[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
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 -- 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