Just a few months ago we were blasting Microsoft for taking five weeks to prepare the Ormandy patch. Now we discover that Linux has had a root-privledge exploit for years, was notified, and took two months to fix it, and we get comments like "Must be a slow day." Stay classy (and unbiased), Slashdot.
That eliminates the possibility to revoke a certificate if one is comprimised. Also, it leads to situations like the TI calculator incident, which Slashdot seems to hate.
I know Slashdot's editorial standards have dropped, especially when it comes to Anti-Microsoft articles, but there is no link here to any article that claims Microsoft has no plans to patch the flaw. Do we even have editors anymore?
it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 50 ever-changing group of developers in a closed company that can change its priorities at any given point
I would argue that it's strategically foolish to build on a framework that is constantly being changed by thousands of developers who usually prioritize code cleanliness and architecture over things like backwards compatibility.
If I'm building on a framework, I don't want to have to fix the framework every time a new patch or version comes out - at that point I might as well use my own framework. If I'm using a framework, I want stability and the knowledge that the things I build on the framework will continue to work for years to come.
While there are arguments for and against open source, backwards compatibility is one of the strongest AGAINST them. Microsoft will give me backwards binary compatibility and support for well over a decade; Apple at least admits to my face that they deprecate anything more than a couple years old; Linux simply breaks things and doesn't seem to care.
They already did. Half of what was supposed to be "WinFS" was released in Vista as the Search Indexer. The other half was released in Win7 as "Libraries".
This will not take over the role of Exchange for the same reason Google won't take over the role of Exchance - for a lot of companies, having local control of their data and communications is key. Storing confidential data in the "cloud" (how I hate that term) is a security and privacy risk and a potential source of liability. Thanks to this, there will always be a demand for locally-run and locally-administered mail servers, and nothing really competes with Exchange in that realm.
If software is required to be verified secure, the cost of development (and thus the cost of software) will increase by an order of magnitude if not more. For proof of that, look at how much it costs to develop software to NASA's standards.
In addition, open-source software will cease to exist, or at the very least, will cease to exist in any visible context. Project participation will plummet once devs become financially liable for what they write. Be careful what you wish for.
To continue your analogy, when your driver has a heart attack (or you get sick of him and get rid of him), Linux will crash into the next brick wall since you can't find anyone who knows your custom system, while it's very easy to find someone to keep your Windows running at 60mph.
Err....what? Both.doc and.docx are fully documented formats. And ODF isn't any better - try opening a file created in OO.o in Abiword, resaving it, and opening it in OO.o Oh, look, all my formatting is broken! It's not interoperable by any stretch of the word.
The real question isn't how they could do such a thing, but why they would even bother. I never thought of a group of interns going to a Harry Potter movie as being an event worthy of a police escort, let alone requiring one.
Clearly you've never tried to get across WA-520 during Rush Hour.
(1) Because companies have discovered that it's far better for the PC ecosystem to release patches in a coordinated system (such as "Patch Tuesday") that corporations, etc. can plan for than to release everything ASAP
(2) Because regression bugs happen, and it's important to tests hotfixes thoroughly, particularly when they affect core functionality like, say, TCP/IP networking.
They could at least try. Every single claim they make is laughable. They make overarching claims such as "inspect users' hard drives", which carries a heavy implication of looking through user data when no such looking occurs. Most of the others (vendor lock-in, security holes) are a decade out of date. Then they use terms like "proprietary Word formats" when all Word formats - both OOXML and DOC - are fully documented, as mandated by federal court.
Finally, they talk about DRM and removing support for older versions when you'd be hard-pressed to find an Open Source vendor supporting products for even a quarter of the lifecycle Microsoft supports its products for and the DRM exists solely to allow playback of HD content (and is nonexistent when such content isn't being played), something with OSS can't do.
Really, the FSF is almost as much of an embarassment to the Open Source community as RMS. If we ever want to see the day of the Linux desktop, we'll have to muzzle both of them first.
I attribute this mostly to the changes in the industry. It went from a dynamic environment with a wide arrangement of companies, including small shops who put personal touches (such as humor) in games to its current form.
The industry is now filled with corporate supergiants. 99% or so of the market is locked up in companies such as SquareEnixEidos, BlizzardActivisionSierra, EA, etc. Just as in the rest of the software industry, this transition to giant corporate machines brought a mix of benefits and losses. With the focus on efficiency and professionalism, some things (easter eggs in software, humor in games) are lost.
For travel, battery life would seem to be an important factor. Windows (especially Vista/7) currently has a sizable lead over Linux in this regard, and that would certainly be my choice.
Even when we finally see the year of Linux on the desktop, Linux on the laptop is still a long ways off.
You really don't get it, do you? Source compatibility isn't enough. You need BINARY compatibility. Many core business apps were developed by companies that no longer exist or developers who were no longer there. Many times, Source code doesn't exist.
