Once upon a time, IBM had an operating system, but in order to lock in their cobol uses, they added a database, and a proprietary networking layer (SNA). The database survived, but the SNA mostly did not. Later Dec tried to enhance their OS with extra services.
Microsoft has just done the same thing. OS + database + proprietary networking. They are having a very similar result. IMHO we should unbundle the OS from the database, and settle on networking that works. Because MS has more drivers, how about something like NT as kernel with BSD as userland with wingui or other on top?
Microsoft would have to compete on the application layer with everyone else. If they did a better job on the kernel and drivers, they could continue to sell operating systems.
On the other hand, Apple managed to rehost their gui on top of bsd userland on a microkernel. Why can't Microsoft do the same. Obviously re-writing the operating system in visual basic is not a good idea. It is too bad they don't have some real brain-power at Microsoft to properly apply the resources they do have. If they would make some good decisions, just think of how things could be.
Oh, and whoever decided to toss the menu in favor of the ribbon should be canned right now. Back when Microsoft wanted to steal what Apple had, Microsoft and IBM stood publicly for the CUA for the sake of the user. Now they have their cake, they toss the menu because they don't care about the comfort of the user. Just when did the values promoted by CUA stop being real. The first time I confronted the menu-less "word", I couldn't figure out how to save a file with a name. Making the users feel helpless doesn't promote loyalty.
It would be great if we could go back and revisit each of Microsoft's strategic decisions on the basis of whether they were about making things better for the user, or locking in Microsoft's monopoly. When they made a mistake, they should have fixed it instead of renaming it and covering it with another layer of code, hoping we wouldn't guess it was still underneath.
As I always point out, the computers today are 1000 times faster than the IBM-PC, memory is 1000 times larger, and the disk is 1000 times larger. Why is the machine sluggish? If they are so smart, why can't they answer this question in the form of an operating environment where they don't use the majority of the cycles and there is something left for the users programs.
While sitting on the toilet meditating) I realized that since I switched to Apples, I haven't missed Active X, MFC, OLE, the Windows API, or any of their obsolete toolkits, or even NET
In the government/military world, the traffic must be obscured so that the frequency and characteristics of the traffic does not reveal anything to the infidels. This could mean sending spurious packets intermittently or altering the size of the packets randomly. Both of these alterations increase the traffic on the net with only security to gain. If a large percentage of the users used an obscuring protocol, the load on the Internet would be increased.
I am the first to admit you can write totally unmaintainable code in c++ if you want to. I will also admit that I have known a lot of c++ programmers that absolutely had to use every feature or they weren't happy.
I on the other hand used about 10% of the features and had a wonderful time using a subset that probably was actually just "c with classes". I used c++ as a better c compiler with warnings turned up all the way. I found classes an elegant way of encapsulating code that dealt with hardware. Concrete classes were my favorite. My c++ programs were straightforward and easy to read. I am thankful that BS wrote the language. It was a lot of fun. I never really needed more than I learned in the first month. Strong type checking kept me out of trouble. I actually spent very little time subclassing and enjoyed the luxury of keeping my prime classes functional. Modeling hardware as c++ objects was the most fun I had in programming ever. When done right, the code was as compact and maintainable as any I have written in any other language. Unfortunately I got very little follow-on work because the functionality of my code was obvious. Vendors like Microsoft and Borland just couldn't wait to use polymorphism to create frameworks. I hated frameworks because they were these huge collections of c++ complexity that had to be studied endlessly, and about the time you knew enough, the vendor brought out a new version. MFC is a prime example of a piece of code I just couldn't get my head around. It seemed to me that the point of all the frameworks was to make hello.cpp in 100 lines or less, but anything non-trivial got huge quickly.
I suspect that there are other people out there that felt like I did about c++. At least I hope there are. Every time I encountered a project where the legacy code used every feature of c++, my spirits took a dump. C++ was a tool that consultants often used to make themselves indispensable. Some of the code I encountered, like the bio-rad application was a good thesis, but a lousy piece of intellectual property. Twenty levels of nested classes, heavily subclassed made for a long research project every time you needed to track down a bug.
