There's nothing worse than "ex-programmer managers" that get into details they really don't need to.
Set/agree key project milestones with the team and leave them to it. Maintain clear tracking of these and pressure them only when they're slipping on these into the buffer time you would've naturally planned for anyway (even if not publicly planned for).
Second to micromanaging, there's nothing worse than managers agreeing to project deadlines without consulting the geeks first.
Also, geeks appreciate a manager that stands up for them when the goalposts have been artificially moved from higher up.
Get it right and you'll have a highly motivated team that will go above & beyond for you when you need them most; get it wrong and your project will fly like a lead balloon.
Actually, to be brutally honest with you, the only other game that knocked me nearly as flat as the first glorious C&C sessions has been Generals Zero Hour (which perfected the vanilla generals).
Generals ZH was all about battle gameplay though; it had really well thought-out units that were few enough that complete n00bs could get into a LAN game without too much confusion, and again each side was distinct, but this time that the generals had different strategy emphasis which added lot's to the game-play style. My only problem would be the super-weapons general had a massive massive advantage if the limit super-weapons was not set. C&C3 & RA3 in my opinion are prettier versions that just don't add anything to the Generals new take on the C&C direction.
But anyway, back to the original; no game has since topped that first experience all-round C&C experience; I'll never forget my first human on human battle using the serial ports and one huge cable I bought specifically for it...having all the tech at once was worth it alone.
And how could I forget.....the surprise crates (money bonus/see all map/tiberian monster/etc)! Ah man, what a game; no other RTS has inspired so much joy and happy memories as this one, and for so many reasons.
The original C&C was huge though not just for gameplay, but because it was one of the first games to use full-screen video, you could play as the baddies or goodies (each with their own very distinct units), had an awesome soundtrack, and to this day had the best setup program ever!
Oh, and for the NOD missions you could choose your ending.
They don't make them like they used to!
Re:Ubuntu Unpatched 0, Microsoft Unpatched 6 + App
on
Botnets As "eWMDs"
·
· Score: 1
Remember that Ubuntu stats include the ALL the applications and servers in the Ubuntu repository.
Except that the most severe vulnerability in Vista is an MSDTC/COM+ hole for IIS7 apps - hardly "only the operating system" seeing as IIS isn't even available in all versions of Vista, and for versions it is it's not installed by default. Bear in mind too of course, IIS7 doesn't permit even asp.net to run by default either, let alone COM+/ISAPI code to run, so it takes someone that knows what they're doing to even get such an app to work at all, let alone allow exploit code to run.
There quite possibly is open holes in SQL Server 7. I'm not even sure it's supported anymore; it having now being superseeded by SQL Server 2000, 2005, and 2008. If you could at least use examples for software written in this millennia, it would make your case look a bit more credible.
Re:No stats.Just vulnerabilty list Microsoft no fi
on
Botnets As "eWMDs"
·
· Score: 1
In Vista, for example, that include SIX unpatched vulnerabilities that include information disclosure, denial of service and escalation of privilege ( the latter disclosed just under seven months ago 2008-04-18 ).
...all of which were given "less critical" ratings as the highest by the very site you linked, for good reason should you look into the vulnerabilities mention.
Now for pure numbers of vulnerabilities found, Vista does pretty well; according to Secunia, less than Ubuntu in fact. Well under half in fact.
I appreciate this whole subject is a "can of worms" and a grey area, which is why throwing plain stats around claiming "Look at this empirical evidence that $OS_NAME is the most secure ever!" is pretty pointless (from both angles), and frankly, comparing Windows users to terrorist is plain stupid.
Re: Microsoft desktop == Abetting Terrorists?
on
Botnets As "eWMDs"
·
· Score: 1
in that programs that are essentially sleeping; checking for mail or somesuch task (and there's quite a few) have to stay resident in physical memory.
That sounds ok at first, but it's often better to page them out as they're rarely doing anything so the memory they use is better off used for caching or something like that.