Even if it does, users don't want to or know how to recompile it. And fixing that one function call that no longer exists? Why should people have to? Every function call that no longer exists is another pile of developers who won't switch to your latest version.
I highly reccomend reading Raymond Chen's blog/book to understand how backwards compatibility works in the real world.
The question isn't "what does a comparably specced machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I can get a $500-700 PC Laptop that will work great for most of my use. I can't touch that with a Mac.
Or you could install Windows, set 3 things once, and have it automatically propagate to the entire network. Which takes a matter of seconds rather than hours or days (or weeks or months when you factor in testing.....).
That also has the advantage that it's reasonably easy for someone with a common set of skills to come in, see what you've done, and know where to go and how to go to change it rapidly if need be.
Your solution requires a lot of time by very knowledgeable (and paid accordingly) labor to create, more to maintain, and if the original creator is fired and someone new is brought in, there's no guarantee that they'll have any idea what in the world is going on or that they would know how to change/fix it if they DID know what was going on.
At this point, it's uneconomical and rather silly. Goodness knows I'll get banned from Slashdot for saying it, but there are many places (this is one of them) where using Windows makes sense and is in fact not only the best solution but the most economical solution.
You know, I don't understand your Slashdot people.
Microsoft tries to get rid of XP and replaced it with an updated version. You complain that XP is "good enough" and they should just keep using what they've got.
IE6 does everything people need for a few years, so MS keeps it around. They're evil for holding back progress.
Do you people willingly give in to raw hypocrisy or are you really that blind?
Why not write it in QT, and have an application that can run on just about every platform out there WITHOUT bowing before Microsoft, who could eat your lunch should you write the "Killer Ap".
Because having developed in.NET and QT,.NET is far easier and more enjoyable to develop in. You may call it "crap", but it's actually a well-done platform that's great for developers. You may dislike its single-platform outlook, but as programming languages, the.NET languages are top-notch.
To many companies, being able to quickly and reliably put together code is much more important than supporting the tiny marketshare that represents Linux desktop users.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a few months ago we were blasting Microsoft for taking five weeks to prepare the Ormandy patch. Now we discover that Linux has had a root-privledge exploit for years, was notified, and took two months to fix it, and we get comments like "Must be a slow day." Stay classy (and unbiased), Slashdot.
That eliminates the possibility to revoke a certificate if one is comprimised. Also, it leads to situations like the TI calculator incident, which Slashdot seems to hate.
That's from their Anti-Malware team talking about how they detect it. Nowhere does it say that they have no plans to fix the bug.
I know Slashdot's editorial standards have dropped, especially when it comes to Anti-Microsoft articles, but there is no link here to any article that claims Microsoft has no plans to patch the flaw. Do we even have editors anymore?
it is utterly, strategically foolish to build on a framework that is programmed by 50 ever-changing group of developers in a closed company that can change its priorities at any given point
I would argue that it's strategically foolish to build on a framework that is constantly being changed by thousands of developers who usually prioritize code cleanliness and architecture over things like backwards compatibility.
If I'm building on a framework, I don't want to have to fix the framework every time a new patch or version comes out - at that point I might as well use my own framework. If I'm using a framework, I want stability and the knowledge that the things I build on the framework will continue to work for years to come.
While there are arguments for and against open source, backwards compatibility is one of the strongest AGAINST them. Microsoft will give me backwards binary compatibility and support for well over a decade; Apple at least admits to my face that they deprecate anything more than a couple years old; Linux simply breaks things and doesn't seem to care.
They already did. Half of what was supposed to be "WinFS" was released in Vista as the Search Indexer. The other half was released in Win7 as "Libraries".
This will not take over the role of Exchange for the same reason Google won't take over the role of Exchance - for a lot of companies, having local control of their data and communications is key. Storing confidential data in the "cloud" (how I hate that term) is a security and privacy risk and a potential source of liability. Thanks to this, there will always be a demand for locally-run and locally-administered mail servers, and nothing really competes with Exchange in that realm.
If software is required to be verified secure, the cost of development (and thus the cost of software) will increase by an order of magnitude if not more. For proof of that, look at how much it costs to develop software to NASA's standards. In addition, open-source software will cease to exist, or at the very least, will cease to exist in any visible context. Project participation will plummet once devs become financially liable for what they write. Be careful what you wish for.
To continue your analogy, when your driver has a heart attack (or you get sick of him and get rid of him), Linux will crash into the next brick wall since you can't find anyone who knows your custom system, while it's very easy to find someone to keep your Windows running at 60mph.
Because it was tried. And it was discovered that users don't read.
Err....what? Both .doc and .docx are fully documented formats. And ODF isn't any better - try opening a file created in OO.o in Abiword, resaving it, and opening it in OO.o Oh, look, all my formatting is broken! It's not interoperable by any stretch of the word.