The secret of c++ for me was knowing just how much to use to leverage off the power of it's object orientation. Encapsulation was good, Inheritance was ok sometimes. Multiple inheritance was almost never a good thing, and polymorphism usually lead to spaghetti code. IMHO
These days there is a fine line between hardware and software. Many times the hardware consists of little more than a FPGA that implements the hardware component.
The total solution consists of the necessary hardware and software to do the job. If you need performance, you do what you can in the driver then enhance the hardware if necessary. If you were sitting in the FPGA programmer's seat, your idea of hardware and software would be less distinct. In the case of a controller card, the hardware of the card and the driver software does whatever is necessary to drive the target device. Simple hardware performing complex functions requires more than simple interface driver logic. A SCSI driver board used to contain several chips. This was before DMA. The SCSI software driver was under 1k of code. Oh you want DMA, Interrupts, parallel processing, RAID0156... Well send over a spec, we will do what we need to in hardware and everything else will be done in the driver. Other kinds of hardware have similar stuff going on. Hardware acceleration is a nice feature, and robust error correcting drivers make a nicer product. Oh you want a manual too? That is more. You only want to pay a little? What do you want us to scrimp on? What? You want all the performance, the features, and the source code too? Ha ha ha
I had huge driver problems recently with HP and Mac OS X. I called their technical support people and asked them what version of the Mac OS they were running on their test machines. It was three versions down level. They cannot be expected to give good support if they don't even have current version reference equipment to test on. I am not buying any more HP printers.
Are you stating that the concept of a stored program is where the security problem started and we should back up to that point and do something different? If so I want a patent on selling pictures of certain plugboard patterns that implement malware. And covering any processes that distribute those plugboard patterns to the users. I guess we don't really need compilers or assemblers if we are going to go back to plugboards. If Microsoft and Intel had the patent on plugs, this would have been the first fiat of the trusted computing initiative. Actually I thought that stored program computers was when things got interesting. Intel gdt/ldt entries with write protected code spaces was where things started getting clever, Aliased descriptors used to make code space look like data for use by the OS code loading routines was the soft spot. Things just went sour from there on.
I remember that when DSL was first rolling out, there were a number of factors that affected the speed that your line could be provisioned for. Not all these problems occurred on purpose but still had to be dealt with by AT&T when they allowed third party DSL providers to operate. Bridge taps, disturbers, packaging options as well as unfortunate distances from the CO all contributed to the difficulty in making a DSL line work. There was also a cute little module at the demarc that allowed them to remotely disconnect the line for testing that had to be removed before DSL would work. Sometimes not worth the trouble to AT&T for their piece of the pie. Experienced people know all these terms by now. Learning them was part of the task of making a homeowner know things previously known only to communications engineers contracting for data services with the telcos. "Provision-Speak" I call it. I know something about this having worked on the firmware for Copper Mountain DSLAMS.
I live on the Central California coast in Santa Maria and my ISP Comcast shows as being east of Oakland. I guess it depends on where your Internet provider leaves their private network and hits the public Internet.
I didn't know that their operations were wider than Office Live, since that would have been enough business right there. Up to now I thought that Microsoft was vaguely involved with them since their invoices showed up like clockwork for my Office Live domains. It is a shame that the same court systems that persecute students for music theft don't have time enough left over to so something about real thieves. In this case there is actual black and white physical evidence, and bank records also. What more do the authorities need.. I guess we can always hope that they forget to pay their taxes and get taken away for that.
Those are the people that are trying to scam on the domains that Microsoft helped set up for the users as part of what I think was called, "Office live". I received a bugus renewal letter for each domain started that way.
