Demand That 'Microsoft Sell No Code Before Its Time'

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Read article here ...

http://www.eetimes.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X353718


--
Have you been MicroShafted today?
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
34 answers Last reply
More about demand microsoft sell code time
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there are in
    Linux? Get a life.

    "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    news:UKAKe.184953$%K2.117647@pd7tw1no...
    > Read article here ...
    >
    > http://www.eetimes.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X353718
    >
    >
    > --
    > Have you been MicroShafted today?
    > To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
    > To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    I suggest you read the article and see how ludicrous it is.
    What they are suggesting is impossible.
    If you can create an OS with an "unconditional warranty" against "bad code",
    you will be extremely rich if you succeed at the impossible.
    More than likely you will be sued for failure to cover the terms of your
    "unconditional warranty".
    There are very few products that have such a warranty.

    --
    Jupiter Jones [MVP]
    http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
    http://www.dts-l.org


    "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    news:UKAKe.184953$%K2.117647@pd7tw1no...
    > Read article here ...
    >
    > http://www.eetimes.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X353718
    >
    >
    > --
    > Have you been MicroShafted today?
    > To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
    > To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    news:UKAKe.184953$%K2.117647@pd7tw1no...
    > Read article here ...
    >
    > http://www.eetimes.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X353718
    >
    >
    > --
    > Have you been MicroShafted today?
    > To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
    > To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.

    Sorry to see your stupid, lame excuse for wasting oxygen back on the
    newsgroups.

    For the uninitiated, NoStop couldn't find his own a** with both hands and a
    map. He has never once given a correct piece of advice, and seems to think
    he knows everything.

    Bobby
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    PS

    This Andy has no job other than being a parasite off of Microsoft. What a
    jerk.

    "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:11floa19v9dkl48@corp.supernews.com...
    > What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there are
    > in Linux? Get a life.
    >
    > "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    > news:UKAKe.184953$%K2.117647@pd7tw1no...
    >> Read article here ...
    >>
    >> http://www.eetimes.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X353718
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Have you been MicroShafted today?
    >> To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
    >> To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Another note: Why not sue NASA because the space shuttle is still being
    debugged? Or Congress because the legislation it crafts is buggy? Anything
    with millions of interacting components does not yet have a science of
    reliability. That must come first, and no one has really developed a
    sufficient model for this yet.

    There is absolutely no computer system that is capable of being
    unconditionally guaranteed.

    "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:11flr2jnf2lt0e7@corp.supernews.com...
    > PS
    >
    > This Andy has no job other than being a parasite off of Microsoft. What a
    > jerk.
    >
    > "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    > news:11floa19v9dkl48@corp.supernews.com...
    >> What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there are
    >> in Linux? Get a life.
    >>
    >> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    >> news:UKAKe.184953$%K2.117647@pd7tw1no...
    >>> Read article here ...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.eetimes.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X353718
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Have you been MicroShafted today?
    >>> To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
    >>> To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Alpha commented thusly:

    > There is absolutely no computer system that is capable of
    > being unconditionally guaranteed.

    True, very, very, true.

    However, on the virtually all "hard" consumer products today
    with computers, the bug rate is miniscule compared to a PC O/S
    or app, even though the number of lines per code is similar,
    even larger.

    For example, in any new Chrysler Group vehicle, depending on
    options, there're more than 25 /major/ computers, some with
    tens of millions of lines of code. And, reliability has to be
    ensured from -80 deg to +160 and under all sorts of operator
    conditions, including rank stupidity. All the while, these
    systems must meet hundreds of state and federal regulations.
    In short, the computers /must/ reliably talk to each other and
    must be able to perform as intended day in and day out,
    /every/ time the car is driven.

    Take, for example, the SKIM system (Sentry Key Immobilizer
    Module). It has encryption bit lenght 4 times the maximum
    allowed for export by U.S. law, hence the system must be
    modified to export cars to Canada or Europe. The system is
    sophisticated enough that even if a car thief has his own SKIM
    computer with matching ignition key, he still cannot start the
    car, as /three/ more computers are hidden in the vehicle, in
    places changed from time-to-time to prevent thieves from
    finding and spoofing them.

    The method of creating at least the illusion of software
    reliability is old-fashioned, and deceptively simple. Testing,
    testing, and more testing. Manual, automated, and computer-
    based. But, the number of "alpha", "private beta", and "public
    beta" testers of new cars isn't 150,000, for example as with
    XP SP2, it is /very/ small. But, a big difference, of course,
    is that the operating environment is fully controlled, that
    is, the code doesn't have to worry about hundreds of video
    cards, printers, DVD burners, and countless application
    software. But, it not only /is/ possible to "guarantee"
    software reliability, it is guaranteed /in writing/ - it's
    called new car warrenties and both voluntary and mandatory
    recalls to correct "bugs".

    Another set of major computers includes the transmission
    controller and engine controller, and drive by wire systems.
    Car buyers have this romantic notion that the car will
    actually start and run everytime they turn the key, for
    upwards of 150,000 or more miles, regardless of conditions,
    including complete disregard for maintenence.Further, buyers
    fully expect the car to perform well, have excellent
    driveability, deliver superior gas mileage, and pass all state
    or Federal emmissions testing, no matter where they live.

    Knowing that competing makes buy and tear down cars to
    determine manufacturing techniques and learn how new features
    work, software engineers also embed encryption, "traps", and
    "nasty-ware" in their code to thwart reverse-engineering to
    learn how the module is designed and its features calibrated
    to the parts of the car being computer controlled. Reverse-
    engineering of software is illegal in the U.S., but the car
    guys make it very difficult to learn anything at all.

