at Microsoft feels the same way about certain... "other" technologies. Yeah, it might be a fine "ha ha" for other people at the company, but those of you who are pushing the OSS agenda should really be congratulating this guy for sticking his neck out.
And, had this been a presentation on some Linux subject and something had gone wrong with the presentation machine (Linux machines *do* crash, too, you know), then what would the presenter have done?
People are laughing, but many of us on the Windows side of things have no problem firing up an alternative operating system. We have our loyalties, but it doesn't mean we're all totally pig-headed.
"Someone up at MS is having a huge laugh over this."
Yeah.
And it's not me.
This is embarrassing.
*2029*?
And to think I got all excited when I read the title...
"Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?"
I don't think it's a matter of "acceptance."
I don't mind, for example, that slashdot has banner ads. I've read a bit about the infrastructure required to support the site, and I have *some* idea of how much it must cost to keep this thing up, and I feel that the least I can do is let someone push some relevant ad on me.
Ads are irritating, yes, but *somebody* has to pay for these sites.
We can wrap this argument in whatever fancy-shmancy terms we'd like, but whether we call it a "social contract" or something else, the fact is that a lot of the sites we all love are being floated by advertising revenue. You aren't required by any sort of "contract" (your conscience) to support these sites, but don't come whining when some of them shut down because, financially, it just wasn't worth it to keep pushing content out the door.
"still sore because they were right about the WMD eh?"
Toi, tu dis "they," mais je suis ne dans une maison francaise - ma famille, c'est francaise, et je sais *tres bien* que les francais savent pas quoi faire avec le savon.
"According to this guy, every Mac OS system since 10.0 has been an update."
He's wrong.
Everything since 10.2 has been an expensive service pack.
I loved 10.2, but felt that most of what followed was just marketing hype (although I bought this stuff anyway, and happily, because I'm a geek and I feel like a loser if my systems aren't all running the latest bits).
"So the best way to think of OSX vs XP is that OSX is a generation ahead of XP in many ways, but it was pretty much brand-new in its 10.0 incarnation."
I completely fail to see how OS X is a "generation ahead." It's a fantastic operating system, but in terms of its core and its development tools, it's actually a bit of a relic.
Cocoa (the "proper" OS X framework) is just carried over from NeXTStep, and the ideas behind the OS are older than I am.
Granted, OS X has the best desktop Java integration I've ever seen, and I give it points for that, but the gurus out there will tell you to stick with Objective-C and Cocoa, which means that they're telling you to stick with the technology that was sitting in a corner of Steve Jobs' garage until he came back to Apple and found a use for it.
Not saying it's bad - I love OS X - but just that I don't see how it's a "generation ahead."
Especially considering that the vast majority of "new features" announced in each release can already be found in another prominent OS...
"India is a net exporter of food. Even if India didn't produce a single grain of food, their stocks would last 3 years."
That doesn't mean a thing.
The French are net exporters of soap, but how many of them actually get a chance to use it?
"a poor village of 100 people...can have the equivalent of a small library, with reference material on construction, farming, basic medical care, etc"
I don't want to be Mr. Gloomy here, but if we're talking about a *poor* village of *100* people who need reference materials on things like construction and farming, then what are the chances they have *electricity*?
They can't plug these things into rocks.
Well, actually, they *could*, but it wouldn't do any good.
We might as well start shipping them zero fat, zero calorie diet milkshakes, too.
"Hi there, poor Indian - here's a computer you can't use, and food that has absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever. You're welcome."
Also, where are they going to get the "reference material" on this stuff anyway? I doubt they'd have a net connection. A few used books on these subjects would be a much better resource.
Of course, providing books *or* a computer assumes literacy, and IIRC, we're talking about a *poor* village here.
I don't mean to sound so negative, but geeks (myself included) need to get real about some of this technohippie stuff. There are people out there who have *real* problems that go way beyond the cost of computers.
"Ad clicks? You are implying that the firefox site includes ads AND adblock? What's the point of the ads?"
No - I'm not implying that.
I'm saying that that's part of the Nielsen strategy for collecting usage data.
Their system seems to be modular, so you only include the bits that make sense to you. Some customers might *only* want ad clicks, while others might not want them at all - you can pick and choose.
At least that's the impression I get from actually having read the site.
It looks like there's a lot of confusion about the gender data gathered, mostly along the lines of "How'd they do that?"
o n= ps
I know it sounds crazy, but I went ahead and visited the the Nielsen site and read up on their strategy. I realize this goes against the techie tradition of never RTFM, but that's a risk I was willing to take.
Turns out they use a "holistic" approach to their data gathering. Everything from "server side blabbity-blah blah blah" to conducting surveys, hiring people to browse, and tracking ad clicks.