I try to keep the code modules from being so long that I cannot read them over with a minimum of scrolling. By the time they are over four pages long, there is usually something there that can be factored out and placed in a separate function . For easier maintenance files longer than that are hard to comprehend.
I have been grappling with multi-core multi-threaded programming for years and I am still waiting for some clear direction so that I can leverage for the sake of my application. My ego is not so large that I think I am going to invent the killer toolkit for this problem domain. I have been watching the Intel Threaded Building Blocks go open source, and I have not been able to convince myself that it is the solution. It is not clear yet just what multi-core programming will require. To date, it looks like parallel analysis followed by either a language level solution, or a generic toolkit useable from any popular language. If the industry settles on a solution, it is absolutely certain that Microsoft will create a bastard version with tempting support in Visual Studio that will corrupt many otherwise intelligent people.
Apple will need to hire all of the very best to create anything that will have universal appeal. I doubt they are "sun-like" enough to give it away for everyones sake. If it turns out to be an Apple specific technology, it will be nice for committed Apple targeted applications, but end up "yet another" non-portable toolkit. If it turned out to be an implementation of the Threaded Building Blocks with an Apple specific set of value added accessories, that might be tempting. Something big is going to have to happen to get everyone on board.
When the hardware vendors decided they couldn't go any further with CPU speed and that multi-cores were the new direction, they placed a bet that an industry-wide solution to parallel programming would emerge. Intel throwing in TBB is a start. I wish there was as much money and interest in solving this problem as in building the hadron collider. I hate to have to add this problem to the "only God can fix this" list where I have already placed the middle east conflict.
For those with a working memory, just last year, Apple put off the Leopard release to October because of the Iphone 1 release. That really hurt me at the time, and I haven't gotten over it. I was surprised when the announcement of Snow Leopard was so far out. That is a Microsoft thing. I am thrilled for them that the new iPhone firmware is built from the Mac OS source code. I would be more thrilled if they would move the Mac OS source code along. Considering that Vista is so stalled out, this would have been a great time for Apple to make strides and leave MS behind. Then again I think MS owns 1/3 of Apple's stock, and they may be playing nice. Not that MS has ever played nice with them.
I have done a lot of international computer consulting. It is common when traveling to fix a problem at a customer site to take source code with you in case you need to make a mod on-site. It has been a problem for me for years. What is the value of the data? Are you planning on selling it? When my computers were being shipped back from Japan, the hard drives had been cleared to zeroes by someone assuming I was smuggling something home. I went to Israel and made some operating system mods to get the floppy support working for koor industries, and my modified source code was cleared at the airport as I stepped through a koor scanner with a floppy in my pocket. bloody hell. The crossing of borders with bits will only become more problematic as time goes on.
After I spent some money, I hit a limit where they wouldn't do any more transactions unless I verified. I complained that I didn't want to link my account and they just laughed at me and said that was my choice, but I wouldn't be able to buy any more. I am sure this has happened to others. This is their way of forcing you to allow them access to your bank account.
In many C/C++ language runtimes, the fist few bytes of the data segment of the library are left empty, and that happens to be where a NULL pointer points sometimes. FWIW
Frantactical Fruke, I wasn't trying to be funny. I am American. What I was trying to say was that the impact of Baidu on the pirate music scene is probably not that great right now because the disaster in China has probably had a huge impact on the percentage of Chinese that are still in position to jump on their computers and download copyrighted content. Normally I have disdain for China as a country with a common disregard for copyrighted material, but I am trying to get past that right now and be more compassionate. I don't really understand your posting. In regard to the article, the importance of the Baidu home page and its link is probably reduced on the basis of current events. This is what I was trying to say. What were you trying to say? I don't do well with subtlety.
In my youth, Data Processing was what they called using computers for business. Analysts invented ways to enhance business data flow. The analyst drew a flow chart. A programmer (coder) wrote some code that implemented the flow chart. At some point, the software was used, then they started the process again.
