Apple got it right, Microsoft got it wrong

Roy Culley · External Since: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 647

begin risky.vbs
<17ydnWxZF4pw6YDYRVnyhw DeleteThis @pipex.net>,
Stephen Fairchild <somebody DeleteThis @somewhere.com> writes:
> Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
>> had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
>> other people. Smile

>>
>> It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can
>> remember. When a project runs into trouble managements solution is
>> invariably to throw more people at it. Without exception, in my
>> experience, that is the worst action possible.
>>
> I agree either have 1 person doing it or 20+.

I'm sure you are being sarcastic. My point was not that all projects
require only 1 SW engineer. It was that management think that when a
project is in trouble the solution is to throw more people at it. In
general this just doesn't work with SW development. Just look at
Windows as an example of that. Smile

--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5565

begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Culley <rgc.DeleteThis@nodomain.none> espoused:
> begin risky.vbs
> <17ydnWxZF4pw6YDYRVnyhw.DeleteThis@pipex.net>,
> Stephen Fairchild <somebody.DeleteThis@somewhere.com> writes:
>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>
>>> Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
>>> had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
>>> other people. Smile

>>>
>>> It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can
>>> remember. When a project runs into trouble managements solution is
>>> invariably to throw more people at it. Without exception, in my
>>> experience, that is the worst action possible.
>>>
>> I agree either have 1 person doing it or 20+.
>
> I'm sure you are being sarcastic. My point was not that all projects
> require only 1 SW engineer. It was that management think that when a
> project is in trouble the solution is to throw more people at it. In
> general this just doesn't work with SW development. Just look at
> Windows as an example of that. Smile

>

My suspicion is that it doesn't work in any design environment where the
goal is to design a single machine. You end up creating interfaces all
over the place so that people can work on "their bit".

This is different, however, if you have a more complex system with
deliberately design-in interfaces. Taking an example at the other end
of things, if you have an application running on a network, and a router
on the network, although from the user's point of view they are much the
same thing, it's obviously possible to speed development by splitting
router and application development across different people; why?
because there's a defined interface.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while
you're being miserable.
-- C.B. Luce

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
> Linonut wrote:
>
> > After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Culley belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> >
> >> yttrx DeleteThis @yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
> >>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark DeleteThis @geemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> yttrx DeleteThis @yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
> >>>>> Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only
> >>>>> one thing:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take
> >>>>> one programmer to solve.
> >>>>
> >>>> Conjecture.
> >>>
> >>> Its a fact, actually.
> >>
> >> Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
> >> had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
> >> other people. Smile

> >>
> >> It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can remember.
> >> When a project runs into trouble managements solution is invariably to
> >> throw more people at it. Without exception, in my experience, that is
> >> the worst action possible.
> >
> > Find yourself a copy of Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man-Month", where he
> > talks about why that is the case.
> >
>
> That book was required reading for the Engineering Management units, when I
> was doing my degree.
>
Yessiree! There hasn't been anything discovered about software since
that classic was written in the 1970s. All these new, young people are
too stupid to be real. Maybe they made millions or even billions
selling the stuff, but we know the right way to do it and they do not.

> In the mean time, I have discovered that it is quite possible to get lots of
> people working on a project as long as each is master of their own little
> piece of the job or developers are working in pairs doing extreme
> programming on small well defined portions of the project. The interfaces
> between the developers must be well defined and change management must be
> well controlled. Throwing more people at a problem further down the track
> is fatal for any software development project.
>
> This is where Microsoft got it all wrong. They apparently don't document
> their interfaces. Either that or they lie in court. And, according to press
> statements that I read, Microsoft was trying to solve the delays with Vista
> by throwing more bodies at the problem.
>
Well I bet there is no one on the planet as smart about this as you
are, Ian. Surely nobody at Redmond. What you should do is go up there
and tell them how to fix their problem and they will surely give you a
couple of billion bucks and then you can take the money and use it to
mail everyone on earth a copy of ubuntu with clear instructions on how
to install it. That'll sure fix Bill Gates' wagon!

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 443

Linonut wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Culley belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> yttrx.RemoveThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> yttrx.RemoveThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>>>> Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only
>>>>> one thing:
>>>>>
>>>>> They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take
>>>>> one programmer to solve.
>>>>
>>>> Conjecture.
>>>
>>> Its a fact, actually.
>>
>> Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
>> had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
>> other people. Smile

>>
>> It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can remember.
>> When a project runs into trouble managements solution is invariably to
>> throw more people at it. Without exception, in my experience, that is
>> the worst action possible.
>
> Find yourself a copy of Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man-Month", where he
> talks about why that is the case.
>

That book was required reading for the Engineering Management units, when I
was doing my degree.