    Now, compare any of this to Windoze. If you just paid $32K for
    a new Charger HEMI R/T as I just did yesterday (just picked up
    the car last night), I would be /outraged/ if it wanted me to
    "activate" its software in order to be able to keep driving,
    and I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to periodically download
    critical fixes and allow the software to "call home"
    periodically", again to "ensure authenticity" and keep driving
    without some twit at WalMar bypassing the security in my SKIM
    and stealing my car. And, I would not take kindly to having to
    continually "upgrade" my software in order for "bugs" to be
    repaired, only to find new bugs created. Finally, I would
    simply flat refuse to pay $35 /up front/ to even talk to a
    tech support specialist about some failure somewhere in my
    car. However, problems can and do arise, whether computer-
    related or just through shitting engineering or manufacturing,
    and it does cost money to repair that. But, beginning in the
    1980s, Americans quickly found out that it /was/ possible to
    get better cars cheaper from the Japanese, which launched the
    greatedst re-think/re-design of the entire concept of motoring
    since the dawn of the horseless carriage. And, the "war" is
    hardly over. But, the computers in these modern beasties /do/
    work, and work very well.

    So, we consumers take a completely different view of what
    we'll accept in the operation of a car, DVD player, TV,
    dishwasher, microwave, telephone, yada, yada, yada, than we do
    with Windoze or some $800 graphics app from a company that
    makes clay bricks. We don't expect /them/ to produce reliable
    code and we don't vote with our wallets, so what incentive do
    they have to actually ensure any semplence of reliability?
    And, we're very willing to shell out money nearly yearly for
    "upgrades", themselves buggy by definition.

    "hard" consumer goods, on the other hand, are expected to
    operated /as advertised/ for the life of the product and then
    some. When they don't, the manufacturer often pays literally
    with its economic life - they go out-of-business or at least
    suffer devastating losses for their investors. They either
    learn to build cars that work - including the computers that
    run the entire car, even the radios and power windows - or the
    customer will simply go down the street to a competitor for
    their next "upgrade".

    Now, before somebody reminds me that cars frequently get
    recalled, that is true. Although the percentage of cars in a
    given recall that actually /have/ the "bug" is often on the
    order of 0.01% of the total production run recalled. It's just
    that it is virtually impossible to determine exactly which
    vehicles out of a production run of maybe millions that may
    have the "bug", although at least the start and end date of
    the suspect production run can be determined. So, it hits Page
    One when Chevy recalls 2.5 million pickups, but nothing ever
    appears to tell owners if /their/ particular truck has the
    problem. Cheap to fix? Hell, no! Are they fixed? Hell, yes!

    So, software buyers/users, throw off your chains! Rise-up and
    protest! Refuse to buy code with "activation" schemes devised
    to euphemistically "ensure authenticity", return for refund
    software found unfit for the intended purpose, and encourage
    alternate sources to be developed. For example, as the
    Japanese and Koreans have shown American and European
    automakers how cars /can/ be built with quality and very low
    cost/price, it truly does suprise me that they've not yet
    decided to target the PC O/S and app developers of the world.
    If/when they do, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel.

    So, my friends, if you expect medicrity, don't be suprised if
    you get it!
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Robert Moir wrote:
    > Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
    >> I suggest you read the article and see how ludicrous it is.
    >> What they are suggesting is impossible.
    >> If you can create an OS with an "unconditional warranty" against "bad
    >> code", you will be extremely rich if you succeed at the impossible.
    >> More than likely you will be sued for failure to cover the terms of
    >> your "unconditional warranty".
    >> There are very few products that have such a warranty.
    >
    > Absolutely. OTOH the current "typical" software warranty basically
    > says that the disk it comes on will be without defects - or at least
    > the disk will be replaced free if thats not the case - but other than
    > that you've got no right to expect anything more. The pendulum arm is
    > just as extreme at the top of its arc no matter which side its
    > swinging towards today!

    If you are not willing to stand behind your product post-sale, then you
    have no business trying to micromanage how it used post-sale.

    Eventually, the Corporate Software Giants will have to start putting
    their money where there software is, and stop throwing out bug-riddle
    software, or lose out to Open-Sourse alternatives. If you are a
    Government or a corporation, and having to spend mega-bucks on keep
    software patched, then you might as well spend less money on the
    software to begin with.

    The gravy train will not last forever, and those unwilling to change
    will die out, even Microsoft.

    --
    Peace!
    Kurt
    Self-anointed Moderator
    microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
    http://microscum.com/mscommunity
    "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
    "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Alpha wrote:
    > What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there
    > are in Linux? Get a life.

    So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO anti-malware
    program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO full of holes?
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "Gordon" <gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
    news:O%23$QFtknFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > Alpha wrote:
    >> What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there
    >> are in Linux? Get a life.
    >
    > So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO
    > anti-malware program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO full of
    > holes?
    >
    Another idiot who believes there are no Linux threats. Where do these
    whacko's come from...are they breeding them somewhere?

    If you knew *anything* about Linux, you would know that there *are* viruses,
    trojans and other threats in the wild that attack Linux boxes.

    Bobby
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Or perhaps you rely more on luck.
    But there is no such thing, so what are you relying on?

    A quick search finds many:
    http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=linux
    And:
    http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=linux&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=security+holes&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

    If more than a few minutes was used, I am sure more can be easily found.

    It seems like your computer may be an accident waiting to happen.
    Or possibly you never power the computer on?

    --
    Jupiter Jones [MVP]
    http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
    http://www.dts-l.org


    "Gordon" <gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
    news:O%23$QFtknFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO
    > anti-malware program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO full of
    > holes?
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Thursday 11 August 2005 01:20 am, NoNoBadDog! had this to say in
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

    > If you knew *anything* about Linux, you would know that there *are*
    > viruses, trojans and other threats in the wild that attack Linux boxes.
    >
    > Bobby

    You sure are an ignorant fella, aren't you Bobby? A typical Wintard that
    thinks the bug infested eXPerience is all that exists in the computer
    world.


