Either that or it's called the revenue recognition principle in accounting. You know the one under GAAP where you have to record revenue when it is realized, not when cash is received? No, that can't be it. Must be the conspiracy.
"Even the hardware makers hate MSFT because they changed VISTA just enough to break all the drivers"
That seems counterintuitive to me. I would think hardware makers would welcome changes that were just enough so the old stuff didn't work. It's not like they make any money if the old hardware people already own works perfectly for ever.
BTW, C# does not necessarily mean slow or bloated. Depending upon what the application is doing, C# *can* actually be faster than unmanaged C++. Yes, you could techinically write unmanaged C++ to do the same thing just as fast, but it would require some generally weird memory stuff that no one in a real programming shop would allow. Things like memory allocation are faster in a managed language, since you're just adding to a variable to allocate memory. Recently my team ported a major (enterprise scale) app to C# and saw up to a 5% perf increase in some areas and a 5% decrease in others... basically a wash. I'm not saying it's usually faster, but it doesn't necessarily mean a huge slowdown either.
Sure, I can write some bad code in C# that runs really slow (and people who don't know what they're doing often do just that), but I can also write the exact same crap in unmanaged C++. The key is using managed code in the proper places. If you're writing a memory manager or video driver, C# would be just plain stupid. If you're writing a business application or utility, then C# will probably give you roughly the same perf for far less cost of development.
I feel like it's 10 years ago with the ASM guys spouting off about how C++ sucks becuase you can write ASM that runs faster.
Someone said Microsoft? Cue the responses of "part of MS problem is systematic: its closed". This article is talking about the use of fuzzers to find these bugs. When using a fuzzer, you don't need the source code. Hell, you don't even need any knowledge of how the software is supposed to work. You just throw a couple hundred million crap files at it and see what makes things blow up. It has nothing at all to do with open source vs closed source.
Even if everyone in the whole world looked through MS source code, chances are many of these bugs would't be found until you tried some fuzzing tools. Shouldn't MS be running these tools themselves? You can bet they probably are... but as the techniques are evolving, some of the bugs aren't found until after release... and of course some of the bugs are found with new tools by people who want to exploit them. Welcome to the world of software development. If you've never had a bug in your code, then it's obvious no one has ever used it.
I'm all for bashing MS, but let's try and not sound completely like a broken record.
Six days after m$ft learned of the vulnerability, we were all yelling that it shouldn't take that long for a fix and thank heavens that open source projects could always churn out fixes so much quicker. Well, the open source wine has now had 3 days. Does that mean that if wine takes another 3 days, then we've proven that open source isn't always faster with fixes?
Slashdot Mirror
Either that or it's called the revenue recognition principle in accounting. You know the one under GAAP where you have to record revenue when it is realized, not when cash is received? No, that can't be it. Must be the conspiracy.
"Even the hardware makers hate MSFT because they changed VISTA just enough to break all the drivers"
That seems counterintuitive to me. I would think hardware makers would welcome changes that were just enough so the old stuff didn't work. It's not like they make any money if the old hardware people already own works perfectly for ever.
Very little.
BTW, C# does not necessarily mean slow or bloated. Depending upon what the application is doing, C# *can* actually be faster than unmanaged C++. Yes, you could techinically write unmanaged C++ to do the same thing just as fast, but it would require some generally weird memory stuff that no one in a real programming shop would allow. Things like memory allocation are faster in a managed language, since you're just adding to a variable to allocate memory. Recently my team ported a major (enterprise scale) app to C# and saw up to a 5% perf increase in some areas and a 5% decrease in others... basically a wash. I'm not saying it's usually faster, but it doesn't necessarily mean a huge slowdown either.
Sure, I can write some bad code in C# that runs really slow (and people who don't know what they're doing often do just that), but I can also write the exact same crap in unmanaged C++. The key is using managed code in the proper places. If you're writing a memory manager or video driver, C# would be just plain stupid. If you're writing a business application or utility, then C# will probably give you roughly the same perf for far less cost of development.
I feel like it's 10 years ago with the ASM guys spouting off about how C++ sucks becuase you can write ASM that runs faster.
...where 93% of those polled believe it is a crime to actually purchase a CD and the remaining 7% just responded "Micro$oft suxors".
Someone said Microsoft? Cue the responses of "part of MS problem is systematic: its closed". This article is talking about the use of fuzzers to find these bugs. When using a fuzzer, you don't need the source code. Hell, you don't even need any knowledge of how the software is supposed to work. You just throw a couple hundred million crap files at it and see what makes things blow up. It has nothing at all to do with open source vs closed source.
Even if everyone in the whole world looked through MS source code, chances are many of these bugs would't be found until you tried some fuzzing tools. Shouldn't MS be running these tools themselves? You can bet they probably are... but as the techniques are evolving, some of the bugs aren't found until after release... and of course some of the bugs are found with new tools by people who want to exploit them. Welcome to the world of software development. If you've never had a bug in your code, then it's obvious no one has ever used it.
I'm all for bashing MS, but let's try and not sound completely like a broken record.
Yup. Because Apple invented the portable music player. Just like Apple invented the GUI and the mouse and the...
Six days after m$ft learned of the vulnerability, we were all yelling that it shouldn't take that long for a fix and thank heavens that open source projects could always churn out fixes so much quicker. Well, the open source wine has now had 3 days. Does that mean that if wine takes another 3 days, then we've proven that open source isn't always faster with fixes?