In the mean time, I have discovered that it is quite possible to get lots of
people working on a project as long as each is master of their own little
piece of the job or developers are working in pairs doing extreme
programming on small well defined portions of the project. The interfaces
between the developers must be well defined and change management must be
well controlled. Throwing more people at a problem further down the track
is fatal for any software development project.

This is where Microsoft got it all wrong. They apparently don't document
their interfaces. Either that or they lie in court. And, according to press
statements that I read, Microsoft was trying to solve the delays with Vista
by throwing more bodies at the problem.

Ian

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
> billwg wrote:
>
> > Yessiree! There hasn't been anything discovered about software since
> > that classic was written in the 1970s. All these new, young people are
> > too stupid to be real. Maybe they made millions or even billions
> > selling the stuff, but we know the right way to do it and they do not.
> >
>
> The book "The mythical man month" is not about software design, it is about
> how IBM screw up the development if the IBM 360. The project was a success
> in the end, but not without a lot of pain. The same errors that were
> documented in the book have since been repeated in countless projects.
>
Well, maybe the author was just being cute. You can document anything
with hindsight and find flaws. If the same problems are consistently
repeated, maybe they are just part of the process.

> One of the biggest problems in the computer industry was the boom of the
> late 90's. Masses of people were brought into the industry as programmers,
> where the main employment criteria seemed to be that the people had a
> pulse.
>
Cute, but not very true. It is hard to measure a prospective
employee's ability to innovate ahead of the fact and there are some
people who are not in the right job, but commercial industry is fairly
consistent with their employment practices. A candidate is compared to
some measurable criteria, such as minimal education requirments, work
experience, etc., and may also be evaluated on subjective things that
occur to the examiner. Once hired, an employee is in a probation
status until someone decides that he should be kept or discarded.

> These people didn't have a clue about software design. In most cases, these
> people had degrees in things that were totally unrelated to software
> design. As they knew nothing about software design, the simply copied
> Microsoft's bad software designs and proceeded to screw up project after
> project. I have made a good living out of fixing up these screwed up
> projects.
>
Well the world is certainly fortunate to have you to fix things, Ian!
LOL!!! When are you going up to Redmond?

Larry Qualig · External Since: Nov 11, 2005 Posts: 1106

billwg wrote:
> Ian Hilliard wrote:

(snip)

> > These people didn't have a clue about software design. In most cases, these
> > people had degrees in things that were totally unrelated to software
> > design. As they knew nothing about software design, the simply copied
> > Microsoft's bad software designs and proceeded to screw up project after
> > project. I have made a good living out of fixing up these screwed up
> > projects.
> >

> Well the world is certainly fortunate to have you to fix things, Ian!
> LOL!!! When are you going up to Redmond?

It's absolutely hillarious listening to these "know it alls" who think
they're smarter than everyone else. Whenever some idiot makes a stupid
blanket statement like -

"These people didn't have a clue about software design... As they knew
nothing about software design, the simply copied Microsoft's bad
software designs and proceeded to screw up project after project."

Seems to me if these people were actually 1/10th as smart as they think
they are they would be running multi-billion dollar companies instead
of spending their life whining in COLA. Why is it that the true
geniuses like Ian here can see all the obvious mistakes that these
"clueless idiots" make but in reality it's these clueless idiots who
have made millions and in some cases billions of dollars for
themselves?

If these people are so smart why aren't they the ones running the show?

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

DFS wrote:

>
> And it's especially hilarious to listen to cola idiot 7 talk about "sacking"
> people who use Windows.

Makes you wonder about where they got the idea. There may be jobs
where people are threatened with losing their job in order to get them
to produce, but those are not very good jobs and I kind of doubt that a
company would be very innovative with that kind of style.

Perhaps the Post Office is or was that way, which would account for
some of the employee conduct there.

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 443

billwg wrote:

> Yessiree! There hasn't been anything discovered about software since
> that classic was written in the 1970s. All these new, young people are
> too stupid to be real. Maybe they made millions or even billions
> selling the stuff, but we know the right way to do it and they do not.
>

The book "The mythical man month" is not about software design, it is about
how IBM screw up the development if the IBM 360. The project was a success
in the end, but not without a lot of pain. The same errors that were
documented in the book have since been repeated in countless projects.

One of the biggest problems in the computer industry was the boom of the
late 90's. Masses of people were brought into the industry as programmers,
where the main employment criteria seemed to be that the people had a
pulse.