    --
    Have you been MicroShafted today?
    To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
    To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Xns96AF4E51D1AC9ID@216.196.97.136>, none@none.com says...
    > "hard" consumer goods, on the other hand, are expected to
    > operated /as advertised/ for the life of the product and then
    > some. When they don't, the manufacturer often pays literally
    > with its economic life - they go out-of-business or at least
    > suffer devastating losses for their investors. They either
    > learn to build cars that work - including the computers that
    > run the entire car, even the radios and power windows - or the
    > customer will simply go down the street to a competitor for
    > their next "upgrade".

    I can tell that you either don't understand the difference between the
    computers in a industrial appliance and those in your personal computer,
    or that you have no industrial experience at all with computers.

    Industrial computers, more like embedded systems, don't have to work
    with anywhere near as many components as do personal computers.

    Car computers don't have to work with anything like Open Office, Word,
    Excel, Page Maker, Photoshop, etc....

    Car computers don't have to work with PCI cards, AGP Cards, different
    vendors chip-sets, video drivers, etc...

    All of the computers in a car or industrial controller are dedicated
    appliances that use a specific set of parts/code to perform specific and
    limited functions that don't come anywhere near those of the personal
    computer scope.

    Next time you think about it - think about the car vendor building a
    single car control computer that works with all cars, even other vendors
    cars, also works with the latest video cards so that you can self-
    upgrade your GPS display, so that you can upgrade the memory in it, so
    that you can connect the trailer to it and get load-balancing, so that
    you can connect your kids DVD player to it, etc... Now do you get the
    idea of why car computers are more reliable - they don't do anywhere
    near as much and don't work with anywhere near as much.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <O#$QFtknFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
    gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid says...
    > Alpha wrote:
    > > What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there
    > > are in Linux? Get a life.
    >
    > So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO anti-malware
    > program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO full of holes?

    If you believe that Linux has no holes you need to read the linux
    security sites - there are tons of Linux exploits and most of the
    cracked website systems are Linux based.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Xns96AF72D2B314BID@216.196.97.136>, none@none.com says...
    > That isn't at all the point I was making. What I was saying is
    > that it /is/ possible to detect and fix bugs, whether the
    > environment is "open" or "controlled", and it /is/ possible
    > for companies to succeed based on their quality.
    >
    > And, unlike Windoze of Linux, cars /must/ operate within the
    > law for very long periods so the penalty for even minor
    > failure is catastrophic. Computer software doesn't have to do
    > /anything/! Careful reading of a EULA quickly reveals that
    > there is no guarantee whatsoever that the software will even
    > perform what it is advertised to do!

    There has not been any software created in all the time I've been using
    computers, since the mid 70's, that was considered bug free. Even PLC's
    (all vendors) have bugs, even some firmware in car computers have bugs,
    but comparing a set of computers in a car/vehicle to the computer and
    OS/systems in your home PC is completely missing the mark.

    The systems in a vehicle do very little, it's very specific, very
    defined with an EXACT set of interactions that are also very clearly
    defined. The same is true with PLC's used to run plants and mechanical
    systems, the same is true about the code we put into the PLC's and other
    mechanicals systems, but there is always a bug somewhere.

    Please don't make any assertion that the code/systems in a car is some
    how comparable to that in a personal computer - it's not even close.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Oz$nDlqnFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
    robspamtrap+msnews@gmail.com says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    > >
    > > Please don't make any assertion that the code/systems in a car is some
    > > how comparable to that in a personal computer - it's not even close.
    >
    > But the comment that 'if we expect things to be mediocre then we shouldn't
    > be surprised if that is what we get' was quite trenchant, wouldn't you say?

    No one accepts the bugs, no one accepts the exploits, not one that has a
    brain expects zillions of lines of code to be perfect, no one that as an
    ounce of experience in development expects anything they use/design to
    be perfect, but everyone of us that does design work expects our work to
    be perfect and to exacting standards and we strive to make it that way.

    No one sets out to design bad code, no one sets out to create a great
    app that purposely has exploits.

    What you run into with and OS and tightly integrated applications is
    much like anything else - the more connections you allow the more
    chances for someone to exploit some function in a manner that you didn't
    anticipate.

    On top of the above, if you have to maintain compatibility with older
    code, there are going to be times when you can't close an hole without
    impacting MORE users than the exploit would normally impact.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Leythos commented thusly:

    > The systems in a vehicle do very little, it's very
    > specific, very defined with an EXACT set of interactions
    > that are also very clearly defined. The same is true with
    > PLC's used to run plants and mechanical systems, the same
    > is true about the code we put into the PLC's and other
    > mechanicals systems, but there is always a bug somewhere.

    Systems in cars do very little? And, where did you get that
    gem of intelligence from? They do little things, like make the
    engine run, the transmission shift, the windows roll down, the
    radio play, the A/C work, the doors open remotely, prevent
    theft, control throttle and shifting through drive-by-wire,
    meet all state and Federal emissions and crash regs, /exceed/
    crash on virutually every car, I could go on. Oh, and they
    protect people from themselves, even when the "user" is an
    idiot and tries to disobey the laws of physics. Air bags work,
    they save lives, and they are controlled by computers. Yeah,
    that ain't very much, is it?

    And, cars do this well past their warrenty period. The 25+
    computers all talk to each other increasingly over multiplexed
    wiring and they work, day in and day out. Do they break? Sure,
    but /seldom/ because of software bugs. Virtually /all/
    warrenty repairs, recalls, etc. are the result of faulty
    manufacturing, whether by the OEM or a supplier. Only very,
    very rarely is it because of a computer glitch.

    Know what an OBD III system is, how it works, and why it is a
    Federally mandated item on all cars sold in the U.S.?

