[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Tom Potts wrote: > Theo Zourzouvillys wrote: >> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 22:13, Tom Potts wrote: >> >> >>>>> What you do not do is give large quantities of money to a company that >>>>> makes the same mistakes over and over again - probably deliberately so >>>>> mugs will upgrade. >>>>> >>>> Out of interest, which "same mistakes" do you refer to? >>>> >>> Apart from writing appalling software? >>> >> >> OS + developer tools aside, i see MS Office (+Visio etc), IE, BizTalk, >> Exchange, MS Money, SQL Server, and some games as their "main" products. for >> some reason, i can't seem to think of any others (MS Works + Encarta maybe, >> hehehe). >> >> MS office is in *MY* view, an excellent product. I'm sure millions of other >> people around the world would agree with me. It's certinaly a lot faster >> than OOo on the same hardware, and has the equivalent set of features, not to >> mention that visio has nothing open source that even comes close to it yet. >> >> IE 6 is also a very fast (infact, magnitudes faster than it's only other >> competitor at the time of release) at rendering. [queue netscape zealots ...] >> >> BizTalk i've never used so could not comment on. >> >> Exchange is good for the job it was designed to do, although i'd argue that >> exim + cyrus probably does the job better - unless you have an IT support guy >> (or none at all) that does not know linux. However, i see nothing *wrong* >> with Exchange. >> >> Althouh i prefer quickbooks over MS Money, i know a lot of people who prefer >> it to quickbooks - so again, couldn't class it as "appalling". >> >> MSSQL seems fine - it's in the leauge of oracle + postgres. again, certianly >> not "appalling" - although not my cup of tsai. >> >> If you are discussing operating system itsefl, rather than product, then i >> think you need tell me which *version* you are refering to: each have had >> different characteristics. None of which i would call "appaling" for the >> time they were released when compared to their competitors, other than maybe >> ME :-) >> >> >>> Apart from trying to pretend computers are easier than they are? >>> >> >> I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here? >> >> >>> Ever heard of buffer overflow? >>> They cant have had more that a few hundred thousand of those crop up in each >>> >> new OS. >> >> you need to be far, far more exact. >> >> Are you talking about windows as a server or desktop? Which version? local or >> remote ones, or both? >> >> Show me kernel domain buffer overflows. I'll probably be able to match you >> with the same number of linux ones. >> >> now if you're talking about buffer overflows (which by the way, is not the >> only form of security risk) in libraries, then thats' a completely different >> story, and one that can not in any way be fairly measured for either parties. >> >> Other way, they're in the dozens, not "hundreds of thousands". which, by the >> way, a GNU desktop probably is, too. >> >> >>> If I sold you a car without brakes because that was more user friendly >>> you'd have me in court tomorrow - you'd at least get your money back on the >>> argument that 'the product was not fit for purpose' let alone downright >>> dangerous. >>> >> >> see my previous post - i agree entirely. But this has absolutely zero to do >> with Microsoft's products, as they have ALL been fit for their purpose at >> time of sale IMO. >> >> >>> Sell me a computer that connects to the net without any security >>> - other than that offered to Microsoft in the product license knowing it >>> could get compromised is theft! >>> Microsoft could have put in a firewall on >>> all products from w95 onwards at practically zero cost, but then they >>> couldn't have charged thousands for their server software. I >>> >> >> Do you know what the percentage of the worlds population used the internet in >> 98, compared to today? ~3%. Today it's around ~16% - although higher in >> developed countries obviously. I remember back in 98. Next to no viruses, >> or spam, and certainly not the organised internet crime we're seeing on a day >> to day basis today. so why was the product unsuitable for it's purpose? there >> was no real risk to computers connected to the inter back then (which was >> normally for brief periods of time anyway, not 24/7 like today). >> >> Windows 95 didn't even have a built in TCP/IP stack! >> >> so .. fast forward a few years to when security did START to become an issue >> on the net, and you have win2k. guess what? 2k did have a firewall, just not >> turned on my default [2]. >> >> Fast forward to when it really started to become a major issue, and, ohh, >> look, XP has a firewall, and ohh my! it's turned on my default! shocking. >> >> >>> Its only public >>> humiliation that has forced them to sell a locked down piece of software. >>> >> >> Err, install redhat 6.0 and leave it on the net. see how long it takes to >> get 'splioted. does that mean the same thing for redhat? >> >> So far you've given me: >> >> * Apart from writing appalling software? >> * Apart from trying to pretend computers are easier than they are? >> * Ever heard of buffer overflow? >> >> ... none of which are mistakes they've made "time and time again". so yes, >> apart from all of these. >> >> So again, i'll ask: >> >> Out of interest, which "same mistakes" do you refer to? >> >> because unless you have anything better that what you've given me so far, >> please, stop the damn Microsoft bashing unless you have a REAL technical or >> usability argument - You do not appear (so far) to have a clue what you are >> talking about, just uninformed accusations that have no grounding. >> >> Besides, this a a LUG, not a MBG. >> >> Maybe instead of focusing all of your energy on bashing