These people didn't have a clue about software design. In most cases, these
people had degrees in things that were totally unrelated to software
design. As they knew nothing about software design, the simply copied
Microsoft's bad software designs and proceeded to screw up project after
project. I have made a good living out of fixing up these screwed up
projects.

I must admit, I am quite grateful to Microsoft in the same way that home
security people are grateful to burglars. They make me my bread, but I
don't really want them visiting me.

Ian

Bob Hauck · External Since: Aug 25, 2006 Posts: 345

On 2 Oct 2006 11:37:17 -0700, billwg <bill RemoveThis @magnoliaplantation.net> wrote:
>
> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>> billwg wrote:
>>
>> > Yessiree! There hasn't been anything discovered about software since
>> > that classic was written in the 1970s. All these new, young people are
>> > too stupid to be real. Maybe they made millions or even billions
>> > selling the stuff, but we know the right way to do it and they do not.
>> >
>>
>> The book "The mythical man month" is not about software design, it is
>> about how IBM screw up the development if the IBM 360. The project
>> was a success in the end, but not without a lot of pain. The same
>> errors that were documented in the book have since been repeated in
>> countless projects.
>>
> Well, maybe the author was just being cute. You can document anything
> with hindsight and find flaws. If the same problems are consistently
> repeated, maybe they are just part of the process.

It has to do with the planning process more than the implementation
process, although bad implementation can certainly ruin a good plan.

The project manager has the most influence on the project at the very
start. By deciding on the structure of the project he can in theory
configure things to get the project done on time as long as that is
defined reasonably. So what is done up front is very, very, important,
but also on software projects tends to be the most rushed part because
people want to "get on with it".

The thing is, during the course of the project, the manager's influence
gradually gets less and less. Things become 'set in stone' as parts of
the project are completed. So if the up-front planning was poor, or
done dishonestly to satisfy a political or marketing agenda, or if the
project goals change substantially during the course of implementation,
the project will be late/over-budget/etc.

This is why project managers get ulcers. Over the course of the project
their visibility increases while their influence on events decreases.

And if the problems are discovered late enough in the process, there is
simply nothing that can be done to fix it. The project will spiral to
its natural conclusion, whatever that is. But that doesn't seem to
dissuade trying.

People will be brought in, designs will get re-done on the fly, etc.
The lesson of the "Mythical Man-Month" is that this won't work no matter
how much you may wish it would. The key idea is that "adding people to
a late project makes it later", and I haven't seen any evidence to
contradict that.

This sort of thing happens on other kinds of projects, not just software
(Can you say "Big Dig"? I knew you could.). But it is more common on
software because the process for estimating the time and budget up-front
is so poor. It becomes very easy to cut 5% out of WBS elements X and Y
in order to make the schedule "work" in the sense of the charts showing
completion when management or the customer wants it. It is hard to
justify _not_ doing this when management applies pressue because in most
companies there's only "experience" and "gut" to go on, not hard data.

--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Have you had enough of George Bush yet?
-| http://www.haucks.org/

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
> Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> >
> > billwg wrote:
> >> Ian Hilliard wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >> > These people didn't have a clue about software design. In most cases,
> >> > these people had degrees in things that were totally unrelated to
> >> > software design. As they knew nothing about software design, the simply
> >> > copied Microsoft's bad software designs and proceeded to screw up
> >> > project after project. I have made a good living out of fixing up these
> >> > screwed up projects.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >> Well the world is certainly fortunate to have you to fix things, Ian!
> >> LOL!!! When are you going up to Redmond?
> >
> >
>
> Microsoft was able to get very rapid development in the beginning by short
> circuiting the development process. The problem is that the lack of good
> design eventually catches up with any project that goes through more than a
> couple of iterations. This is Engineering Management 101 stuff.
>
Could be, since they bought the code from another company, but I am
very curious about "Engineering Management 101". Did you just make
that all up because it sounded good? I don't think that anyone teaches
that anywhere.

> I make the big bucks for being able to see the pieces in what is otherwise
> chaos and get a framework in place to get all the pieces to work as
> individual components of a complete system.
>
Oh. Well I was pretty sure that it was not for being able to design a
great web site. How hard is it to get pieces to work as individual
components, anyway?

> Microsoft is a victim of their own history. If they tear Windows apart and
> redo it correctly, a lot of software won't run any more. In such a case,
> people would be more interested in considering alternatives. If they don't,
> each iteration will become exponentially more expensive to develop.
>
Well, they do have a lot of money to spend, eh?