Windows is pretty good at side-lining such programs so it can give processor active processes more physical memory to play with, which ultimately speeds up your machine.
...when you consider that 99% of malware requires user interaction with said malware (clicking, opening, whatever) to get it onto the system in the first place....which you never do with any server, let alone a Linux server.
Desktop dominance != server dominance; you can't compare infection rates between the two.
The problem with Vista is that even at this date, E-Film does not still work.
FTW: "eFilm Workstation 2.1.2 is currently undergoing testing for operation within the MS Vista operating system environment, and will be validated for use in Vista systems soon".
Sounds like the "DRM and video stuff" isn't going to be such a problem after all.
Take a look at how Windows has developed in it's lifetime:
Win3.1/3.11 - first significant iteration in the consumer/business realm. Basic, shaky, no security, but manages to support basic operation.
Win95 - first serious consumer OS. Shaky as hell, new interface, sets the first serious 32 bit API set. 1st implementation of (rather wobbly) plug & play.
Win98 - Solidifies DirectX; Windows becomes "the multimedia platform" for PCs. P&P tweaked to be slightly more reliable-
WinNT4 - Win95 interface/API set with "security" & networking. Lacks true multimedia support. No P&P. Required 6.5 service packs to make it stable.
Win2000 - Win98 & NT 4 effectively merged. finally a stable OS with security facilities, decent multimedia facilities, and P&P. Required 4 service-packs to make it stable.
WinXP - Win2k kernel & drivers solid enough to move mainstream users onto NT 5 kernel branch. Adds fluffy consumer-friendly features and finally 32bit icon support. And skins. Required 2 service-packs to make it stable (extra one basically a roll-up package).
Vista - For the first time ever, MS break a "consumer OS" tradition of making root-level access elevation only. They rip out various driver models that haven't changed in decades. Large chunks of the kernel are re-written from scratch. Unsurprisingly it breaks apps on release. It takes 1 service-pack + a slew of new drivers to make stable.
In short: They made it (Win3.11), they made it sing & dance (Win95/98), they made it work (Win2k), then they secured it (Vista).
The point is that there are benefits to upgrading. Sure you don't have to, but each major version of Windows has brought benefits - even Vista
That's fair, and in fact Vista did have scheduler optimisations go into it (the link for which I can't find). So performance will vary, one hopes for the better.
Some facts: - Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now. - Vista in fact speeds up some operations over XP by pre-caching commonly used stuff. This uses more memory, and is often confused for being "bloated" by actually using the memory that you blessed your computer with being able to use, for what in fact it was designed for - speed increase. - Windows 7 is taking Vista and putting it on a diet while not fundamentally changing the architecture. If it works on Vista it'll work on W7. That's a stated design goal.
Thus, for performance: Expect Windows 7 to be more responsive to user-input, work on lower-ended machines, start up quicker, etc. Don't expect: CPU intensive apps (games for example) to suddenly speed up 50%; memory intensive apps to use any less memory. They won't - Windows 7 is an operating system, not an overclockers kit.
Windows 7 isn't even in beta yet and people already think it could be faster than it's production older brother.
It's not a huge kernel overhaul or anything, but I still remember how terribly Vista, even upto public beta 2, really crawled compared to even the RTM release.
180 million sales! And at least some of those were actually activated and are actually in use!
There's plenty more I suspect that were not purchased but are in use, that of course won't be included in that ball-park-figure. Remember, we're talking to installations that someone handed hard cash over for only, which of course isn't necessary for FOSS operating systems.
Vista is a failure by most standards and Microsoft's OS monopoly is gradually being eroded. This recession is helping.
I'm sorry, but an OS that racks up that number of orders, pre-installed or otherwise, is not a failure on any level. Something many anti-vista people forget when they knee-jerk the response "sales != installs" is that yes! You're right! There's a tonne more people that have pirated it too, and thus swing the figure the other way.