The real question isn't how they could do such a thing, but why they would even bother. I never thought of a group of interns going to a Harry Potter movie as being an event worthy of a police escort, let alone requiring one.
Clearly you've never tried to get across WA-520 during Rush Hour.
Two reasons:
(1) Because companies have discovered that it's far better for the PC ecosystem to release patches in a coordinated system (such as "Patch Tuesday") that corporations, etc. can plan for than to release everything ASAP
(2) Because regression bugs happen, and it's important to tests hotfixes thoroughly, particularly when they affect core functionality like, say, TCP/IP networking.
They could at least try. Every single claim they make is laughable. They make overarching claims such as "inspect users' hard drives", which carries a heavy implication of looking through user data when no such looking occurs. Most of the others (vendor lock-in, security holes) are a decade out of date. Then they use terms like "proprietary Word formats" when all Word formats - both OOXML and DOC - are fully documented, as mandated by federal court.
Finally, they talk about DRM and removing support for older versions when you'd be hard-pressed to find an Open Source vendor supporting products for even a quarter of the lifecycle Microsoft supports its products for and the DRM exists solely to allow playback of HD content (and is nonexistent when such content isn't being played), something with OSS can't do.
Really, the FSF is almost as much of an embarassment to the Open Source community as RMS. If we ever want to see the day of the Linux desktop, we'll have to muzzle both of them first.
I attribute this mostly to the changes in the industry. It went from a dynamic environment with a wide arrangement of companies, including small shops who put personal touches (such as humor) in games to its current form.
The industry is now filled with corporate supergiants. 99% or so of the market is locked up in companies such as SquareEnixEidos, BlizzardActivisionSierra, EA, etc. Just as in the rest of the software industry, this transition to giant corporate machines brought a mix of benefits and losses. With the focus on efficiency and professionalism, some things (easter eggs in software, humor in games) are lost.
Loves the Internet, Hates Libraries: Most Ignorant Teenagers
Hates the Internet, Hates Librarites: MPAA
For travel, battery life would seem to be an important factor. Windows (especially Vista/7) currently has a sizable lead over Linux in this regard, and that would certainly be my choice.
Even when we finally see the year of Linux on the desktop, Linux on the laptop is still a long ways off.
Doesn't Lithium react explosively with water?
You really don't get it, do you? Source compatibility isn't enough. You need BINARY compatibility. Many core business apps were developed by companies that no longer exist or developers who were no longer there. Many times, Source code doesn't exist.
Even if it does, users don't want to or know how to recompile it. And fixing that one function call that no longer exists? Why should people have to? Every function call that no longer exists is another pile of developers who won't switch to your latest version.
I highly reccomend reading Raymond Chen's blog/book to understand how backwards compatibility works in the real world.
The question isn't "what does a comparably specced machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I can get a $500-700 PC Laptop that will work great for most of my use. I can't touch that with a Mac.
And if Vista is such a success why is MS moving to Windows 7 already?
Because 2-3 years is their normal development cycle?
1993: Win3.1
1995: Win95
1998: Win98
2000: Win2K/2K1
2001: XP
2006: Vista
2009-10: 7
Vista was just an incredibly long gap.
You only really care if, like Stallman, you're a "software vegan" and are terrified about touching anything to do with non-GPL code.
Or you could install Windows, set 3 things once, and have it automatically propagate to the entire network. Which takes a matter of seconds rather than hours or days (or weeks or months when you factor in testing.....).
That also has the advantage that it's reasonably easy for someone with a common set of skills to come in, see what you've done, and know where to go and how to go to change it rapidly if need be.
Your solution requires a lot of time by very knowledgeable (and paid accordingly) labor to create, more to maintain, and if the original creator is fired and someone new is brought in, there's no guarantee that they'll have any idea what in the world is going on or that they would know how to change/fix it if they DID know what was going on.
At this point, it's uneconomical and rather silly. Goodness knows I'll get banned from Slashdot for saying it, but there are many places (this is one of them) where using Windows makes sense and is in fact not only the best solution but the most economical solution.
You know, I don't understand your Slashdot people.
Microsoft tries to get rid of XP and replaced it with an updated version. You complain that XP is "good enough" and they should just keep using what they've got.
IE6 does everything people need for a few years, so MS keeps it around. They're evil for holding back progress.
Do you people willingly give in to raw hypocrisy or are you really that blind?
Why not write it in QT, and have an application that can run on just about every platform out there WITHOUT bowing before Microsoft, who could eat your lunch should you write the "Killer Ap".
Because having developed in .NET and QT, .NET is far easier and more enjoyable to develop in. You may call it "crap", but it's actually a well-done platform that's great for developers. You may dislike its single-platform outlook, but as programming languages, the .NET languages are top-notch.
To many companies, being able to quickly and reliably put together code is much more important than supporting the tiny marketshare that represents Linux desktop users.