    >
    > Please don't make any assertion that the code/systems in a
    > car is some how comparable to that in a personal computer -
    > it's not even close.

    You're right, it isn't even close, it is far, far, more
    complex. Code runs to tens of millions of lines for even a
    moderately complexity computer module, is capable of real-time
    update, and operates in an environment that could best be
    described as hostile.

    When was the last time you re-booted your car? Or had your
    car's engine or speedometer suddenly freeze up? Or, how many
    times have you had to pay for software upgrades so you could
    keep driving? Or, when did you have to pull over until your
    car "called home" to verify your "authenticity" and rights to
    drive it?

    My new adult toy, a 2006 Dodge Charger HEMI R/T, is a marvel
    of electronic computer control. Engine performance
    characteristics, transmission characteristics, traction
    control, ESP (Electronic Stability Program), and /all/ of the
    consumer functions of the car are run by computers. And, the
    things I mention in this paragraph are calibrated - "tuned" if
    you prefer, to the /specific/ design goals of a Chrysler 300C
    vs. Dodge Magnum RT vs Charger R/T, /all/ through simple
    computer software changes. And, while I had to sign lots of
    legal mumbo jumbo bullshit, /none/ of it was a EULA requiring
    me to "agree" before I could drive home.

    Want more power or better handling? Just plunk down a few
    bucks for a new computer chip for your engine, trannie or
    suspension. Some aren't cheap, true, but the point is that 20,
    50, 100, 200 hp are easily available /without/ voiding the
    warrenty simply by changing computer control. You think that's
    accidental? For example, there are /four/ levels of computer
    upgrades to a Neon SRT-4 2.4L turbocharged 4-banger that will
    bring the car to over 400hp and a /Neon/ that can stay with a
    Dodge Viper SRT-10 costing $85,000 through a standing 1/4 mile
    run.

    Yes, you're so right. Car are not comparable to PCs, they are
    superior in so many ways it is impossible to list them all.
    And, these things /work/ literally from -85 to +160 degrees,
    in 100 mph wind, snow and sleet storms, torrential downpours,
    and under "attack" from electronic emissions of nearby
    devices. And, cars are /guaranteed/ to do what they are
    advertised to do, start, run,and drive. Can you say the same
    for /any/ PC software?
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article <O#$QFtknFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
    > gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid says...
    >> Alpha wrote:
    >>> What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes
    >>> there are in Linux? Get a life.
    >>
    >> So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO
    >> anti-malware program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO
    >> full of holes?
    >
    > If you believe that Linux has no holes you need to read the linux
    > security sites - there are tons of Linux exploits and most of the
    > cracked website systems are Linux based.

    I'm not saying it has no holes - I'm just saying it has far less holes (at
    the moment) than Windows.
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Oq$kNZrnFHA.860@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
    gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    > > In article <O#$QFtknFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
    > > gordon@gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid says...
    > >> Alpha wrote:
    > >>> What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes
    > >>> there are in Linux? Get a life.
    > >>
    > >> So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO
    > >> anti-malware program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO
    > >> full of holes?
    > >
    > > If you believe that Linux has no holes you need to read the linux
    > > security sites - there are tons of Linux exploits and most of the
    > > cracked website systems are Linux based.
    >
    > I'm not saying it has no holes - I'm just saying it has far less holes (at
    > the moment) than Windows.

    Yes, but there is far more in Windows than in Linux, so I would expect
    it to have more holes. Since it support about every device/product on
    the planet you have to expect it to have more holes. Linux does not
    support anywhere near as many devices and applications that are common
    to business and home users as does Windows. Don't get me wrong, I love
    Fedora Core 3 and even run Cross-Over with Office XP on it and use
    Evolution with my exchange server, but it's not supporting as much as
    Windows.


    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Robert Moir wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I'm not saying it has no holes - I'm just saying it has far less
    >> holes (at the moment) than Windows.
    >
    > You've found and counted each hole in both products? Even the ones no
    > one has discovered yet? Cool - do you know when we might see patches
    > for every single one of them on both platforms?

    There are fewer exploits of Linux holes that Windows holes in the wild.

    No, I didn't count them, all I have to do is see any def list of AV
    products to know that.

    --
    Peace!
    Kurt
    Self-anointed Moderator
    microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
    http://microscum.com/mscommunity
    "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
    "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Xns96AFDFAD0E5CEID@216.196.97.136>, none@none.com says...
    > Yes, you're so right. Car are not comparable to PCs, they are
    > superior in so many ways it is impossible to list them all.
    > And, these things /work/ literally from -85 to +160 degrees,
    > in 100 mph wind, snow and sleet storms, torrential downpours,
    > and under "attack" from electronic emissions of nearby
    > devices. And, cars are /guaranteed/ to do what they are
    > advertised to do, start, run,and drive. Can you say the same
    > for /any/ PC software?

    You are still missing the point. When I design a process control system,
    which is infinitely more complex that an simple car control system, I
    rely on the PLC's to operate properly, the PID controllers to work,
    etc... Being that they trust people with their lives with these systems,
    indeed, entire cities trust that the machines are designed properly, the
    code runs properly, that we designed fail-safes (mechanical and code),
    and such. Even with that in mind there are still bugs in the PLC code
    firmware, bugs in the code we've written, and there always will be. When
    you write many 10's of thousands of lines of code for a process, there
    will always be something you've over looked even if you looked at it 50
    times.

    Your car computers are very simple processes and functions, they have a
    very limited scope of operation, limited number of inputs, and very
    limited outputs. Don't think you can fool anyone into thinking otherwise
    - many of us were designing circuits used in automation systems before
    they started putting them in automobiles. You may thing that a cars
    systems are complex and operate at extremes, but that just tells me that
    you've not done any work with other systems that would give you a clue
    as to how simple those devices really are.