microsoft, you could >> instead focus on something more constructive like looking at the features >> Vista, IE7, .NET, and Office has that open source products do not have, and >> do the things that need doing to add them as features requests at the right >> project. For example, automatically adding route weights based upon interface >> speeds as mentioned in a previous post today. >> >> Because while you're in your little hole preaching about how amazingly rubbish >> [3] Microsoft's products are (and, of course, the obligatory "Microsoft are >> SOOOO evil" .. make sure you get that SOOOO bit right, just like Vicky >> Polard - sounds much more amusing), they're busy finalising their next >> generation of products to blow OSS out of it's way for desktop (and possibly >> even server) users. oops. >> >> ~ Theo >> >> 1 - That doesn't mean it's bad, right? >> 2 - first mistake i've seen so far. >> 3 - i'm being gentle with the language >> >> > re mssql - I have a fully up to date development version - I have to > keep it switched off as it has the slammer virus - the fix offered is > to 'upgrade'! that's OK cos I can run any number of OS databases - > even thought they don't integrate with Visual Studio - the one decent > product Microsoft have. But that's probably because its based around > .NET which is also fantastic - but that's probably because its an > open standard - something Microsoft try and avoid. And even with that > I'd have to upgrade to Server status for a couple of facilities that > would be useful. > MSExchange - you obviously haven't had to support it in a real > environment. I had to spend 3 weeks continuously assisting 3 £500 a > day MCSE engineers attempt to fix our Exchange 5 set-up that had gone > pear shaped when the database became corrupted. They gave up > recommending full reinstall - loosing some 2Gig of messages and > details of 5000 users. I wrote a few simple bits to crack and fix the > database and had it working in two days. That would probably be > illegal today! And I could read every message ever sent - secure - > NOT! £50000 pounds of software and servers and licences and support > that could have been replaced by any number of free solutions but > microsoft lied and said it was a working product. It might be now but > at what cost to the users? > Office is a great product - well maybe if you don't know any > better. I don't live in little hole preaching - I have 32 years > computing experience. If you want to cripple your organisation using > office go ahead. I wouldn't use MS office or Open Office for that > matter if I wanted my organisation to USE computers and not > pointlessly imitate paper. Follow the herd into that wilderness if you > must but when you finally realise that fourteen thousand fonts and > formats does not make the data in that document any more computer > friendly you too will realise you've been sold a pup. It was another > corporate evil Sun that wrote most of Open Office in hatred for M$ - > if they'd hadn't wasted their time with that a written a web based > version we'd all be a lot better off. No, not a lot, a massive amount! > > Have a read of 'A computer called Leo' . Then ask yourself how > most organisations today who use a million times more computing power > per desk are more poorly integrated than a company using one valve > computer was in the early 1960's. Because M$ have been telling them > that their product is good for them. Alas too many people do not > realise that all that glisters is not gold and have bought all the > pretty bells and whistles without looking at the bottom line. Schools > teach microsoft word processing and how to produce bloated HTML > documents from the same. Computing, however, is 'data with semantics' > not 'data with formatting'. We have a whole generation of people under > the illusion that 1+1=4 is fine so long as you use the corporate style > manual and can segue it from blue to red in powerpoint. > > I've watched computing hurtle forwards until the early nineties when, > to my mind, M$ deliberately tried to stifle the internet but > fortunately it was too resilient. Since then its moved like treacle. > Mainly because Microsoft have abused their monopoly position and tried > to shut out all competition. > > Microsoft may not be evil but if they're not they're either in denial > or criminally ignorant. They have sold the idea that computing is easy > - that's their big lie. Its not and your going to have to live with > that and learn how to safely, securely and efficiently manipulate data > - not its appearance! Microsoft don't appear to have the tools for > this thought they do have some tools that will allow you to do some > pretty things. To my mind usability is about what a product does for > me and not how easy it is for me to do the wrong thing. Having to > 'upgrade' all my software every now and then is not usable. The 486 > with RH6.1 that allowed me to browse the web, and acted as a firewall > for 6 years and was NEVER compromised is usable - or it was until I > found I couldn't fit it in my new house! > > Emo Phillips had a wonderful sketch about how there was a special door > in his house that he was not allowed through. When he got to eighteen > his dad finally opened the door. Through that door he saw amazing > things he'd never dreamed of: like the sky, birds, trees and other > people. > Microsoft is that closed door. MCSE is the padlock on that door. Kick > it down. > > Tom te tom te tom. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/385 - Release Date: > Bill Gates, richest man in the world, has a company larger than a number of smallish countries, combined.... Damn I wish I could make the same mistakes he and his company are making......! sniff Bill Smith -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html