In my honest opinion, there's two things that Vista did badly; 1, released too early (for reasons that constitute their own debate), and 2, not enough work done on trimming fat so it runs on older/cheaper machines. We're seeing inroads being made by Linux (and XP) because of this.
Point 1 is now fixed, point 2 is in progress a.k.a Windows 7 (Title is 'Windows 7 will be lean, faster, and even embedded')
And don't for a minute think twitter does the FOSS movement any favours at all. I actually wonder if he too is on the M$ payroll, he does that good a job of giving level-headed objectivity on the pros/cons of OSS vs MS.
Keep saying it enough and you might convince yourself. Meanwhile, if your metric for failure is sales, then I'd suggestion 180 million sales isn't a bad metric to go by.
To be objective, Vista did break a lot of things when it RTMed, hence the bad rap it took. Nearly 2 years on now, and things are much much smoother.
But no, you're right, Vista is a failure. Keep repeating it and it'll be true eventually I promise!
You can't pick IE6 AND Vista. Many sites work well only with IE6.
Name me one site that works in IE 7/8 but not IE6. Seriously, pick any.
Add multiple versions of SharePoint, Office, Active Directory... and pretty soon, you realise even Microsoft's products do not work well between and amongst themselves.
Mmmmm that's quite a sweeping comment to make; again, can you give specifics? You have a point on some of the sever-side stuff; IIS being tied to a Windows version; Exchange too tends to have fairly strict OS requirements, but for server-side operations this rarely causes adoption problems; given that server's are few compared to the many clients they are supposed to service.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing worse than "ex-programmer managers" that get into details they really don't need to.
Set/agree key project milestones with the team and leave them to it. Maintain clear tracking of these and pressure them only when they're slipping on these into the buffer time you would've naturally planned for anyway (even if not publicly planned for).
Second to micromanaging, there's nothing worse than managers agreeing to project deadlines without consulting the geeks first.
Also, geeks appreciate a manager that stands up for them when the goalposts have been artificially moved from higher up.
Get it right and you'll have a highly motivated team that will go above & beyond for you when you need them most; get it wrong and your project will fly like a lead balloon.
True! Wow, I can't think of a single game that's had incorporated so much greatness!
In the days when the next best thing most people were playing was QBASIC monkey.bas, full screen video was a big deal.
Now far less so, but still, it definitely added to the immersive nature of the game at the time.
Actually, to be brutally honest with you, the only other game that knocked me nearly as flat as the first glorious C&C sessions has been Generals Zero Hour (which perfected the vanilla generals).
Generals ZH was all about battle gameplay though; it had really well thought-out units that were few enough that complete n00bs could get into a LAN game without too much confusion, and again each side was distinct, but this time that the generals had different strategy emphasis which added lot's to the game-play style. My only problem would be the super-weapons general had a massive massive advantage if the limit super-weapons was not set.
C&C3 & RA3 in my opinion are prettier versions that just don't add anything to the Generals new take on the C&C direction.
But anyway, back to the original; no game has since topped that first experience all-round C&C experience; I'll never forget my first human on human battle using the serial ports and one huge cable I bought specifically for it...having all the tech at once was worth it alone.
And how could I forget.....the surprise crates (money bonus/see all map/tiberian monster/etc)! Ah man, what a game; no other RTS has inspired so much joy and happy memories as this one, and for so many reasons.
The original C&C was huge though not just for gameplay, but because it was one of the first games to use full-screen video, you could play as the baddies or goodies (each with their own very distinct units), had an awesome soundtrack, and to this day had the best setup program ever!
Oh, and for the NOD missions you could choose your ending.
They don't make them like they used to!
Remember that Ubuntu stats include the ALL the applications and servers in the Ubuntu repository.