I'm guessing that the gender comes from the surveys, but I don't want to upset anybody who might be really excited about a new gender-aware version of HTTP.
If you want to read up on this stuff yourself, you can check out some info here:
http://www.nielsennetratings.com/mktg.jsp?secti
Click on a few products to see the range of apps/services offered. You'll see where all this data comes from.
vi.
I *hate* emacs.
(not to take away from your joke - but I wanted to be absolutely clear that I'm not an emacs person - for some reason, this is really important to me)
You have to keep things in perspective - Windows isn't open source, so publishing the vulnerabilities ahead of time, in many cases, wouldn't actually do much good.
As you know, with OSS, announcing a vulnerability is like a call to arms, getting devs out of bed and coding fixes. With a closed source product, it's like saying "Cooooooooooooome 'n get it!"
If users could plug these holes with their fingers, then telling them would help. As things are, though, this is probably the safer way to do it for our product.
An update to BITS is critical because it's part of the mechanism that should be keeping your average user's Windows machine clean by downloading updates in the background without disturbing their usual browsing activities (it uses opportune moments to grab chunks of updates - once all the pieces are down, it lets you know).
...years.
One of the reasons we have so many problems with security vulnerabilities is that users don't make use of Automatic Updates, and they wind up running unpatched systems for days... weeks... months...
Sometimes there's a good reason for this, but I suspect that, more often than not, it's a lack of understanding about *why* Automatic Windows Updates is important.
So, in that context, although I can see why you might not think it's an important update, BITS is actually something you want updated with everything else unless you're *really* on top of patching your system manually.
I just realized that I said the wrong thing: "Windows is a little different from *nix in the sense that, although an application is a process, a process is *not* necessarily an application." To clarify, think about what happens when you run "ps" - you get a list of your processes, right? That includes applications *and* daemons. With Windows, although your apps will be included in the Task Manager's "Processes" list, not all of your processes will show up in the "Applications" list. That's all. Sorry for the confusion.
"On the other hand, only three applications simultaneously? Opening up the process manager, I see 54 running processes"
;) ).
First off, and I know this sounds cheap, but is there really anything *wrong* with only being able to run three apps simultaneously?
I've been thinking about writing an app which would limit the number of apps I could keep open, mostly in attempt to mitigate the technology-produced ADD I seem to have developed since I started multitasking in Desqueview and my Unix dialup account "back in the day."
Also, Windows is a little different from *nix in the sense that, although an application is a process, a process is *not* necessarily an application. It's a weird distinction, but it's there.
Taking a look at my process list, I can see all kinds of crap - I have 69 processes listed right now, and I'm clueless as to what most of them are doing..
However, if I go to the *Applications* tab of Task Manager rather than the *Processes* tab, I can see that I only have four apps open (already over the Brazil limit
So most of those processes don't count toward the limit.
"I hate it when I come up with a sure-fire, can't miss post and blow it with a typo or incorrect usage that ruins the whole thing."
:)
I like to think that the comment wasn't ruined, but rather that a whole generation of h4x0rz isn't going to really know what "bluegrass" means thanks to my early morning pre-coffee slip
"You're shooting for the Funny mod, but think about it."
Yeah - "shooting" with my DOD Tux-Powered DeathRifle 9000.
"The precursor to the web we're both using right now was pentagon (ARPA) funded."
I didn't know that, and I am going to UNPLUG MY COMPUTER RIGHT NOW.
"You mean 'grassroots', genius, not 'bluegrass'. Put the banjo down."
Yourmomroots.
Yeah - "grassroots" too!
[fuck! and I thought I was being so funny...]
Nothing says "feel-good bluegrass tech movement" like becoming part of the military industrial complex.
"Linux is free, but the support for it is not."
While it's entirely possible (and easy) for anybody who's interested to get their hands on Linux, consider the company to which many businesses will go first: Red Hat.
Have any of you looked at the cost of a Red Hat Linux subscription lately?
Feast your peepers on these numbers, my friends: Red Hat server licensing options.
Sure, you don't have to go with a solution like this, but any company that depends even a little on its IT department is going to want some real support and culpability - they aren't going to just be throwing Slackware on machines willy-nilly.
Food for thought, mes amis.
"Are you still a child? I mean, as an adult you should be able to handle changes to a once loved series."
This is getting really lame.
Have you ever felt embarrassed for someone because that person didn't have the decent sense to be embarrassed for himself?
There should be a word for that.
Anyway, now would be a good time to let you know that I'm not actually upset about Star Wars, so you can stop fl4mz0ring me to the maximum.
Have a nice day.
I love you.