    A car's computer systems are not even close the being something you can
    compare to a personal computer - the two are not even in the same world.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Xns96AFE3F5BD90FID@216.196.97.136>, none@none.com says...
    > And, please, don't insult my intelligence by telling me that
    > you don't know about your own bugs...

    Up until that point were on the same page. There have been many times,
    and I've been on the developer end and the manager end, where you build
    a solution based on your own code combined with provided modules that
    you don't have the code for - many applications are designed by teams
    with specific parts being developed by different people. When they test
    their own parts they work well and without bugs/flaws, but, when testing
    in QA, not all items are tested (which happens in every shop I've seen
    all over the world) as it's almost impossible to determine a test plan
    for every possible combination of actions that could/might possibly be
    taken. While I believe that is a flaw in QA, it's a simple matter of
    fact that it's not possible to determine every possible testing process
    for large applications.

    When I was first coding, I did an accounting AR package on a CPM machine
    (old days), and spent about 4 months designing and testing it. My QA was
    myself. When I finished it I presented it to the people that would use
    it and asked when I could start training and walking them through the
    functions - I was told that I could not give training and that if the
    product required training, for a business process that they were already
    using, that the product was not ready and needed to be re-written. It
    was an interesting concept that I had never thought of and many
    developers/managers of teams don't think about when doing applications.
    Another issue is with having your own team doing the QA work - in my
    shops QA is done by people that have no connection to the development
    teams and the QA people change every year or so. This means that there
    is no preconceived idea of what should happen or what they intended -
    only what they can learn from the requirements documents and what they
    can break/make work. If the developer has to tell the QA people how to
    do something, then the process failed.

    The same is true with bugs - a developer may not test all possible
    functions because they may not be aware of all possible functions as
    they are not always aware of what other functions are provided and they
    are certainly not aware of the coding in the modules they interface
    with. So, while you have a developer that turns out perfect code with no
    bugs, since his code interacts with modules provided by others, that
    provide functions within his application section, he may get bugs
    without it being his fault and without him being able to test for them.

    I'm not trying to defend this, it's just an explanation of how it
    happens in the real world with large applications where one developer is
    not writing ALL of the code by himself.


    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Robert Moir commented thusly:

    >> to automate regression testing, and it /is/ possible to
    >> buy the various hardware and software you purport to
    >> support, and test your own code, and testing /does/
    >> uncover bugs.
    >
    > You _are_ aware that Microsoft already do this, right?

    Yes, of course I'm aware of that, and I'm aware than any large
    development shop will also do that. Yet, it has been my
    unfortunate experience across all categories of software, not
    just Windoze, that product cycles are getting shorter and
    shorter, and in their frenzy to meet real or perceived
    competition, developers rush their products to market
    prematurely. So, I've simply stopped buying or upgraded to
    V1.0 of /anything/ unless there is a really compelling reason
    to do so, such as a feature that I really want or need.

    Back to my buddies in Redmond, the sheer size of the M$ KB
    confirms that the folks up there are well aware of their own
    shortcomings, and it is obvious that they do buy and test a
    wide variety of hardware and software.

    Windoze private beta testing has gone from hundreds to
    hundreds of thousands, power users as well as developers and
    people who just like to live life on the edge and risk major
    data loss. But, the multiplicity of hardware and software in
    use combined with the real economic need to maintain backward
    compatibility puts a real strain on the development team and
    the QA testers.

    Add to that, people who hate Bill Gates much more than I do
    spend enormous effort trying to find security holes to exploit
    as well as hundreds of thousands of hits per week on M$'s
    corporate computer systems. Every now and then, they succeed
    and take down the giant for hours, sometimes for a day or
    more.

    At some point, whether I personally like it or not, being a
    realist, I think that M$ needs to pull the plug on backwards
    compatibility and say "enough is enough, here is what you need
    for our new toy". Perhaps that day will come with Longhorn.
    Just the need to maintain the old 8.3 DOS file names
    constrains even the modern 255 long file names to not include
    any wildcard or other "special" DOS characters.

    The biggie for Mom and Pop America is that they have no real
    incentive to upgrade their application software if it does
    what they need for the forseeable future, but they might be
    put out-of-business if M$ stops backwards compatibility. But,
    that day must eventually come. People can delay the inevitible
    by just not buying a new system until either their current one
    melts down or they want more performance or some new app they
    want won't run on their old hardware or O/S.
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "All Things Mopar" <none@none.com> wrote
    | Robert Moir commented thusly:

    | People by their very nature live the self-fulfilling prophecy... if
    | they view themselves as productive human beings, other people
    | will sense that and respect them for it.

    It doesn't work that way with Carey Frisch :-(
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Robert Moir wrote:
    > kurttrail wrote:
    >
    >> There are fewer exploits of Linux holes that Windows holes in the
    >> wild.
    >> No, I didn't count them, all I have to do is see any def list of AV
    >> products to know that.
    >
    > the list of viruses on a system by no means maps to security
    > vulnerabilities.

    I didn't say it did. I was changing what was being looked at.

    Windows is obviously a more attractive target than Linux or Mac. Which
    OS has to be patched the most is really meaningless in the real world.
    What makes the real difference is which OS is targeted and hit the most.
    And in that respect Windows is the winner. It is targeted and hit the
    most. And the resaon for that is the nearly total homogenity of Windows
    on Consumer Desktop PCs.

    Just another way MS's proven monopolistic actions have damaged the
    Computer world. As a matter of the computer security of the world, MS
    near Near Desktop PC Monopoly needs to be broken.

    > To take a trivial example, the melissa virus (remember that) was an
    > example of a virus that run absolutely rampant and didn't exploit one
    > single security hole.
    >
    > It took advantage of some especially stupid design choices, sure and
    > no arguement there, but those are not security "holes".
    >
    > - fwiw i'd argue that "especially stupid design choices" are even
    > worse than holes that appear as a result of a mistake

    I agree with you there.