Except that the most severe vulnerability in Vista is an MSDTC/COM+ hole for IIS7 apps - hardly "only the operating system" seeing as IIS isn't even available in all versions of Vista, and for versions it is it's not installed by default. Bear in mind too of course, IIS7 doesn't permit even asp.net to run by default either, let alone COM+/ISAPI code to run, so it takes someone that knows what they're doing to even get such an app to work at all, let alone allow exploit code to run.
There quite possibly is open holes in SQL Server 7. I'm not even sure it's supported anymore; it having now being superseeded by SQL Server 2000, 2005, and 2008. If you could at least use examples for software written in this millennia, it would make your case look a bit more credible.
In Vista, for example, that include SIX unpatched vulnerabilities that include information disclosure, denial of service and escalation of privilege ( the latter disclosed just under seven months ago 2008-04-18 ).
...all of which were given "less critical" ratings as the highest by the very site you linked, for good reason should you look into the vulnerabilities mention.
Now for pure numbers of vulnerabilities found, Vista does pretty well; according to Secunia, less than Ubuntu in fact. Well under half in fact.
I appreciate this whole subject is a "can of worms" and a grey area, which is why throwing plain stats around claiming "Look at this empirical evidence that $OS_NAME is the most secure ever!" is pretty pointless (from both angles), and frankly, comparing Windows users to terrorist is plain stupid.
There's lies, damned lies, then using statistics to prop up the notion that your favourite OS is the most secure
Now where does that leave us?
in that programs that are essentially sleeping; checking for mail or somesuch task (and there's quite a few) have to stay resident in physical memory.
That sounds ok at first, but it's often better to page them out as they're rarely doing anything so the memory they use is better off used for caching or something like that.
Windows is pretty good at side-lining such programs so it can give processor active processes more physical memory to play with, which ultimately speeds up your machine.
...when you consider that 99% of malware requires user interaction with said malware (clicking, opening, whatever) to get it onto the system in the first place....which you never do with any server, let alone a Linux server.
Desktop dominance != server dominance; you can't compare infection rates between the two.
Flaming sentiment: check.
Questionable grammar: check.
DRM + Vista mention: check.
Zero citations: check.
Please feel free to comment similar sentiment when non-Microsoft OS's get patched up quickly.
In other news, Apple is now recommending Anti-Virus for Mac OSX. Now that is a curious turn of events, don't you think?
The problem with Vista is that even at this date, E-Film does not still work.
FTW: "eFilm Workstation 2.1.2 is currently undergoing testing for operation within the MS Vista operating system environment, and will be validated for use in Vista systems soon".
Sounds like the "DRM and video stuff" isn't going to be such a problem after all.
Take a look at how Windows has developed in it's lifetime:
Win3.1/3.11 - first significant iteration in the consumer/business realm. Basic, shaky, no security, but manages to support basic operation.
Win95 - first serious consumer OS. Shaky as hell, new interface, sets the first serious 32 bit API set. 1st implementation of (rather wobbly) plug & play.
Win98 - Solidifies DirectX; Windows becomes "the multimedia platform" for PCs. P&P tweaked to be slightly more reliable-
WinNT4 - Win95 interface/API set with "security" & networking. Lacks true multimedia support. No P&P. Required 6.5 service packs to make it stable.
Win2000 - Win98 & NT 4 effectively merged. finally a stable OS with security facilities, decent multimedia facilities, and P&P. Required 4 service-packs to make it stable.
WinXP - Win2k kernel & drivers solid enough to move mainstream users onto NT 5 kernel branch. Adds fluffy consumer-friendly features and finally 32bit icon support. And skins. Required 2 service-packs to make it stable (extra one basically a roll-up package).
Vista - For the first time ever, MS break a "consumer OS" tradition of making root-level access elevation only. They rip out various driver models that haven't changed in decades. Large chunks of the kernel are re-written from scratch. Unsurprisingly it breaks apps on release. It takes 1 service-pack + a slew of new drivers to make stable.