I am pretty sure that there were people involved in this that were responsible overall for things getting done. Specifications and metrics may have been involved.
I only have a limited ability with "Patent Speak", but from what I could read of the patent, it seems to me that it simply describes what has been going on since the fifties.
Now I know that Microsoft wants complete control over computers and technology. I know that it bothers them that software can be written by just about anyone, especially without a degree or a license, or a union.
From the look of this patent,and what I know about trusted computing and dot net, this looks like the most recent obvious ploy to create a world where only Microsoft can write software, only in their way (see components/objects), and only in a situation with an authorized manager, client, and developer, all of whom must stay rigidly in their roles at all times.
What I would expect from them next is to push for a law that makes it illegal to create software in any other way than their patented client/manger/developer mechanism.
I was unable to complete my read of the patent application because my bull-sh*t-o-meter went off and I became ill and had to throw up.
There are some things that are not right in the world and they need to be fixed. Poverty, hunger... I fail to see how this patent will improve the quality of life on the planet.
I believe that a router should have robust enough protocol handlers to survive a malformed packet. If it can be crashed it is not merchantable.
Do you think you could reasonably sell a firewall with an ad that says, "This firewall will stop any bad stuff that is coming at it, as long as what is coming at it is perfectly correct protocol code that meets the RFCs in all respects and breaks no rules. Ha ha ha.
I agree that a router should never crash from being send garbage.
I think it is fair after reading these posts to point out that there is a difference between a commerical router that is engineered to closely adhere to standards and is expected to be reliable and secure, and the alternative.
In this case the alternative is some piece of hardware that seems to execute a Linux kernel that may or may not be standard. If a Linux kernel on some hobby hardware (or inexpensive home stuff) is being used as a router and it seems to be working, that is great and you just saved ten thousand dollars buying a real router. But never forget there are highly engineered hardened routers that are expensive because it took lots of time and trouble to assure their reliability, perhaps many years in the case of Cisco.
I know people are quick to grab some PC hardware, load up unix, and declare themselves to have some network infrastructure, but these are toys in comparison to the real stuff. Businesses with important work to do and important data to secure must use the right stuff.
I mean no disrespect to Linux, but it is just not the same. Now there are router companies that make minimum hardware and load up a Linux kernel, and declare this a router. You get what you pay for.
"I can see you're a get-it-done-guy, but we don't need that here"
I did a free project evaluation for LucusArts in Marin County several years ago. They sent me over to a lab where a project was going too slowly. I spent an hour trying to find a fit where my skills could help move things along. Finally they kissed me off with the above remark. I haven't paid much attention to them since. And by the way, I never did see that project hit the streets. Not in over five years.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has just done the same thing. OS + database + proprietary networking. They are having a very similar result. IMHO we should unbundle the OS from the database, and settle on networking that works. Because MS has more drivers, how about something like NT as kernel with BSD as userland with wingui or other on top?
Microsoft would have to compete on the application layer with everyone else. If they did a better job on the kernel and drivers, they could continue to sell operating systems.
On the other hand, Apple managed to rehost their gui on top of bsd userland on a microkernel. Why can't Microsoft do the same. Obviously re-writing the operating system in visual basic is not a good idea. It is too bad they don't have some real brain-power at Microsoft to properly apply the resources they do have. If they would make some good decisions, just think of how things could be.
Oh, and whoever decided to toss the menu in favor of the ribbon should be canned right now. Back when Microsoft wanted to steal what Apple had, Microsoft and IBM stood publicly for the CUA for the sake of the user. Now they have their cake, they toss the menu because they don't care about the comfort of the user. Just when did the values promoted by CUA stop being real. The first time I confronted the menu-less "word", I couldn't figure out how to save a file with a name. Making the users feel helpless doesn't promote loyalty.
It would be great if we could go back and revisit each of Microsoft's strategic decisions on the basis of whether they were about making things better for the user, or locking in Microsoft's monopoly. When they made a mistake, they should have fixed it instead of renaming it and covering it with another layer of code, hoping we wouldn't guess it was still underneath.