> >
> > It's absolutely hillarious listening to these "know it alls" who think
> > they're smarter than everyone else. Whenever some idiot makes a stupid
> > blanket statement like -
> >
> >
> > "These people didn't have a clue about software design... As they knew
> > nothing about software design, the simply copied Microsoft's bad
> > software designs and proceeded to screw up project after project."
> >
> >
> > Seems to me if these people were actually 1/10th as smart as they think
> > they are they would be running multi-billion dollar companies instead
> > of spending their life whining in COLA. Why is it that the true
> > geniuses like Ian here can see all the obvious mistakes that these
> > "clueless idiots" make but in reality it's these clueless idiots who
> > have made millions and in some cases billions of dollars for
> > themselves?
> >
>
> Microsoft didn't make money out of producing good software. They made their
> money out of pushing everyone else out of the market by leveraging their
> control of the operating system.

Seems kind of circular here, ian. You say they used their monopoly to
push everyone out of the market and so obtained a monopoly. They must
have started without a monopoly, so how did they get it in the first
place? You need to give this more thought.

> Microsoft's operating system isn't even
> that good. It is simply "good enough" for those who don't know any better

I think that it is good enough for those who do not need anything
better. Like Goldilock's porridge, it is "just right"! Now some
whining geek comes along and tells people that they don't have the best
and if they jump through some hoops, they will have something that the
geek approves of, but people don't see that as a lure. It is much more
of a turn off.

> and it is very well distributed. It is an OS full of little annoyances, but
> people are now so used to them, they don't even think twice about them. I
> guess it's a bit like Pavlov's dogs.
>
IIRC, Pavlov's dogs used to drool when they thought it was time to eat.
I don't see how that applies to people being willing to accept
annoyances.

> > If these people are so smart why aren't they the ones running the show?
>
> I'm making good money without having to "run the show". I do what I am good
> at and I look even better because so many are really bad at what they are
> doing.
>
> The statement "Well if you are so smart, why aren't you rich" is of course a
> classic "Straw man" argument. In today's business world, the way to get
> rich is to be totally without ethics. It has much less to do with being
> smart.
>
> As the old adage goes, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
>
Sounds like a cop out to me, ian. You are just trying to rationalize
not running the show and not being rich. Look up "Sour Grapes".

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
> billwg wrote:
>
> >> and it is very well distributed. It is an OS full of little annoyances,
> >> but people are now so used to them, they don't even think twice about
> >> them. I guess it's a bit like Pavlov's dogs.
> >>
> > IIRC, Pavlov's dogs used to drool when they thought it was time to eat.
> > I don't see how that applies to people being willing to accept
> > annoyances.
>
> Because it is also a trained response. Although, P.T. Barnham may have put
> it better, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
> people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the
> time."
>
Well I am sure that my psychology instructor would have given you a
failing grade if you tried that on him. But that is no matter. As to
your Abe Lincoln quote, it would seem to me that the universe of
Windows users comes closer to "All of the People" than anything else,
and I agree that you cannot fool them forever or ever for very long.
That to me says that the universal acceptance of Windows for such an
extended time proves that Windows is a true winner. Else people would
have abandoned it for something else.

> The wintrolls fall into the group of those that are being fooled all of the
> time.

See, there you go making a cast of convenience that doesn't match the
analogy. You want to style yourself as somehow superior to these
"fools", but there are so very many of them that I am sure you must
occasionally consider whether or not you are correct. You are not,
BTW.

>
> As for me, I always try to use the most suitable technology for the task.
> Sometimes, Windows is the most suitable technology, but many times it is
> not at all suited to the task. One of those latter cases is the simple task
> of web browsing.
>
Another rim shot, ian, that shows a lack of timing! Hundreds of
millions of happy people web surf with Windows every day and well into
the night. You can snivel and SAY that Windows is not up to the task,
but even the rebels who are said to be using Firefox are using it on
Windows for the most part.

> >
> >> > If these people are so smart why aren't they the ones running the show?
> >>
> >> I'm making good money without having to "run the show". I do what I am
> >> good at and I look even better because so many are really bad at what
> >> they are doing.
> >>
> >> The statement "Well if you are so smart, why aren't you rich" is of
> >> course a classic "Straw man" argument. In today's business world, the way
> >> to get rich is to be totally without ethics. It has much less to do with
> >> being smart.
> >>
> >> As the old adage goes, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
> >>
> > Sounds like a cop out to me, ian. You are just trying to rationalize
> > not running the show and not being rich. Look up "Sour Grapes".
>
> Not sour grapes at all. All the Microsoft Monkeys of the world have ensured
> that I have a lot of work, which pays me a lot of money.
>
Well maybe you should consider how your reliance on "monkeys" may be a
frail reed to base your well being upon, ian. Much better to depend on
customers who understand what they are buying and can appreciate
whatever you bring to the party.