In short: They made it (Win3.11), they made it sing & dance (Win95/98), they made it work (Win2k), then they secured it (Vista).
The point is that there are benefits to upgrading. Sure you don't have to, but each major version of Windows has brought benefits - even Vista
That's fair, and in fact Vista did have scheduler optimisations go into it (the link for which I can't find). So performance will vary, one hopes for the better.
This might interest you then - http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/vista-service-p.html
This explains nicely - http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1707
Short answer: mostly.
Some facts:
- Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now.
- Vista in fact speeds up some operations over XP by pre-caching commonly used stuff. This uses more memory, and is often confused for being "bloated" by actually using the memory that you blessed your computer with being able to use, for what in fact it was designed for - speed increase.
- Windows 7 is taking Vista and putting it on a diet while not fundamentally changing the architecture. If it works on Vista it'll work on W7. That's a stated design goal.
Thus, for performance: Expect Windows 7 to be more responsive to user-input, work on lower-ended machines, start up quicker, etc. Don't expect: CPU intensive apps (games for example) to suddenly speed up 50%; memory intensive apps to use any less memory. They won't - Windows 7 is an operating system, not an overclockers kit.
Windows 7 isn't even in beta yet and people already think it could be faster than it's production older brother.
It's not a huge kernel overhaul or anything, but I still remember how terribly Vista, even upto public beta 2, really crawled compared to even the RTM release.
180 million sales! And at least some of those were actually activated and are actually in use!
There's plenty more I suspect that were not purchased but are in use, that of course won't be included in that ball-park-figure. Remember, we're talking to installations that someone handed hard cash over for only, which of course isn't necessary for FOSS operating systems.
Vista is a failure by most standards and Microsoft's OS monopoly is gradually being eroded. This recession is helping.
I'm sorry, but an OS that racks up that number of orders, pre-installed or otherwise, is not a failure on any level. Something many anti-vista people forget when they knee-jerk the response "sales != installs" is that yes! You're right! There's a tonne more people that have pirated it too, and thus swing the figure the other way.
In my honest opinion, there's two things that Vista did badly; 1, released too early (for reasons that constitute their own debate), and 2, not enough work done on trimming fat so it runs on older/cheaper machines. We're seeing inroads being made by Linux (and XP) because of this.
Point 1 is now fixed, point 2 is in progress a.k.a Windows 7 (Title is 'Windows 7 will be lean, faster, and even embedded')
And don't for a minute think twitter does the FOSS movement any favours at all. I actually wonder if he too is on the M$ payroll, he does that good a job of giving level-headed objectivity on the pros/cons of OSS vs MS.
Vista is a failure
Keep saying it enough and you might convince yourself. Meanwhile, if your metric for failure is sales, then I'd suggestion 180 million sales isn't a bad metric to go by.
To be objective, Vista did break a lot of things when it RTMed, hence the bad rap it took. Nearly 2 years on now, and things are much much smoother.
But no, you're right, Vista is a failure. Keep repeating it and it'll be true eventually I promise!
You know a technology is good when it's demonstrated in terms of porn load-balancing.
Excellent explanation, thanks!
Not unless you logoff, the session is closed by an admin, or it time-outs it won't. This X stuff sounds very similar so far
That wouldn't essentially be remote desktop would it?
(Just curious)
You can't pick IE6 AND Vista. Many sites work well only with IE6.
Name me one site that works in IE 7/8 but not IE6. Seriously, pick any.
Add multiple versions of SharePoint, Office, Active Directory... and pretty soon, you realise even Microsoft's products do not work well between and amongst themselves.
Mmmmm that's quite a sweeping comment to make; again, can you give specifics? You have a point on some of the sever-side stuff; IIS being tied to a Windows version; Exchange too tends to have fairly strict OS requirements, but for server-side operations this rarely causes adoption problems; given that server's are few compared to the many clients they are supposed to service.