    --
    Peace!
    Kurt
    Self-anointed Moderator
    microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
    http://microscum.com/mscommunity
    "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
    "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <eBdv0RAoFHA.2860@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
    robspamtrap+msnews@gmail.com says...
    > You _are_ aware that Microsoft already do this, right?

    He's lost in his Car computers are better than PC computers world, he's
    not wanting to see the LARGE difference between a PC running an
    OS/Applications and a computer in a car running a very limited form of
    an OS (and most of the processing devices in a car don't even use an OS)
    and it's very limited firmware.

    When we use to burn our applications into 8k or 16k EEPROMS and wrote
    everything in Hex, it was very easy to ensure no bugs, not exploits - as
    we also build the "computer" from scratch, designed our own motherboards
    (if you could call them that in those days), in fact, we designed
    everything from scratch in those days. When we moved to building
    applications that track millions of children for the government we still
    tested our code, still did multiple QA groups, did end-user testing,
    etc... and you know what, we had no bugs that anyone could identify (and
    had it in writing) before we delivered the product - but, as is always
    the case, after a service pack is applied, after the environment
    changed, we would get calls asking for "fixes" to things that worked
    fine before - there is so much more to applications today than there
    ever was in the old days, and applications on a personal computer have
    zillions of more interaction than a simple computing/calculating device
    in a car.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  26. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Leythos commented thusly:

    > In article <eBdv0RAoFHA.2860@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
    > robspamtrap+msnews@gmail.com says...
    >> You _are_ aware that Microsoft already do this, right?
    >
    > He's lost in his Car computers are better than PC computers
    > world, he's not wanting to see the LARGE difference between
    > a PC running an OS/Applications and a computer in a car
    > running a very limited form of an OS (and most of the
    > processing devices in a car don't even use an OS) and it's
    > very limited firmware.

    You might want to get your head out of your ass and realize
    that my major point is that it /is/ possible to build
    extremely complex code, albeit under more controlled
    circumstances, that performs near flawlesslessly under extreme
    climatic conditions and operator abuse, lack of maintenence,
    what have you.

    It isn't that I think that car computers are better than PC
    computers, just that they are far, far, far more reliable.

    Seriously, would you put up with having to restart your car,
    wait 5 minutes for the POST and restart, have to identify your
    user account, and hope the crash or freeze goes away so you
    can continue driving? Or maybe, you should just get mercifully
    put to death in a firery car crash when you car pauses to call
    home to verify your right to operate it. And, when was the
    last time you needed to take your car or TV or DVD or cell
    phone or diswasher or refrigerator or, or, or back to the
    dealer because it crashed or froze up so often you couldn't
    use it? Or, how many times for your consumer goods, cars as
    well as everything else you own, have you downloaded and
    installed hundreds of security patches per year for these
    devices? Yeah, car theives are interested in exploiting
    security holes in car security systems, and they occasionally
    do, but it is becoming more and more rare.

    It all adds up to what I've been saying for days, if you
    expect excellence, you will get it. But, if you expect only
    mediocrity, you shouldn't be surprise that /that/ is what you
    get!

    > When we use to burn our applications into 8k or 16k EEPROMS
    > and wrote everything in Hex, it was very easy to ensure no
    > bugs, not exploits - as we also build the "computer" from
    > scratch, designed our own motherboards (if you could call
    > them that in those days), in fact, we designed everything
    > from scratch in those days. When we moved to building
    > applications that track millions of children for the
    > government we still tested our code, still did multiple QA
    > groups, did end-user testing, etc... and you know what, we
    > had no bugs that anyone could identify (and had it in
    > writing) before we delivered the product - but, as is
    > always the case, after a service pack is applied, after the
    > environment changed, we would get calls asking for "fixes"
    > to things that worked fine before - there is so much more
    > to applications today than there ever was in the old days,
    > and applications on a personal computer have zillions of
    > more interaction than a simple computing/calculating device
    > in a car.
    >
  27. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "All Things Mopar" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96B17603762C2ID@216.196.97.136...
    > Leythos commented thusly:
    >
    >> In article <eBdv0RAoFHA.2860@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
    >> robspamtrap+msnews@gmail.com says...
    >>> You _are_ aware that Microsoft already do this, right?
    >>
    >> He's lost in his Car computers are better than PC computers
    >> world, he's not wanting to see the LARGE difference between
    >> a PC running an OS/Applications and a computer in a car
    >> running a very limited form of an OS (and most of the
    >> processing devices in a car don't even use an OS) and it's
    >> very limited firmware.
    >
    > You might want to get your head out of your ass and realize
    > that my major point is that it /is/ possible to build
    > extremely complex code, albeit under more controlled
    > circumstances, that performs near flawlesslessly under extreme
    > climatic conditions and operator abuse, lack of maintenence,
    > what have you.
    >
    > It isn't that I think that car computers are better than PC
    > computers, just that they are far, far, far more reliable.
    >
    > Seriously, would you put up with having to restart your car,
    > wait 5 minutes for the POST and restart, have to identify your
    > user account, and hope the crash or freeze goes away so you
    > can continue driving? Or maybe, you should just get mercifully
    > put to death in a firery car crash when you car pauses to call
    > home to verify your right to operate it. And, when was the
    > last time you needed to take your car or TV or DVD or cell
    > phone or diswasher or refrigerator or, or, or back to the
    > dealer because it crashed or froze up so often you couldn't
    > use it? Or, how many times for your consumer goods, cars as
    > well as everything else you own, have you downloaded and
    > installed hundreds of security patches per year for these
    > devices? Yeah, car theives are interested in exploiting
    > security holes in car security systems, and they occasionally
    > do, but it is becoming more and more rare.
    >
    > It all adds up to what I've been saying for days, if you
    > expect excellence, you will get it. But, if you expect only
    > mediocrity, you shouldn't be surprise that /that/ is what you
    > get!
    >

    You really don't understand the difference do you? Computers in a car are in
    a closed loop with known input parameters. Windows computers are in an open
    loop with unknown input parameters. The methods of programming and testing
    are totally different.