> As to an earlier comment. Yes, the company web page is totally broken. It
> didn't survive the transfer to the new (Linux) server. Until this current
> project is finished, there isn't a lot of urgency to get a new one written.
> Besides, it is only a place holder for the more important task of providing
> a web mail service.
>
Maybe you could get a monkey to show you how to run Front Page.

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 443

Larry Qualig wrote:

>
> billwg wrote:
>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> > These people didn't have a clue about software design. In most cases,
>> > these people had degrees in things that were totally unrelated to
>> > software design. As they knew nothing about software design, the simply
>> > copied Microsoft's bad software designs and proceeded to screw up
>> > project after project. I have made a good living out of fixing up these
>> > screwed up projects.
>> >
>
>
>> Well the world is certainly fortunate to have you to fix things, Ian!
>> LOL!!! When are you going up to Redmond?
>
>

Microsoft was able to get very rapid development in the beginning by short
circuiting the development process. The problem is that the lack of good
design eventually catches up with any project that goes through more than a
couple of iterations. This is Engineering Management 101 stuff.

I make the big bucks for being able to see the pieces in what is otherwise
chaos and get a framework in place to get all the pieces to work as
individual components of a complete system.

Microsoft is a victim of their own history. If they tear Windows apart and
redo it correctly, a lot of software won't run any more. In such a case,
people would be more interested in considering alternatives. If they don't,
each iteration will become exponentially more expensive to develop.

>
> It's absolutely hillarious listening to these "know it alls" who think
> they're smarter than everyone else. Whenever some idiot makes a stupid
> blanket statement like -
>
>
> "These people didn't have a clue about software design... As they knew
> nothing about software design, the simply copied Microsoft's bad
> software designs and proceeded to screw up project after project."
>
>
> Seems to me if these people were actually 1/10th as smart as they think
> they are they would be running multi-billion dollar companies instead
> of spending their life whining in COLA. Why is it that the true
> geniuses like Ian here can see all the obvious mistakes that these
> "clueless idiots" make but in reality it's these clueless idiots who
> have made millions and in some cases billions of dollars for
> themselves?
>

Microsoft didn't make money out of producing good software. They made their
money out of pushing everyone else out of the market by leveraging their
control of the operating system. Microsoft's operating system isn't even
that good. It is simply "good enough" for those who don't know any better
and it is very well distributed. It is an OS full of little annoyances, but
people are now so used to them, they don't even think twice about them. I
guess it's a bit like Pavlov's dogs.

> If these people are so smart why aren't they the ones running the show?

I'm making good money without having to "run the show". I do what I am good
at and I look even better because so many are really bad at what they are
doing.

The statement "Well if you are so smart, why aren't you rich" is of course a
classic "Straw man" argument. In today's business world, the way to get
rich is to be totally without ethics. It has much less to do with being
smart.

As the old adage goes, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

Ian

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 443

billwg wrote:

>> and it is very well distributed. It is an OS full of little annoyances,
>> but people are now so used to them, they don't even think twice about
>> them. I guess it's a bit like Pavlov's dogs.
>>
> IIRC, Pavlov's dogs used to drool when they thought it was time to eat.
> I don't see how that applies to people being willing to accept
> annoyances.

Because it is also a trained response. Although, P.T. Barnham may have put
it better, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the
time."

The wintrolls fall into the group of those that are being fooled all of the
time.

As for me, I always try to use the most suitable technology for the task.
Sometimes, Windows is the most suitable technology, but many times it is
not at all suited to the task. One of those latter cases is the simple task
of web browsing.

>
>> > If these people are so smart why aren't they the ones running the show?
>>
>> I'm making good money without having to "run the show". I do what I am
>> good at and I look even better because so many are really bad at what
>> they are doing.
>>
>> The statement "Well if you are so smart, why aren't you rich" is of
>> course a classic "Straw man" argument. In today's business world, the way
>> to get rich is to be totally without ethics. It has much less to do with
>> being smart.
>>
>> As the old adage goes, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
>>
> Sounds like a cop out to me, ian. You are just trying to rationalize
> not running the show and not being rich. Look up "Sour Grapes".

Not sour grapes at all. All the Microsoft Monkeys of the world have ensured
that I have a lot of work, which pays me a lot of money.