As I always point out, the computers today are 1000 times faster than the IBM-PC, memory is 1000 times larger, and the disk is 1000 times larger. Why is the machine sluggish? If they are so smart, why can't they answer this question in the form of an operating environment where they don't use the majority of the cycles and there is something left for the users programs.
While sitting on the toilet meditating) I realized that since I switched to Apples, I haven't missed Active X, MFC, OLE, the Windows API, or any of their obsolete toolkits, or even NET
In the government/military world, the traffic must be obscured so that the frequency and characteristics of the traffic does not reveal anything to the infidels. This could mean sending spurious packets intermittently or altering the size of the packets randomly. Both of these alterations increase the traffic on the net with only security to gain. If a large percentage of the users used an obscuring protocol, the load on the Internet would be increased.
(pearls) swine(); '
I on the other hand used about 10% of the features and had a wonderful time using a subset that probably was actually just "c with classes". I used c++ as a better c compiler with warnings turned up all the way. I found classes an elegant way of encapsulating code that dealt with hardware. Concrete classes were my favorite. My c++ programs were straightforward and easy to read. I am thankful that BS wrote the language. It was a lot of fun. I never really needed more than I learned in the first month. Strong type checking kept me out of trouble. I actually spent very little time subclassing and enjoyed the luxury of keeping my prime classes functional. Modeling hardware as c++ objects was the most fun I had in programming ever. When done right, the code was as compact and maintainable as any I have written in any other language. Unfortunately I got very little follow-on work because the functionality of my code was obvious. Vendors like Microsoft and Borland just couldn't wait to use polymorphism to create frameworks. I hated frameworks because they were these huge collections of c++ complexity that had to be studied endlessly, and about the time you knew enough, the vendor brought out a new version. MFC is a prime example of a piece of code I just couldn't get my head around. It seemed to me that the point of all the frameworks was to make hello.cpp in 100 lines or less, but anything non-trivial got huge quickly.
I suspect that there are other people out there that felt like I did about c++. At least I hope there are. Every time I encountered a project where the legacy code used every feature of c++, my spirits took a dump. C++ was a tool that consultants often used to make themselves indispensable. Some of the code I encountered, like the bio-rad application was a good thesis, but a lousy piece of intellectual property. Twenty levels of nested classes, heavily subclassed made for a long research project every time you needed to track down a bug.
The secret of c++ for me was knowing just how much to use to leverage off the power of it's object orientation. Encapsulation was good, Inheritance was ok sometimes. Multiple inheritance was almost never a good thing, and polymorphism usually lead to spaghetti code. IMHO
These days there is a fine line between hardware and software. Many times the hardware consists of little more than a FPGA that implements the hardware component. The total solution consists of the necessary hardware and software to do the job. If you need performance, you do what you can in the driver then enhance the hardware if necessary. If you were sitting in the FPGA programmer's seat, your idea of hardware and software would be less distinct. In the case of a controller card, the hardware of the card and the driver software does whatever is necessary to drive the target device. Simple hardware performing complex functions requires more than simple interface driver logic. A SCSI driver board used to contain several chips. This was before DMA. The SCSI software driver was under 1k of code. Oh you want DMA, Interrupts, parallel processing, RAID0156... Well send over a spec, we will do what we need to in hardware and everything else will be done in the driver. Other kinds of hardware have similar stuff going on. Hardware acceleration is a nice feature, and robust error correcting drivers make a nicer product. Oh you want a manual too? That is more. You only want to pay a little? What do you want us to scrimp on? What? You want all the performance, the features, and the source code too? Ha ha ha
I had huge driver problems recently with HP and Mac OS X. I called their technical support people and asked them what version of the Mac OS they were running on their test machines. It was three versions down level. They cannot be expected to give good support if they don't even have current version reference equipment to test on. I am not buying any more HP printers.