    Kerry


    Kerry
  28. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Xns96B17603762C2ID@216.196.97.136>, none@none.com says...
    > You might want to get your head out of your ass and realize
    > that my major point is that it /is/ possible to build
    > extremely complex code, albeit under more controlled
    > circumstances, that performs near flawlesslessly under extreme
    > climatic conditions and operator abuse, lack of maintenence,
    > what have you.

    You just keep missing it entirely. You keep assuming that your car
    computers are in some way complex devices, and they are not even close
    to complex. Sure, they process real-time information, sure, they provide
    real-time input and output processing, but, for all example of engine,
    ride, window control, they are simple computing devices designed for an
    exact and very specific task with on specific devices with no
    interaction with user added devices.

    You need to stop assuming that an embedded system is in any way like a
    Workstation, it's not close, not in the same processing class, not even
    with anywhere near as much code.

    Yes, we all agree that it's possible to turn out perfect code, but in
    the real work, on the scale you find in a Workstation, there has not
    been an example of Perfect code since before 1975 that I've seen.

    On the same note, I've also not seen perfect complex PLC controllers,
    not seen were all PLC controller modules were perfect (the ones that
    have to manipulate data by calculation)......

    You've got to get over-yourself, a simple computing device in a
    car/vehicle is just that - a simple computing device - with nowhere near
    the same amount of code, no where near the same number of devices it
    interfaces with, no where near the same number of applications running
    on it.... Do you get the REAL WORLD PICTURE NOW?

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  29. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Leythos commented thusly:

    > In article <Xns96B17603762C2ID@216.196.97.136>,
    > none@none.com says...
    >> You might want to get your head out of your ass and
    >> realize that my major point is that it /is/ possible to
    >> build extremely complex code, albeit under more controlled
    >> circumstances, that performs near flawlesslessly under
    >> extreme climatic conditions and operator abuse, lack of
    >> maintenence, what have you.
    >
    > You just keep missing it entirely. You keep assuming that
    > your car computers are in some way complex devices, and
    > they are not even close to complex. Sure, they process
    > real-time information, sure, they provide real-time input
    > and output processing, but, for all example of engine,
    > ride, window control, they are simple computing devices
    > designed for an exact and very specific task with on
    > specific devices with no interaction with user added
    > devices.
    >
    > You need to stop assuming that an embedded system is in any
    > way like a Workstation, it's not close, not in the same
    > processing class, not even with anywhere near as much code.
    >
    > Yes, we all agree that it's possible to turn out perfect
    > code, but in the real work, on the scale you find in a
    > Workstation, there has not been an example of Perfect code
    > since before 1975 that I've seen.
    >
    > On the same note, I've also not seen perfect complex PLC
    > controllers, not seen were all PLC controller modules were
    > perfect (the ones that have to manipulate data by
    > calculation)......
    >
    > You've got to get over-yourself, a simple computing device
    > in a car/vehicle is just that - a simple computing device -
    > with nowhere near the same amount of code, no where near
    > the same number of devices it interfaces with, no where
    > near the same number of applications running on it.... Do
    > you get the REAL WORLD PICTURE NOW?
    >

    No, do you? From what I've been reading from you, I don't know
    if you do or don't know anything about PCs but it is very
    clear you don't know anything about cars or you wouldn't make
    assinine remarks like "they are simple devices for a single
    purpose", or words to that effect. If you think running an
    /entire/ vehicle is a single purpose run by a simple device,
    then you obviously have no clue as to what you speak about.

    So, I'll just sign off and let you mull all this over the next
    time, and the next 10,000 times you get in your car and wonder
    why it all works with nary an update and never a need for a
    reboot.

    Ta, ta!

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
  30. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Bob commented thusly:

    >
    > "All Things Mopar" <none@none.com> wrote
    >| Robert Moir commented thusly:
    >
    >| People by their very nature live the self-fulfilling
    >| prophecy... if they view themselves as productive human
    >| beings, other people will sense that and respect them for
    >| it.
    >
    > It doesn't work that way with Carey Frisch :-(
    >
    He/She/It doesn't seem to fit very much what one might refer to
    as human behavior, so I guess I'd have to agree with you.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
  31. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Xns96B1D798C2EA6ID@216.196.97.136>, none@none.com says...
    > Leythos commented thusly:
    >
    > > In article <Xns96B17603762C2ID@216.196.97.136>,
    > > none@none.com says...
    > >> You might want to get your head out of your ass and
    > >> realize that my major point is that it /is/ possible to
    > >> build extremely complex code, albeit under more controlled
    > >> circumstances, that performs near flawlesslessly under
    > >> extreme climatic conditions and operator abuse, lack of
    > >> maintenence, what have you.
    > >
    > > You just keep missing it entirely. You keep assuming that
    > > your car computers are in some way complex devices, and
    > > they are not even close to complex. Sure, they process
    > > real-time information, sure, they provide real-time input
    > > and output processing, but, for all example of engine,
    > > ride, window control, they are simple computing devices
    > > designed for an exact and very specific task with on
    > > specific devices with no interaction with user added
    > > devices.
    > >
    > > You need to stop assuming that an embedded system is in any
    > > way like a Workstation, it's not close, not in the same
    > > processing class, not even with anywhere near as much code.
    > >
    > > Yes, we all agree that it's possible to turn out perfect
    > > code, but in the real work, on the scale you find in a
    > > Workstation, there has not been an example of Perfect code
    > > since before 1975 that I've seen.
    > >
    > > On the same note, I've also not seen perfect complex PLC
    > > controllers, not seen were all PLC controller modules were
    > > perfect (the ones that have to manipulate data by
    > > calculation)......
    > >
    > > You've got to get over-yourself, a simple computing device
    > > in a car/vehicle is just that - a simple computing device -
    > > with nowhere near the same amount of code, no where near
    > > the same number of devices it interfaces with, no where
    > > near the same number of applications running on it.... Do
    > > you get the REAL WORLD PICTURE NOW?
    > >
    >
    > No, do you? From what I've been reading from you, I don't know
    > if you do or don't know anything about PCs but it is very
    > clear you don't know anything about cars or you wouldn't make
    > assinine remarks like "they are simple devices for a single
    > purpose", or words to that effect. If you think running an
    > /entire/ vehicle is a single purpose run by a simple device,
    > then you obviously have no clue as to what you speak about.
    >
    > So, I'll just sign off and let you mull all this over the next
    > time, and the next 10,000 times you get in your car and wonder
    > why it all works with nary an update and never a need for a