As to an earlier comment. Yes, the company web page is totally broken. It
didn't survive the transfer to the new (Linux) server. Until this current
project is finished, there isn't a lot of urgency to get a new one written.
Besides, it is only a place holder for the more important task of providing
a web mail service.

Ian

JEDIDIAH · External Since: Sep 24, 2004 Posts: 1069

On 2006-10-02, Larry Qualig <lqualig.DeleteThis@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
> billwg wrote:
>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> > These people didn't have a clue about software design. In most cases, these
>> > people had degrees in things that were totally unrelated to software
>> > design. As they knew nothing about software design, the simply copied
>> > Microsoft's bad software designs and proceeded to screw up project after
>> > project. I have made a good living out of fixing up these screwed up
>> > projects.
>> >
>
>
>> Well the world is certainly fortunate to have you to fix things, Ian!
>> LOL!!! When are you going up to Redmond?
>
>
>
> It's absolutely hillarious listening to these "know it alls" who think
> they're smarter than everyone else. Whenever some idiot makes a stupid
> blanket statement like -
>
>
> "These people didn't have a clue about software design... As they knew
> nothing about software design, the simply copied Microsoft's bad
> software designs and proceeded to screw up project after project."
>
>
> Seems to me if these people were actually 1/10th as smart as they think
> they are they would be running multi-billion dollar companies instead

The skills required to be a good Lou Gerstner are completely
orthogonal to those required for good software design. Interestingly
enough, a guy like Lou knows well enough to leave design to the
designers.

[deletia]

--

Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
> billwg wrote:
>
> > Another rim shot, ian, that shows a lack of timing! Hundreds of
> > millions of happy people web surf with Windows every day and well into
> > the night. You can snivel and SAY that Windows is not up to the task,
> > but even the rebels who are said to be using Firefox are using it on
> > Windows for the most part.
> >
>
> ...and millions are getting b0rk3d every day. Their machines are being taken
> over by some criminal so that it can be used for extortion or spam
> distribution. These people have been conned into believing that it is
> simply part and parcel of computing in the modern age.
>
Do you really believe that? I think you are mistaken. You read these
stories that are unsubstantiated by anyone else and you want to believe
because that makes your forlorn quest more noble, but they seem to be
urban legends. A good test, IMO, is to read the loca paper to see what
people are complaining about. Every newspaper has some kind of tell it
to the fixer column where people send their stories and complaints and
pleas for justice. If they were being frequently abused by such
practices, surely some mention would be made from time to time, but
there is nothing but silence on these issues.

How does spam work on someone's home computer anyway? It isn't a mail
server, so it cannot do much to spread the spam. Spam must come from
some mail server or other and the well managed ones are not likely to
be the source. Rather the amateur chippers would be the most likely
and they pretty much favor linux due to the low price.

> Those people using Firefox are somewhat better off. It is a terrible pity
> that it is not the majority. The majority of people don't understand
> computers and don't want to understand computers. They believe that Windows
> must be good because it is so widely distributed. What the majority forgets
> is that the Smallpox and the Bubonic Plague were also once widely
> distributed. Being widely distributed doesn't necessarily mean good.
>
You can try to demonize Windows all you want, ian, but you only look
like a fanatic crying "Wolf!" over and again and will surely be ignored.

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 443

billwg wrote:

> Another rim shot, ian, that shows a lack of timing! Hundreds of
> millions of happy people web surf with Windows every day and well into
> the night. You can snivel and SAY that Windows is not up to the task,
> but even the rebels who are said to be using Firefox are using it on
> Windows for the most part.
>

....and millions are getting b0rk3d every day. Their machines are being taken
over by some criminal so that it can be used for extortion or spam
distribution. These people have been conned into believing that it is
simply part and parcel of computing in the modern age.

Those people using Firefox are somewhat better off. It is a terrible pity
that it is not the majority. The majority of people don't understand
computers and don't want to understand computers. They believe that Windows
must be good because it is so widely distributed. What the majority forgets
is that the Smallpox and the Bubonic Plague were also once widely
distributed. Being widely distributed doesn't necessarily mean good.

Ian

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
>There are alternatives, the mainstream press
> needs to so that the Internet can be cleaned up.
>
So the mainstream press is conspiring with Microsoft? Damn! You might
consider that with the press and media and even the Bush administration
all conspiring to help Mr. Softee put down the OSS revolution, you
might be up the creek! Better pick a better line of endeavor, eh?