Are you stating that the concept of a stored program is where the security problem started and we should back up to that point and do something different? If so I want a patent on selling pictures of certain plugboard patterns that implement malware. And covering any processes that distribute those plugboard patterns to the users. I guess we don't really need compilers or assemblers if we are going to go back to plugboards. If Microsoft and Intel had the patent on plugs, this would have been the first fiat of the trusted computing initiative. Actually I thought that stored program computers was when things got interesting. Intel gdt/ldt entries with write protected code spaces was where things started getting clever, Aliased descriptors used to make code space look like data for use by the OS code loading routines was the soft spot. Things just went sour from there on.
I remember that when DSL was first rolling out, there were a number of factors that affected the speed that your line could be provisioned for. Not all these problems occurred on purpose but still had to be dealt with by AT&T when they allowed third party DSL providers to operate. Bridge taps, disturbers, packaging options as well as unfortunate distances from the CO all contributed to the difficulty in making a DSL line work. There was also a cute little module at the demarc that allowed them to remotely disconnect the line for testing that had to be removed before DSL would work. Sometimes not worth the trouble to AT&T for their piece of the pie. Experienced people know all these terms by now. Learning them was part of the task of making a homeowner know things previously known only to communications engineers contracting for data services with the telcos. "Provision-Speak" I call it. I know something about this having worked on the firmware for Copper Mountain DSLAMS.
I live on the Central California coast in Santa Maria and my ISP Comcast shows as being east of Oakland. I guess it depends on where your Internet provider leaves their private network and hits the public Internet.
I didn't know that their operations were wider than Office Live, since that would have been enough business right there. Up to now I thought that Microsoft was vaguely involved with them since their invoices showed up like clockwork for my Office Live domains. It is a shame that the same court systems that persecute students for music theft don't have time enough left over to so something about real thieves. In this case there is actual black and white physical evidence, and bank records also. What more do the authorities need.. I guess we can always hope that they forget to pay their taxes and get taken away for that.
Those are the people that are trying to scam on the domains that Microsoft helped set up for the users as part of what I think was called, "Office live". I received a bugus renewal letter for each domain started that way.
I try to keep the code modules from being so long that I cannot read them over with a minimum of scrolling. By the time they are over four pages long, there is usually something there that can be factored out and placed in a separate function . For easier maintenance files longer than that are hard to comprehend.
Apple will need to hire all of the very best to create anything that will have universal appeal. I doubt they are "sun-like" enough to give it away for everyones sake. If it turns out to be an Apple specific technology, it will be nice for committed Apple targeted applications, but end up "yet another" non-portable toolkit. If it turned out to be an implementation of the Threaded Building Blocks with an Apple specific set of value added accessories, that might be tempting. Something big is going to have to happen to get everyone on board.
When the hardware vendors decided they couldn't go any further with CPU speed and that multi-cores were the new direction, they placed a bet that an industry-wide solution to parallel programming would emerge. Intel throwing in TBB is a start. I wish there was as much money and interest in solving this problem as in building the hadron collider. I hate to have to add this problem to the "only God can fix this" list where I have already placed the middle east conflict.
For those with a working memory, just last year, Apple put off the Leopard release to October because of the Iphone 1 release. That really hurt me at the time, and I haven't gotten over it. I was surprised when the announcement of Snow Leopard was so far out. That is a Microsoft thing. I am thrilled for them that the new iPhone firmware is built from the Mac OS source code. I would be more thrilled if they would move the Mac OS source code along. Considering that Vista is so stalled out, this would have been a great time for Apple to make strides and leave MS behind. Then again I think MS owns 1/3 of Apple's stock, and they may be playing nice. Not that MS has ever played nice with them.