    Funny, I've designed many plant control systems in the last 20 years,
    almost 30 if you count when I was just starting, back when we designed
    the PAL's and other chips and even had to make our own PCB. You think I
    don't know what it takes to make a breaking control system or what it
    takes to make a 5000HP motor run based on loading and surge conditions,
    and it's nothing near as complex as a workstation.

    What you seem to miss, and seem to happily want to remain ignorant
    about, is that of all the computer in the car, the GPS system is
    actually the closest to the Workstation PC, but it's not even that
    close. I have had to have my Dodge Dakota Quad 4x4 updated twice since
    I've owned it, and also have had a number of computer faults and sensor
    faults - during that same ownership period I've not had a single fault
    on my Quad P4 system or any of it's components.....

    Please come back when you get some experience outside of the LIMITED
    SCOPE of electronics that you have.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  32. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d68794f2c05b24a989ba9@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > In article <Xns96B1D798C2EA6ID@216.196.97.136>, none@none.com says...
    >> Leythos commented thusly: <snip>.
    >>
    >> So, I'll just sign off and let you mull all this over the next
    >> time, and the next 10,000 times you get in your car and wonder
    >> why it all works with nary an update and never a need for a <snip>

    > What you seem to miss, and seem to happily want to remain ignorant
    > about, is that of all the computer in the car, the GPS system is
    > actually the closest to the Workstation PC, but it's not even that
    > close. I have had to have my Dodge Dakota Quad 4x4 updated twice since
    > I've owned it, and also have had a number of computer faults and sensor
    > faults - during that same ownership period I've not had a single fault
    > on my Quad P4 system or any of it's components.....
    >
    > Please come back when you get some experience outside of the LIMITED
    > SCOPE of electronics that you have.
    >
    > --
    >
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me

    Agreed. Everytime the "check engine" light comes on and you take it back
    in, what do they do? Replace various sensors and REBOOT.
  33. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:36:05 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:
    >Leythos commented thusly:
    >> In article <eBdv0RAoFHA.2860@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,

    >> ...he's not wanting to see the LARGE difference between
    >> a PC running an OS/Applications and a computer in a car
    >> running a very limited form of an OS

    I'd say "watch this space" on that one - car IT is approaching levels
    of complexity and interconnectedness that may well see it floundering
    with the same sort of problems that have beset PCs for a few decades,
    and mobile phones for a year or few.

    >You might want to get your head out of your ass and realize
    >that my major point is that it /is/ possible to build
    >extremely complex code, albeit under more controlled
    >circumstances, that performs near flawlesslessly under extreme
    >climatic conditions and operator abuse, lack of maintenence,
    >what have you.

    Well, the "climate" of software is not rain, wind, heat and sleet;
    it's contact with external material (as in, "all input is evil"). In
    that sense, until recently, car software operated in an unchallenging,
    hermetically-sealed climate. That's changing; watch the mileage.


    >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
    Tech Support: The guys who follow the
    'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
    >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
  34. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:11:39 -0500, All Things Mopar

    >No, do you? From what I've been reading from you, I don't know
    >if you do or don't know anything about PCs but it is very
    >clear you don't know anything about cars or you wouldn't make
    >assinine remarks like "they are simple devices for a single
    >purpose", or words to that effect. If you think running an
    >/entire/ vehicle is a single purpose run by a simple device,
    >then you obviously have no clue as to what you speak about.

    Interesting, comparing cars and PCs.

    My PC has a hard drive that's been spinning at 7200 RPM almost
    non-stop for over a year now, and I expect it to do so for another 2-4
    years. No taking it to the shop for "servicing", no "check the oil",
    no "replace the parts that have worn out".

    I'm pretty sure that if I fired up my car's engine, even without load
    (i.e. left in neutral) and put a brick on the gas pedal so it sang at
    7200 RPM, it likely wouldn't be still happily running a day later.

    Why can't car makers build reliable mechanicals, like the IT industry?

    I guess the answer is scalability and wear. PCs scale up computing
    the way that hauling a large chunk of mass does for car engines.
    Being exposed to millions of other entities via the 'net will "wear"
    the load-bearing software surfaces faster than those of a car's IT.

    Do you think a car's inbuilt IT doesn't have poorly-validated
    parameter handling, etc.? It's hard to say either way, given how
    difficult it is to inject arbitrary test data.

    As it is, design flaws etc. do pervade even mission-critical
    engineering such as air travel, as comp.risks will show.

    What's impressive there, is the rigorous way that those who
    investigate air safety approach these problems. I think the IT
    industry could learn a great deal from them, and should.


    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
    Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
    better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Linux Windows XP