>
> This shows how little you know. Upon infection, the spammers get the now
> 0wn3d PC to download a lightweight SMTP handler. This is how the machines
> get turned into spam bots.
>
Well I did ask. How else are you going to learn? Even so, I think it
just goes to show how easy it is to use Windows.

> Most people don't know about alternatives because their PC didn't come with
> them and the mainstream press doesn't provide any information about the
> real alternatives to the constant problems with Windows.
>
Roy boy had a cite this morning from some guy that went on for days
with the same kind of message. He said that people are not inclined to
search for change if they don't have a problem and Microsoft MOL makes
sure that few have to search for anything. That was the key to their
success in the past and their continued dominance today. That would
make linux a solution in search of a problem, don't you think?

>
> I realize that you probably have an alterer motive for keeping the status
> quo. But, just because you are making money out of the current shambles
> that the computer industry has become, doesn't make it right that is should
> stay like that.
>
Some few posts ago, wasn't it you who was saying that you make the "big
bucks" by showing people how to straighten up and fly right? I don't
think that I said anything like that, although I might have.

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 443

billwg wrote:

>
> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>> billwg wrote:
>>
>> > Another rim shot, ian, that shows a lack of timing! Hundreds of
>> > millions of happy people web surf with Windows every day and well into
>> > the night. You can snivel and SAY that Windows is not up to the task,
>> > but even the rebels who are said to be using Firefox are using it on
>> > Windows for the most part.
>> >
>>
>> ...and millions are getting b0rk3d every day. Their machines are being
>> taken over by some criminal so that it can be used for extortion or spam
>> distribution. These people have been conned into believing that it is
>> simply part and parcel of computing in the modern age.
>>
> Do you really believe that? I think you are mistaken. You read these
> stories that are unsubstantiated by anyone else and you want to believe
> because that makes your forlorn quest more noble, but they seem to be
> urban legends. A good test, IMO, is to read the loca paper to see what
> people are complaining about. Every newspaper has some kind of tell it
> to the fixer column where people send their stories and complaints and
> pleas for justice. If they were being frequently abused by such
> practices, surely some mention would be made from time to time, but
> there is nothing but silence on these issues.

The newspapers tell stories of how other people are getting B0rk3d so that
people believe that it is normal for operating systems to be like that. The
word about Linux is spreading slowly by word of mouth and for those people
that have moved life is much better. What is missing is for the main stream
press to tell the truth that all these problems that people are having are
ONLY associated with Windows. There are alternatives, the mainstream press
needs to so that the Internet can be cleaned up.

>
> How does spam work on someone's home computer anyway? It isn't a mail
> server, so it cannot do much to spread the spam. Spam must come from
> some mail server or other and the well managed ones are not likely to
> be the source. Rather the amateur chippers would be the most likely
> and they pretty much favor linux due to the low price.

This shows how little you know. Upon infection, the spammers get the now
0wn3d PC to download a lightweight SMTP handler. This is how the machines
get turned into spam bots.

Most people don't know about alternatives because their PC didn't come with
them and the mainstream press doesn't provide any information about the
real alternatives to the constant problems with Windows.

>
>> Those people using Firefox are somewhat better off. It is a terrible pity
>> that it is not the majority. The majority of people don't understand
>> computers and don't want to understand computers. They believe that
>> Windows must be good because it is so widely distributed. What the
>> majority forgets is that the Smallpox and the Bubonic Plague were also
>> once widely distributed. Being widely distributed doesn't necessarily
>> mean good.
>>
> You can try to demonize Windows all you want, ian, but you only look
> like a fanatic crying "Wolf!" over and again and will surely be ignored.

I don't demonize Microsoft. They do that to themselves. I simply tell the
truth, because it is the right thing to do.

I realize that you probably have an alterer motive for keeping the status
quo. But, just because you are making money out of the current shambles
that the computer industry has become, doesn't make it right that is should
stay like that.

Ian

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

[H]omer wrote:

>
> .----
> | 'Bot herders' may have controlled 1.5 million PCs
> |
> | Dutch suspects face stiffer sentence after investigators find
> | evidence that their "zombie network" was bigger than initially
> | thought.

Well they were caught, eh? Now they go to jail to think about it.

>
> So much for your "Urban Legend" theory.
>
I don't totally agree with that, homer. The MS figures show that some
1 to 2% of the Windows machines tested had the problem, but nothing to
show just what was being accomplished by the effort. I was disagreeing
with the notion that widespread economic loss was occurring due to
criminal activity using these methods.