I have done a lot of international computer consulting. It is common when traveling to fix a problem at a customer site to take source code with you in case you need to make a mod on-site. It has been a problem for me for years. What is the value of the data? Are you planning on selling it? When my computers were being shipped back from Japan, the hard drives had been cleared to zeroes by someone assuming I was smuggling something home. I went to Israel and made some operating system mods to get the floppy support working for koor industries, and my modified source code was cleared at the airport as I stepped through a koor scanner with a floppy in my pocket. bloody hell. The crossing of borders with bits will only become more problematic as time goes on.
After I spent some money, I hit a limit where they wouldn't do any more transactions unless I verified. I complained that I didn't want to link my account and they just laughed at me and said that was my choice, but I wouldn't be able to buy any more. I am sure this has happened to others. This is their way of forcing you to allow them access to your bank account.
In many C/C++ language runtimes, the fist few bytes of the data segment of the library are left empty, and that happens to be where a NULL pointer points sometimes. FWIW
All he had to do was sign it.
And would EF be Edgar Friendly?
Frantactical Fruke, I wasn't trying to be funny. I am American. What I was trying to say was that the impact of Baidu on the pirate music scene is probably not that great right now because the disaster in China has probably had a huge impact on the percentage of Chinese that are still in position to jump on their computers and download copyrighted content. Normally I have disdain for China as a country with a common disregard for copyrighted material, but I am trying to get past that right now and be more compassionate. I don't really understand your posting. In regard to the article, the importance of the Baidu home page and its link is probably reduced on the basis of current events. This is what I was trying to say. What were you trying to say? I don't do well with subtlety.
I am pretty sure that there were people involved in this that were responsible overall for things getting done. Specifications and metrics may have been involved.
I only have a limited ability with "Patent Speak", but from what I could read of the patent, it seems to me that it simply describes what has been going on since the fifties.
Now I know that Microsoft wants complete control over computers and technology. I know that it bothers them that software can be written by just about anyone, especially without a degree or a license, or a union.
From the look of this patent,and what I know about trusted computing and dot net, this looks like the most recent obvious ploy to create a world where only Microsoft can write software, only in their way (see components/objects), and only in a situation with an authorized manager, client, and developer, all of whom must stay rigidly in their roles at all times.
What I would expect from them next is to push for a law that makes it illegal to create software in any other way than their patented client/manger/developer mechanism.
I was unable to complete my read of the patent application because my bull-sh*t-o-meter went off and I became ill and had to throw up.
There are some things that are not right in the world and they need to be fixed. Poverty, hunger... I fail to see how this patent will improve the quality of life on the planet.
I mean, It's a Joke, Right?
Do you think you could reasonably sell a firewall with an ad that says, "This firewall will stop any bad stuff that is coming at it, as long as what is coming at it is perfectly correct protocol code that meets the RFCs in all respects and breaks no rules. Ha ha ha.
I think it is fair after reading these posts to point out that there is a difference between a commerical router that is engineered to closely adhere to standards and is expected to be reliable and secure, and the alternative.
In this case the alternative is some piece of hardware that seems to execute a Linux kernel that may or may not be standard. If a Linux kernel on some hobby hardware (or inexpensive home stuff) is being used as a router and it seems to be working, that is great and you just saved ten thousand dollars buying a real router. But never forget there are highly engineered hardened routers that are expensive because it took lots of time and trouble to assure their reliability, perhaps many years in the case of Cisco.
I know people are quick to grab some PC hardware, load up unix, and declare themselves to have some network infrastructure, but these are toys in comparison to the real stuff. Businesses with important work to do and important data to secure must use the right stuff.
I mean no disrespect to Linux, but it is just not the same. Now there are router companies that make minimum hardware and load up a Linux kernel, and declare this a router. You get what you pay for.
I did a free project evaluation for LucusArts in Marin County several years ago. They sent me over to a lab where a project was going too slowly. I spent an hour trying to find a fit where my skills could help move things along. Finally they kissed me off with the above remark. I haven't paid much attention to them since. And by the way, I never did see that project hit the streets. Not in over five years.