> Looks like the only "forlorn quest" round here, is trying to secure your
> Swiss Cheese Windows Operating System.
>
> You may now return to your Trojan-infested, Windows powered, La La Land.
>
Well my machines are not infested, homer, and neither are any that
anyone I know uses. The percentages of occurrence of this are very low
and can be achieved without any particular defect in the software, just
a general lack of care with what one runs and installs.

If you give 100 random people a linux machine, how many of them are
going to be able to administer it effectively? Doesn't linspire and
some others run with admin privileges, too?

> > I realize that you probably have an alterer motive for keeping the status
> > quo.
>
> Come on now, you don't seriously think that Microsoft pays him to tell
> the *Truth*, do you?
>
> Either that or he's some grossly delusional Botnet/spam denialist. Then
> again, surely that's exactly the kind of Astroturfers Microsoft wants to
> hire.
>
Why would you think that, homer? If you can be so infatuated with a
loser like linux, think of how many more people would be eager to back
a winner like Windows. It's frustratiing and depressing to have your
pet wallow in the doldrums as linux has for so many years. Every year,
the fans say prosperity is just around the corner, but somehow it never
turns.

[H]omer · External Since: Apr 21, 2006 Posts: 2134

Ian Hilliard wrote:
> billwg wrote:
>
>> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>> billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another rim shot, ian, that shows a lack of timing! Hundreds of
>>>> millions of happy people web surf with Windows every day and well into
>>>> the night. You can snivel and SAY that Windows is not up to the task,
>>>> but even the rebels who are said to be using Firefox are using it on
>>>> Windows for the most part.
>>>>
>>> ...and millions are getting b0rk3d every day. Their machines are being
>>> taken over by some criminal so that it can be used for extortion or spam
>>> distribution. These people have been conned into believing that it is
>>> simply part and parcel of computing in the modern age.
>>>
>> Do you really believe that? I think you are mistaken. You read these
>> stories that are unsubstantiated by anyone else and you want to believe
>> because that makes your forlorn quest more noble, but they seem to be
>> urban legends

Microsoft disagrees with you:

..----
| More than 60 percent of compromised Windows PCs scanned by
| Microsoft's Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool between January
| 2005 and March 2006 were found to be running malicious bot software,
| the company said.
`----

- http://tinyurl.com/kp5rz (news.com)

..----
| 'Bot herders' may have controlled 1.5 million PCs
|
| Dutch suspects face stiffer sentence after investigators find
| evidence that their "zombie network" was bigger than initially
| thought.
|
| By Joris Evers
| Staff Writer, CNET News.com
| Published: October 21, 2005, 12:42 PM PDT
|
| Three suspected Dutch cybercriminals could face a stiffer penalty
| with new evidence that they hacked about 1.5 million PCs worldwide,
| more than 15 times the original estimate.
|
| The three individuals, whose names have not been disclosed, were
| arrested two weeks ago on suspicion of commandeering more than
| 100,000 PCs. They allegedly gained control over the systems with a
| Trojan horse called Toxbot and used the network of zombie PCs to
| steal credit card numbers and other personal data, and to blackmail
| online businesses.
|
| But the number of PCs hijacked is much larger than initially thought,
| Dutch prosecutors said Thursday. Additional data gathered by the
| Dutch Computer Emergency Response Team and Internet service providers
| indicates that more than 1.5 million PCs were involved, 30,000 of
| which were in the Netherlands.
|
| ...
|
| Networks of hijacked computers, known as botnets, are considered one
| of the most serious security threats on the Internet. While the
| dismantled botnet is one of the largest ever seen, the takedown is
| merely a drop in the bucket, experts have said.
|
| Botnets are often rented out by their owners, called bot herders, to
| relay spam and launch phishing scams to steal sensitive personal data
| for fraud. Botnets have also been used in blackmail schemes, where
| the criminals threaten online businesses with a denial-of-service
| attack to extort money. A denial-of-service attack would disable a
| targeted Web site.
`----

- http://tinyurl.com/zvevy (news.com)

So much for your "Urban Legend" theory.

Looks like the only "forlorn quest" round here, is trying to secure your
Swiss Cheese Windows Operating System.

You may now return to your Trojan-infested, Windows powered, La La Land.

> I realize that you probably have an alterer motive for keeping the status
> quo.

Come on now, you don't seriously think that Microsoft pays him to tell
the *Truth*, do you?

Either that or he's some grossly delusional Botnet/spam denialist. Then
again, surely that's exactly the kind of Astroturfers Microsoft wants to
hire.

--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged

..----
| Another name for a Windows tutorial is "crash course".
`----

Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
19:33:42 up 110 days, 19:50, 2 users, load average: 0.81, 0.38, 0.42